A near-empty midnight session of the French National Assembly proposed this week that France allow peer-to-peer sharing of films and music over the Internet - a move that would legalize in the country what is now considered wholesale piracy in virtually every other nation.

The small group of late-night lawmakers tagged amendments onto an anti-piracy law that would establish a so-called global license fee that - once paid - would permit Internet users to download unlimited digital music and films from the Internet for personal use.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/22/business/file.php

Umm hmm......now we know why poorer countries are so mad that the internet is not regulated - they're not getting money from it, of course! Wait and see what happens when the United Nations or some international body is formed to take the internet controls away from Icann.

Why do I get the feeling that these legislators are in a position to make boatloads of money from the legal wrangling certain to ensue?

Call me cynical.

I am anti-death penalty; the whole thing smells of vengeance-driven primitivism.

I think the life of the mother is more important than that of the fetus but I think if the fetus is viable outside of the womb then the life of the fetus is almost as important as that of the mother.
I know some women frequently have abortions and use that as a form of contraception, and I think that is somewhat abhorrent (but I would not stop it). In some cases an abortion might be preferable to a short life of pain for the baby. I would not ban abortion, but I would make more difficult to get (and have compulsory counseling) after the first trimester and only done in cases of serious medical risk to the mother in late pregnancy.

The French are doing the right thing here. In the USA, the music and film industry lobbies are too strong, and have managed to make our intellectual property laws a twisted caricature of what was intended in the Constitution, with the result that artistic creativity is suppressed and technological innovation is undermined.

The global license fee is a sensible compromise, and the fee goes to the copyright holder, not to the people "regulating the Internet." The only regulatory issue involved here is that demanded by the film and music industries, which prevent the use and distribution of free reverse-engineering software.

have managed to make our intellectual property laws a twisted caricature of what was intended in the Constitution, with the result that artistic creativity is suppressed and technological innovation is undermined.

I don't think intellectual property as it's known today was something the framers envisioned. They could never imagined how much it costs to make a new drug and how much money the company losses when it's reproduced.

Copyright is a government created monopoly. If you want free market, this is it.

I guess this law only applies to French downloaders and copyright holders. So the French downloaders get all their stuff for free, and the French copyright holders probably won't get paid for their intellectual property.

Well, that's just peachy, because nothing good comes out of France anyway. So now the Frenchies just get to download all of everybody else's work for free.

Copyright is a government created monopoly. If you want free market, this is it.

Maybe in the case of patents, it is. But not in the case of music, movies, and software. Just because you own the copyright to one song, that doesn't give you a monopoly on the music industry.

The French are hardly lovers of free trade.

They do have a large Government sponsored film industry, a surprising amount of Hollywood films are re-makes of french films. They also allow kids in free to cinemas once per week.

So i am guessing they want people to view their films whether for free or not.

They obviously will not care about Hollywood not getting paid.

It may hurt their music industry though and i am not sure the EU will be too chuffed.

The Australians are doing the same thing:

http://entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,17673408-10431,00.html

Looks like sanity is breaking out all over the place; hopefully it will reach our shores, but I'm not holding my breath.

They do have a large Government sponsored film industry, a surprising amount of Hollywood films are re-makes of french films. They also allow kids in free to cinemas once per week.


Oh, I didn't know that. That explains why the French government doesn't care whether or not their filmmakers get paid. They're government-sponsored, so they get paid whether their films suck or not.

So basically all this law does it make it legal for French downloaders to ignore everyone else's copyrights.

It's a sham. Note that this was passed by "a near-empty midnight session of the French National Assembly".

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051222-5827.html
The vote would still need to pass in the French Senate, and even before then, it will probably need a second reading in the lower house, because the first one was a sham. To put it bluntly, this is a publicity stunt. The bill, which passed last night by a vote of 30 to 28, saw the remaining 519 deputies absent from the vote. They weren't there.

Still, the members of the Assemblée Nationale who voted for this will look populist and fair-minded, but the amendments in question will never survive the next round.


The legislation to which this small group tried to attach this rider, DADVSI, is a sort of DMCA on steroids... infinitely more restrictive than anything on the statute books in the States - see http://eucd.info/index.php?2005/12/04/202-dadvsi-what-s-the-trouble

So it's not law at all? Just grandstanding?

So it's not law at all? Just grandstanding?
That's what it says in the OP...

A near-empty midnight session of the French National Assembly proposed this week...

While the thread title is:

French parliament votes to legalize file sharing

Looks like I got sucked in by the lobby.

The global license fee is a sensible compromise, and the fee goes to the copyright holder, not to the people "regulating the Internet."

Oh come on. You don't really believe that do you? Who collects the fees? The internet elves?

Here's what happens: the global controlling body puts the global license fees on and takes their fees for collection out of it. So even though 90 percent of the content and fees are paid by Americans/Europeans the rest of the world shares in the money. Why should countries that don't put anything on the internet share in "global license" fees?

Nice scam - right? I'm sorry that it hasn't occurred to you what's really going on but maybe someday you'll catch on.

Copyright is a government created monopoly. If you want free market, this is it.

"Free market" doesn't mean "wanton thievery". Heck, a system in which all people can have what they want for free and the people are responsible for making things having their creations expropriated for the masses sounds a little like socialism to me. :p

I think you have your economic systems mixed up.

I think its great. free music and movies for all!!

"Free market" doesn't mean "wanton thievery". Heck, a system in which all people can have what they want for free and the people are responsible for making things having their creations expropriated for the masses sounds a little like socialism to me. :p

I think you have your economic systems mixed up.

Downloading music doesn't deprive anyone of any property.

Getting government protections against losing sales because your business model sucks isn't a free market.

Good. Make muscisians bards and beggars again. :D

Downloading music doesn't deprive anyone of any property.

Getting government protections against losing sales because your business model sucks isn't a free market.

If you're against copywriting intellectual property, then let's say someone spends a year researching and writing for an upcoming journal article or a book. Well, I've got to write a paper for college, why shouldn't I just be able to steal the work off of that person's desk, put my name on it, and turn it in? Explain your opinion on a situation such as that in relation to your attitudes on copywrite and intellectual property.

edit....and how is "the work YOU put into something BELONGS TO EVERYONE" a defense of the free market?

If you're against copywriting intellectual property, then let's say someone spends a year researching and writing for an upcoming journal article or a book. Well, I've got to write a paper for college, why shouldn't I just be able to steal the work off of that person's desk, put my name on it, and turn it in? Explain your opinion on a situation such as that in relation to your attitudes on copywrite and intellectual property.


You'd be expelled for plagiarism, and if you stole the work off their desk, also arrested for larceny.


edit....and how is "the work YOU put into something BELONGS TO EVERYONE" a defense of the free market?

I didn't say that. Go beat up strawmen somewhere else.

Good. Make muscisians bards and beggars again. :D

It would be the end of the God awful pop music industry. I don't think I'd shed any tears.

Good. Make muscisians bards and beggars again. :Dmusicions should ajust to the situation, and start makin g their money with what they actually are supposed to do: perform. recordings should be seen as promotion.

musicions should ajust to the situation, and start makin g their money with what they actually are supposed to do: perform. recordings should be seen as promotion.

Bingo. Plus, music, like any art, is better when it's done by artists, not by industrialists and media *****s. The good music comes from musicians who make music because that's what they do, not because they were paid to dress like a freak and dance around on stage bleating out garbage. The pop-music industry isn't such a national treasure that it deserves special government protection for it's terrible business model.

musicions should ajust to the situation, and start makin g their money with what they actually are supposed to do: perform. recordings should be seen as promotion.

The problem with this idea is that because they DON'T have to perform pop stars can get away with making money by strictly being music video phenomenons. Madonna actually had no live performances until after she became famous on television. The boy bands - same thing. It's typical for American pop stars to make only videos and singles until they become famous and then later go out and take stage training.

Musicians don't perform?

You'd be expelled for plagiarism, and if you stole the work off their desk, also arrested for larceny.


Why is plagiarism wrong? Or larceny, for that matter?

Why is plagiarism wrong? Or larceny, for that matter?

Larceny deprives someone of their property. Plagiarism defeats the purpose of an education.

Surprise. The French steal from those who are actually contributing something to the world.

they did it with the oil for food.

they gladly helped the nazis.

etc

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129489,00.html

Something about stealing and oil for food? I notice you're not outraged about that. Only when it benefits the GOP.

err.
we don't steal anything : we pay a tax on any copying support we buy which is reversed to the authors through an orpagnism (SACEM), and in return we get a right to "copying for private use". (Art Article L122-5, alinea 1 & 2)
That the web introduces new ways of making copies makes it so the law has to be revised to accomodate the new technical realities...

The problem with this idea is that because they DON'T have to perform pop stars can get away with making money by strictly being music video phenomenons. Madonna actually had no live performances until after she became famous on television. The boy bands - same thing. It's typical for American pop stars to make only videos and singles until they become famous and then later go out and take stage training. well then that will solve itself, if they cant make any money with that anymore. an artist that doesnt perform, shouldnt complaint about not making it big. in a studio they can make anyb ody sound good, and in a video they can make anybody look cool. on stage, you have to BE good.