Hello i d like to talk you about a terrifying law that is going to make french downloaderes shake. It is called Hadopi,a law for internet and creativity. The leaders of industrial music are at the origin of this law as they want to stop downloads of musics in France Once this law will be effective,here is what will happen 1People detected using Peer to peer receive a warning mail on their box(the box of their FAI) 2If they continue,their internet will be cut off for a while and thus they will have to continue to pay. 3The suppression of the web can be discreased if you accept to have on your pc a kind of spyware thatwill prevent you from doing bad things. This is called the system of "progressive counter attack",it is supposed to educate citizens and avoiding economic crisis for artists. If you are not guilty,you have to prove your innocence,even if you exchanged legal files. People should be supposed to stop every peer to peer activity. This law is seen as a threat for freedom and many people they that it wont have effect. It supposes that yhou have to prove your innocence with a very expansive action to the tribunal. My question is:do you think that this law can affect downloadings on leeching sites like megaupload or rapidshare? Do u think this law will blow up the ordinary downloaders? here is a link http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.4/hadopi-law-france
I heard a rumour that a friend of a friend received a letter through the mailbox in the UK a couple of months ago ordering him to cease and desist downloading files throuhg a peer to peer network. I am not sure if this is true. I find it very dificult how they can control and enforce peer to peer file sharing. I never register for such things, and if I have to I do it from a public location with a bogus account. I don't see what these artists are going on about. Their labels and them already make millions off music sales alone, what else do you want?
Honestly that's what I don't get, it's not like alot of these fucking artists are living in some alleyway in NYC with 5 kids having to eat each other to live. Alot of these dudes usually live in the lap of luxury and I guess sometimes when they see their fans (usually the less fortunate than themselves) downloading their music that they love, they decide take all their hell out on them slapping their fans and such with lawsuits and making them reimburse them for any songs they've downloaded. Sorry but I just see that as incredibly sad, like I said earlier, it's not like these people are living in poverty, not unless they're blowing all their money on useless crap like morons.
The idea is that artists who sell less than one million singles have less and less incomes and less freedom of creation. French artists are not as succesful as american stars and this is suppose to help them and protect other sectors of economy(video games for example) Our government has an ideology of security and "tolerance zero",people should not drink,smoke and should eat less sugar.
Well, if by downloading terrible albums I can put an end to the shitty french rock scene, I will sure do it with no remorse whatsoever...
How about you guys see if your legal woes continue if you encrypt your torrents using something like Vuze?
i wonder how they tell apart the legal and illegal peer to peer content? there's a LOT of legal peer to peer content up, so i wonder if they try to filter through, but that's nigh impossible... so are they just banning stuff in general like torrents?
Ha, if they ban torrents, it'd be like that old case trying to ban tape recorders for the same reason... They can try, but will it work...
French lobby groups are trying their best to include this terrible law in the EU. They've tried to get it in like 3 times through the so called Medina report, and also in the telecom package. Since the EU is the opposite of transparency few know that this is happening. Laws that will change the lives drastically of many people are pushed through using technicalities and the fucked up system that is the EU. @Dragula: IPRED and FRA got nothing on what is going on in the EU, but no one knows about it since, unlike FRA, it has not caught the attention of the communist news papers of sweden. Too busy oppressing people with postmarxistfeminist dribble and saving the environment to notice europe is becoming the new soviet union.
This is pretty much only a step away from the end of anonimity on the internet and then another step away from being watched by the governament.
Exactly its one way how I get rather big modifications for some game, sorry but its a very comfortable way to just download 1,2 Gbyte of data. And that has nothing "illegal" to it. Or whats with free music? Did some of those people eventualy noticed that some indi bands or local bands share that way FOR FREE their albums and work? I have my doubts how such a law will work in the future ... how to seperate the good people from the bad people. And to be more serious, its one big gray area anyway.
The whole legal / illegal sharing battle just pisses me off...and why? because of damn reason, that's why: This is just a fight for money and status quo, not for anything else...the people making big bucks want to continue making big bucks no matter what...it was technology and technology alone (the advances made in the day) that allowed the creation of recording systems, reproduction and duplication that served to spawn the record labels and the music "industry", therefore...laws were stablished and a system was stablished accordingly...Now, technology has made other advances that serve to freely share information and software (music recordings included)...but the laws do not change accordingly...the stay the same to protect the interests of the stablishment, instead of the interests of the people, and in fact, hurting the interests of the people by trying with all means necessary to stablish an internet control system, an internet "Big Brother" to restrain and diminish the freedom and rights of the people...That stupid argument about the music "artists" loosing money and not getting rich "as they should" is just pure imbecility...."as they should", HAhh, when in the history of humankind but in the last 60 years or so have musicians been richly rewarded for their music??....like i said: technology and technology alone...you want to get rich playing music?: sweat, sweat and sweat like there's no tomorrow in a concert, in live presentations, like all musicians did throughout human history until the last decades when the technology allowed for recording and duplication...btw, i laugh when i see that argument for yet another reason: music "artist"... ...a true "artist" does not make art for money...that's the last thing on his mind...I can even draw some positive conclusions if music sharing is made legal instead of prosecuted: musicians would create a recording; it would serve as publicity for their concerts and live presentations, of course, the music companies would be forced to gain much less money (money they gain less, money we gain or save more, so it serves the majority, the people), to reduce their size and therefore promote and record less so-called-musicians, reducing the amount of crappy mediocre "music" being promoted and therefore raising the standars of quality in music...Why should we have our rights and liberty reduced to fatten the pockets of a selected few??...goddanm!!
Wow, here I thought I was a zeropaid lurker but we got a few other copyright followers here too... First and foremost my location is Canada for those that do not know, reason why I state that is because downloading music (and only music) is not illegal because we pay levies on our record-able media (all hard drives, cds, dvds, flash drives, etc.) Now although I most definitely do not agree with the standpoint of the recording industry (one download equals one lost sale) I can also see why they are upset, however the time for being upset has been long since past (about 8-9 years now by my reckoning.) My actions are not political, nor are they greed oriented, I don't want 'something for nothing', what I want is a pure, unbiased, trial of the products, now music aside, as I explained earlier, I have purchased many games, especially recently as my status of living allows me to purchase more movies and games that I otherwise would not have the money to do so. There is also the reasons that people want an image for games that require a CD in place, I do so for the Battlefield games simply because I don't want to have to keep putting in CDs all the bloody time (they're permanently set up as virtual drives.) I still own the games, however I still downloaded the images because it was easier than trying to rip them myself. The recording industries are good at playing the woe game, however they have had 8 years at least to change their business model with the times, but cling to their old framework and wistfully looking back at what was rather than changing with what is. I'm not scared of 'big brother' as we're still a long way off from that, but this censorship nonsense is stupid at best, it's like trying to stop an avalanche with a net made of fishing line. And one more thing guys, it's not always the artists, in fact there's only a few outspoken artists against (Lars[Metallica], Bono [U2], Gene Simmons [Kiss]) downloading and probably the same amount that are outspoken for (Radiohead, Trent Reznor(sp?)[Nine Inch Nails]) so it's not as black and white as blue collar versus the world as many of you seem to try to paint it as. If you guys are interested in reading more and keeping up to date with a lot of this stuff check out Zeropaid: http://www.zeropaid.com/ No this is not a plug but I've found many of their articles insightful and far less biased than many RIAA/MPAA studies that cite 'internal sources' as their source for statistical information.
Well the checking of peer to peer would be made by private societies and their decisions are supposed to be proof. People are supposed to stop peer to peer to avoid problems,even if they download legal things. The cost of the law will be enormous and paid by citizens of course...
