Anti-Piracy Law Passed in France

[Emabulator]

MCV is reporting (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/34272/FRANCE-Online-anti-piracy-ruling-passed) that 'three strikes and you're out' anti-piracy legislation has become law in France.

Having been on the brink of approval in November last year, the French government has now given final approval to new laws that could lead to the prosecution of anyone found to have downloaded copyrighted material on three separate occasions.

...

Under the rules, a new state agency will send warning emails followed by a letter to illegal file sharers. If caught downloading a third time, a user’s internet connection will be severed.

[Meusli]

I wonder when the riots and blockades will start, French typically don't like to be told what to do by their government.

[brandonjclark]

The day that pre-defined electricity patterns take precedence over unavoidable human nature has arrived.

Why not adjust the laws to meet the nature of our being, not the other way around? If a critical mass or percentage of "stealers" is reached, then why is it a law? Is a law effective at prevention if it does not stifle the action intended or if the action is unavoidable?

I sound like an anarchist now. {NOT my intention}

[NeoZero]

The day that pre-defined electricity patterns take precedence over unavoidable human nature has arrived.

Why not adjust the laws to meet the nature of our being, not the other way around? If a critical mass or percentage of "stealers" is reached, then why is it a law? Is a law effective at prevention if it does not stifle the action intended or if the action is unavoidable?

I sound like an anarchist now. {NOT my intention}

Actually, rape, pedophilia and even murder could be said it's of human nature.

[Virtuoso]

This is completely ridiculous. I doubt that this will be widely enforceable, especially with the prevalence of internet cafes in Europe.

[greenapple]

This is completely ridiculous. I doubt that this will be widely enforceable, especially with the prevalence of internet cafes in Europe.

Care to expound on "ridiculous"? What exactly is ridiculous about it?

It seems like a pretty fair system. The story itself is confusing, as one part says they will prosecute, while the other says the penalty is disconnected internet. Regardless, it sounds like they will give at least two warnings first.

The issue of whether enforcement is easy or not is a separate issue.

[bjornbarspingvinen]

Well since the Ipred law in sweden, illegal downloading has gone done dramatically. Working? Hell yeah.

All laws are here to stop human from indulging in too much "natural behaviour". In nature animals kill and rape.....

[Azriel77]

Well since the Ipred law in sweden, illegal downloading has gone done dramatically. Working? Hell yeah.

All laws are here to stop human from indulging in too much "natural behaviour". In nature animals kill and rape.....

I like how people put piracy = killing and raping. I suppose fibbing on your taxes = genocide.

So piracy has decreased *TEMPORARILY*, this happens all the time when there is a big bust that comes around every few years. Guess what, in a couple of months piracy will be back up to its old levels and will have even NEWER ways of pirating. Bittorrent might decline but newer, more anonymous P2P apps will come arise to take its place.

I am not saying its right or wrong, but when I see corrupted corporations BRIBING LAWMAKERS and MAKING LAWS that are not only way out of proportion, but costs TAX PAYERS to cover this law. Thats when I say screw them, whatever sympathy I might have had for corporations went out the window.

I can't wait to read someone cloning election officials IP addresses and then having THEM banned from the internet with their own law.

[jollywars]

What will happen then let's say 10-15 years later where a much uncontrolable form internet(which is actually pretty uncontrolable even today if you know terms like http-tunneling and proxies) is made available to masses?

It seems like laws and technology is going on directions 180 degrees different than each other. Anyway I know new technology will win so no problem I'll just use http-tunnels till then.

[aries100]

My problem with this law is that it is 'state agency' that will send warning emails....

This actually means that the state could be allowed to monitor all internet use in France.
And that is certainly a bad thing....

And yes, if you're caugt downloading illegallly for a third time, the internet connection will be shut down for up to two years ---- decided by the state agency.

You the have the right to get a judge to hear your case...During that time your internet wil remain shut down...

Think about what would happen if people were to lose their phone lines?

Someone clearly do not know that for many people being connected to the internet is as vital as having a phone in the 20th century...

[greenapple]

Someone clearly do not know that for many people being connected to the internet is as vital as having a phone in the 20th century...

Let me get this straight, your "problem" is that the law causes unfortunate things to happen to offenders?

Um, yeah. It's called a deterent. You know, like going to jail or getting a large fine. It's meant to be unpleasant.

Also, you're shocked that a government agency would make decisions that could affect someone's life? That's something shockingly new to you? As to the loss of internet during judicial review, I didn't see that in the story.

The solution- don't get caught pirating after having received 2 warnings already.

[Ulysses]

Ah, the joys of unsecured wifi routers.

[brandonjclark]

Actually, rape, pedophilia and even murder could be said it's of human nature.

True, but you missed my point completely. See, I'm talking about a large, critical mass of people who break this law, making it illogical to enforce.

Rape, killing and pedophilia are not as common and will never be considered human nature, but perversions of human nature.

[Azriel77]

Let me get this straight, your "problem" is that the law causes unfortunate things to happen to offenders?

Um, yeah. It's called a deterent. You know, like going to jail or getting a large fine. It's meant to be unpleasant.

Also, you're shocked that a government agency would make decisions that could affect someone's life? That's something shockingly new to you? As to the loss of internet during judicial review, I didn't see that in the story.

The solution- don't get caught pirating after having received 2 warnings already.
Its a way out of proportion deterrent. The internet is tied to everything now. Try to get a job without an internet connection, it is near impossible today. Every month more and more stuff is tied to it. Like I said, the law is B.S. and was paid for. Why should anybody respect it?

[greenapple]

Its a way out of proportion deterrent. The internet is tied to everything now. Try to get a job without an internet connection, it is near impossible today. Every month more and more stuff is tied to it. Like I said, the law is B.S. and was paid for. Why should anybody respect it?

You do realize that jail time is a much harsher punishment than no internet, right? Seriously, that is some softy whining- oh no, they took away my internetz?! People can, and are (rightfully), jailed for things such as repeated acts of petty theft and vandalism as a deterent. Last I checked, freedom is a pretty valuable thing, too. If you love your internet so much, don't get caught pirating three times!

As to the BS part, I haven't seen any actual argument here about why it is directly BS. Rather, there are simply arguments like your that nitpick about enforceability and how unfair the punishment is. Speak instead to the fairness of the underlying act of piracy.

As to lobbying, shocking that the parties most harmed by the action of pirates should spend money to address that. You must be so angry that teacher's unions, associations of retirees, cancer patient groups and such also spend money to lobby for laws. How scandalous all those groups are, looking after their own interests!

[greenapple]

True, but you missed my point completely. See, I'm talking about a large, critical mass of people who break this law, making it illogical to enforce.

Rape, killing and pedophilia are not as common and will never be considered human nature, but perversions of human nature.

You don't think that theft and other purely material crimes are not that common, or that wanting and taking things is not basic human nature? The only reason theft isn't common is because of laws against it and the fear of punishment. Just look at any group of little kids to see just how much it is a basic part of human nature to take what isn't ours.

As to your vaunted "critical mass", you're confusing a number that is sizable in the absolute with the will of the majority. Pirates don't even come close to being anywhere near a level that reflects "the will of society". By all means, pirates should try to push for legislation undoing copyright laws- good luck on getting the majority of voters to support that.

As long as our societies have copyright laws, I don't see the controversy in attempting to enforce them. If you think piracy has the political clout to reverse that, by all means that's the way to go. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Azriel77]

You do realize that jail time is a much harsher punishment than no internet, right? Seriously, that is some softy whining- oh no, they took away my internetz?! People can, and are (rightfully), jailed for things such as repeated acts of petty theft and vandalism as a deterent. Last I checked, freedom is a pretty valuable thing, too. If you love your internet so much, don't get caught pirating three times!

As to the BS part, I haven't seen any actual argument here about why it is directly BS. Rather, there are simply arguments like your that nitpick about enforceability and how unfair the punishment is. Speak instead to the fairness of the underlying act of piracy.

As to lobbying, shocking that the parties most harmed by the action of pirates should spend money to address that. You must be so angry that teacher's unions, associations of retirees, cancer patient groups and such also spend money to lobby for laws. How scandalous all those groups are, looking after their own interests!

No, it should say that they took their internet AND is still making them pay for the internet connection that they cannot even USE! THIS IS B.S. Also, what about the tax that was put on blank media years ago because blank CD's *MIGHT* be used to pirate? Whether you did or not, everybody is paying for it. If people are going to be treated like criminals anyway, might as well comply. Again, it does not matter if pirating is right or wrong. Its like the war on drugs, throw everyone in jail regardless of how many lives it ruins. Most of the people that will be targeted will be teens and college students. People that HAVE to use the internet in this day and age. Hell, why stop at internet, why not turn off electricity, or take their car, why not just execute them. There is a line that has been crossed by these idiots in office and I do not think they relized how fubar its going to turn. Since this is france, I expect to hear about some ISP's being burned down after a few people get hit with the law.

[greenapple]

No, it should say that they took their internet AND is still making them pay for the internet connection that they cannot even USE! THIS IS B.S. Also, what about the tax that was put on blank media years ago because blank CD's *MIGHT* be used to pirate? Whether you did or not, everybody is paying for it. If people are going to be treated like criminals anyway, might as well comply. Again, it does not matter if pirating is right or wrong. Its like the war on drugs, throw everyone in jail regardless of how many lives it ruins. Most of the people that will be targeted will be teens and college students. People that HAVE to use the internet in this day and age. Hell, why stop at internet, why not turn off electricity, or take their car, why not just execute them. There is a line that has been crossed by these idiots in office and I do not think they relized how fubar its going to turn. Since this is france, I expect to hear about some ISP's being burned down after a few people get hit with the law.

How you can have a discussion about piracy without discussing whether it is right or wrong is beyond me. If society deems it to be wrong, then society has a right to pass laws to curb it.

You sound like a guy that knows piracy is wrong, but is flailing about trying to find excuses as to why it should be allowed to go on. An argument that the internetz is so important that it's equal to starving or killing these poor people is ridiculous. Your internetz is your life. Jeez.

If most of the people who will be "targeted" are teens and college students is an admission that that is the biggest pirating demographic, then yeah, shocking that the pirates will be hit by the anti-piracy law.

Again, the solution is really, really easy- don't pirate (or at least don't get caught doing it three times).

[greenapple]

Its like the war on drugs, throw everyone in jail regardless of how many lives it ruins.

By the way, let's look at your analogy of the war on drugs, shall we?

1) Drugs are clinically addictive- piracy, not so much

2) Drugs economically de-stabilize underprivileged neighborhoods- piracy, not so much

3) prosecuting the war on drugs generates violence- prosecuting piracy, not so much (I don't expect gangs of pirates to start fighting over scene releases)

4) Incarceration for drug crimes turns the individuals into a burden on society- losing your internetz, not so much

What vague relationship are you trying to draw between the war on drugs and restricting piracy?

It's like equating the war on drugs to stopping insider trading or pursuing dog owners who don't pick up crap. Yeah, they all have to do with laws. That's about it.

[net7runner]

Sigh, and things were going so well.

Look, I don't think piracy is a wonderful thing, but the problem was that the content creators have all become to powerful and too well-integrated. Choice has been stifled, so people are forced to pay for poor products simply because there's nothing else.

But piracy? Piracy is great! If it's something someone actually cares about, like a favorite band or a movie they love, they'll still pay for it. And pay for all the merchandise that goes with it. Oh, boy will their wallets open. But if it's some trashy thing fobbed off on the population, they'll happily pirate it and never look back.

The fact of the matter is that the huge media conglomerates are doing fine. Indy labels and creators are doing fine.

So yes, I think piracy is a good thing, in moderation. The current, precarious balance we have now served to solve many of the problems of a post-centralized economy with a stifled free market. If there's a way to do that without piracy, that's great too, but I haven't seen one yet.

[Butters66]

Again, the solution is really, really easy- don't pirate (or at least don't get caught doing it three times).

Except perhaps governments get things wrong? Instead of having a real trial and going to real jail, you get told your internets is down for a couple of months.

If you want to make this a real crime, do so, with all the protections accorded to the innocent that go along with that. You cannot have the same entity be the prosecutor, judge and jury, which this seems to be.

This middle type case seems put in place because I suspect that the people passing it realize that real burden of proof in a jury system would be hard to show and most jurors would sympathize with the defendant.

Instead this seems more like the cash grabs conducted by the RIAA or Directv earlier this decade.

[greenapple]

Except perhaps governments get things wrong? Instead of having a real trial and going to real jail, you get told your internets is down for a couple of months.

If you want to make this a real crime, do so, with all the protections accorded to the innocent that go along with that. You cannot have the same entity be the prosecutor, judge and jury, which this seems to be.

This middle type case seems put in place because I suspect that the people passing it realize that real burden of proof in a jury system would be hard to show and most jurors would sympathize with the defendant.

Instead this seems more like the cash grabs conducted by the RIAA or Directv earlier this decade.

I'm not sure if you're reading other sources of news on this story. The linked article appearst to not have ANY details about how the process is determined, prosecuted, or appealed. It seems to me that your argument is completely hypothetical, based on the linked article.

I agree that if there is no recourse to appeal, that this would be an issue. But at least here in the US, that is an issue (due process) separate from the topic at hand, i.e., piracy.

Again, this sounds like a nitpick that avoids the true topic- whether countries should be enforcing their laws against piracy.

[Butters66]

I'm not sure if you're reading other sources of news on this story. The linked article appearst to not have ANY details about how the process is determined, prosecuted, or appealed. It seems to me that your argument is completely hypothetical, based on the linked article.

I agree that if there is no recourse to appeal, that this would be an issue. But at least here in the US, that is an issue (due process) separate from the topic at hand, i.e., piracy.

Again, this sounds like a nitpick that avoids the true topic- whether countries should be enforcing their laws against piracy.

Directly from the article:

"Under the rules, a new state agency will send warning emails followed by a letter to illegal file sharers."

A new state agency will be the enforcer of this measure, not the existing legal system. How is that not a clear, dangerous president for avoiding the checks and balances inherit to our legal system today?

This is not a nitpick, and is the true focus anyone concerned about freedom has on stories like this. The overreach of government power for the profit of corporations instead of protecting the rights of the citizenry is what this is about.

Wrap it up in flag waving niceties about how if you never do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. The reality is that most things are started for good reasons before they are abused. The potential for abuse here is high and leads down the road to less privacy, not more.

[greenapple]

Directly from the article:

"Under the rules, a new state agency will send warning emails followed by a letter to illegal file sharers."

A new state agency will be the enforcer of this measure, not the existing legal system. How is that not a clear, dangerous president for avoiding the checks and balances inherit to our legal system today?

This is not a nitpick, and is the true focus anyone concerned about freedom has on stories like this. The overreach of government power for the profit of corporations instead of protecting the rights of the citizenry is what this is about.

Wrap it up in flag waving niceties about how if you never do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. The reality is that most things are started for good reasons before they are abused. The potential for abuse here is high and leads down the road to less privacy, not more.

You're definitely reading that differently than I am. To me, ALL laws are initially enforced by a state agency. In the US, that would be the local police, FBI, IRS, ATF, etc. It's always the executive branch that initially enforces. For example, suspected illegal goods in the US will initially be siezed by border agents, FBI, or ATF. Suspects will be imprisoned pending trial.

Judicial review comes later. I see nothing in that article that says a there is no recourse for judicial review. In other words, I see nothing that differs from any other law.

To me, your whole argument is based on reading a lot into something that seems standard.

[Butters66]

You're definitely reading that differently than I am. To me, ALL laws are initially enforced by a state agency. In the US, that would be the local police, FBI, IRS, ATF, etc. It's always the executive branch that initially enforces. For example, suspected illegal goods in the US will initially be siezed by border agents, FBI, or ATF. Suspects will be imprisoned pending trial.

Judicial review comes later. I see nothing in that article that says a there is no recourse for judicial review. In other words, I see nothing that differs from any other law.

To me, your whole argument is based on reading a lot into something that seems standard.

I do read it differently, and perhaps there will be some type of review. However, the punishments seem to be implicit in the summons.

Basically, it would be the equivalent of an arrest and jail time being equal to being sentenced for a crime and serving a prison term. The final letter here seems to serve as the prison sentence or conviction. You start serving your internet connection being turned off when you receive the letter. That is the punishment.

That you then have to protest that letter to get it rescinded seems to me like going straight to the appeals court instead of having the initial trial.

There does not seem to be any presumption of innocence, and frankly anything like that sets dangerous presidents. If that is ok for this offense, what will be ok for next? Frankly, the government gets a lot of things wrong, especially with technology and there is little incentive in this system for them to get it right that I can see.

The burden of proof in all criminal activities must be on the state. It is a bedrock tenet of all modern western judicial systems, which France is most definitely a charter member of.

I would hope a law like this would be struck down quickly in America, and something similar happens in the French Court system.

Stopping piracy is a good and important goal, but this doesn't seem like a just way to do it.

[greenapple]

Stopping piracy is a good and important goal, but this doesn't seem like a just way to do it.

I take it from this that your feeling is, other than due process concerns, that such a law is fine and good? Because others in this thread are arguing otherwise.

In other words, assume that this law is duly upheld (frankly assuming anything else from the article seems like leaping to conclusions, to me), do you have a problem with the principle of disconnecting internet for repeat pirates, or not?

So, is the principle sound? To me, it clearly is. By nitpicks and distractions, it appears to me that every poster against this law in this thread is going after tangential issues based on speculation (e.g., due process) while avoiding discussing the main principle of whether government can take away your internet. Frankly, if allow our government to take away freedom itself for violating crimes, I can't see why the internet is a sacred cow.

Finally, as my previous post indicated, there are MANY situations where government imposes at least a fair amount of punishment, pending judicial review. The person locked up pending trial, the business shutdown for code violations pending review, the impounding of a car. Agency enforcement followed by later review to possibly reverse is certainly not an uncommon model.

[Butters66]

I take it from this that your feeling is, other than due process concerns, that such a law is fine and good? Because others in this thread are arguing otherwise.

In other words, assume that this law is duly upheld (frankly assuming anything else from the article seems like leaping to conclusions, to me), do you have a problem with the principle of disconnecting internet for repeat pirates, or not?

So, is the principle sound? To me, it clearly is. By nitpicks and distractions, it appears to me that every poster against this law in this thread is going after tangential issues based on speculation (e.g., due process) while avoiding discussing the main principle of whether government can take away your internet. Frankly, if allow our government to take away freedom itself for violating crimes, I can't see why the internet is a sacred cow.

Finally, as my previous post indicated, there are MANY situations where government imposes at least a fair amount of punishment, pending judicial review. The person locked up pending trial, the business shutdown for code violations pending review, the impounding of a car. Agency enforcement followed by later review to possibly reverse is certainly not an uncommon model.

The current piracy laws are already much harsher than these. (I do read those FBI warnings before the DVD.) Interpol also pops something up, but I think it is in French so I don't really know what it says. I infer it is something similar.

Although these laws don't state so, they seem to be focused on re-sellers or "for profit" groups, not end users. Either way, I infer from the warnings that end users could be prosecuted today with these laws.

From a deterrent perspective than, I don't see how a few months without internet is going to scare anyone more than 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine.

Someone is France does so, and that is their right. However, I wonder why the existing laws are not enough?

As to the punishment - It seems to fit. "Hackers" have had their computer rights stripped as part of their sentences for years. I view the loss of internet usage as a similar type endeavor, and from that perspective it might be a deterrent.

As to your finally point about review: Those shutdowns are almost always officially sanctioned by a judge, so the legal process is at least partially involved and a judge is there to look out for individual rights. Maybe not for the case of something like an EPA fine, and perhaps that fits this model better.

[greenapple]

From a deterrent perspective than, I don't see how a few months without internet is going to scare anyone more than 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine.


Effective deterrence is a combination of appropriate punishment AND rigorous enforcement. The warnings in front of DVD's simply aren't enforced (rightfully so, they are way too harsh for the non-profiting infringer). In fact, I would say threats followed by no enforcement are actually worse, as they promote a sense of implicit approval.

Laws like this French effort would presumably bring to bear a less harsh (and frankly more appropriate) punishment that would be enforced regularly. Regardless of what some emo posters in this thread would say, jail and 250K is a lot worse than losing your internet. This gives government a scalpel rather than a chainsaw that they would be willing to enforce, thus resulting in effective deterrence.

What I find ridiculous about this thread are the posts complaining that piracy shouldn't be deterred or that it's the company's fault that they're putting out crappy content. That and the whining that losing internet is an equivalent to a death sentence.

[Butters66]

What I find ridiculous about this thread are the posts complaining that piracy shouldn't be deterred or that it's the company's fault that they're putting out crappy content. That and the whining that losing internet is an equivalent to a death sentence.

Well, I think a lot of those arguments fall into justifications for behavior, but it is important to not lose sight of the rights of the consumers to fair use of products. Most people will and want to compensate authors for their work, knowing that their support of things they like should lead to more of similar things that they would like to buy. (Economics 101)

This law seems to be more of a clear cut enforcement issue, but the issues behind it coming into existence, such as DRM are not. There is a lot of room for debate on what and where fair use lines are drawn.

I think companies and groups such as the RIAA have pushed for rights that go beyond fair use and that has driven people out so they look to piracy as a sort of Robin Hood scenario, which furthers serves as justification for illicit behavior.

Until companies regain a moral high ground in the eyes the large majority of consumers (whether the companies are legally right or not now is moot) there will not be a stigma associated with piracy that will actually serve to quell behavior.

[greenapple]

Until companies regain a moral high ground in the eyes the large majority of consumers (whether the companies are legally right or not now is moot) there will not be a stigma associated with piracy that will actually serve to quell behavior.

I actually see laws like this as being part of this solution. Go after some poor shmuck for 100K over filesharing is ridiculous. The RIAA tried deterrence by extreme prosecution of a small handful. What is needed is moderate, reasonable enforcement on a consistent, broad basis.

You say that the lack of a social stigma is the cause of rampant piracy. While I agree that this is a part of it, I think the much larger part is that most people (particular teenage and college kids) don't think that they will ever get caught, because the enforcement rate is so astronomically low. Sure, it's a nuclear bomb when it hits, but the odds sure look good for getting away with it.

Measures like this that impose reasonable punishment commiserate with the offense could be enforced with broad consistency and really help to curtail piracy.

I'll tell you this, as a consumer, I'd love to see something like this go into place in the US, followed by a decline or abandonment of DRM. The hardcore gamer who laughs at DRM as being ineffective doesn't realize that DRM isn't targeted at them-- it's targeted at the casual pirate. DRM, sadly, is cost-effective for companies. Given the lack of government enforcement, I think companies find themselves in a catch-22.

The whole Robin Hood justifaction for piracy is crap-- we're talking about entertainment here, not food or medicine. If you can't afford it, do with out or look to other forms of entertainment.

[Butters66]

I actually see laws like this as being part of this solution. Go after some poor shmuck for 100K over filesharing is ridiculous. The RIAA tried deterrence by extreme prosecution of a small handful. What is needed is moderate, reasonable enforcement on a consistent, broad basis.

You say that the lack of a social stigma is the cause of rampant piracy. While I agree that this is a part of it, I think the much larger part is that most people (particular teenage and college kids) don't think that they will ever get caught, because the enforcement rate is so astronomically low. Sure, it's a nuclear bomb when it hits, but the odds sure look good for getting away with it.

Measures like this that impose reasonable punishment commiserate with the offense could be enforced with broad consistency and really help to curtail piracy.

I'll tell you this, as a consumer, I'd love to see something like this go into place in the US, followed by a decline or abandonment of DRM. The hardcore gamer who laughs at DRM as being ineffective doesn't realize that DRM isn't targeted at them-- it's targeted at the casual pirate. DRM, sadly, is cost-effective for companies. Given the lack of government enforcement, I think companies find themselves in a catch-22.

The whole Robin Hood justifaction for piracy is crap-- we're talking about entertainment here, not food or medicine. If you can't afford it, do with out or look to other forms of entertainment.

I agree about the Robin Hood thing, I was using that as an example of how people justify things. Normal people want to think they are doing the right thing. If they can make companies out to be the bad guy, then they are the good guy.

It is a much rarer person who says, yes I am doing xxx behavior, know it is wrong, and don't care.

The first type of attitude can be usually talked to and shown rationally that they are doing wrong and have the potential for reform. The second is a much dangerous person who just needs to be punished.

We'll see what kind of effect this law has. I can see your point that it could get people to shape up, but it might force others to more devious behavior, such as stealing internet connections or spoofing others to frame them.

Laws always have unintended consequences. I don't say this as a reason not to do anything, but to consider properly what the reactions of individuals will be in order to diminish negative side effects.

However, I still believe that societies by themselves are generally self governing and that the people by large margins believing in and supporting the laws of that society keep it functional.

I do think you have a point though that in order to win this social war, you have to have the laws in place first.

For instance, as an exteme, if 20% of a society believed sexual harrasment was OK, it would be impossible to enforce those laws. I suspect piracy is at that kind of level today and that is why it is given a blind eye.

Sexual harassment law is a good example of how the laws and society as a whole made that kind of behavior stigmatized in the workplace and ended up curbing it to the margins.