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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
