|
French 'net piracy' bill passed
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
Soon coming to your country, too.
:disbelief
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8046564.stm
| quote: |
A controversial French bill which could disconnect people caught downloading content illegally three times has been passed by the National Assembly.
The legislation, backed by President Nicolas Sarkozy, was surprisingly voted down by the Assembly last month.
The bill sets a tough global precedent in cracking down on internet piracy, and is being closely watched by other governments as a potential deterrent.
The global music industry has been calling for tougher anti-piracy laws.
The Creation and Internet bill was passed by a vote of 296 to 233 by the lower house and will go before the Senate for final approval on Wednesday.
Three strikes
The new legislation operates under a "three strikes" system. A new state agency would first send illegal file-sharers a warning e-mail, then a letter, and finally cut off their connection for a year if they were caught a third time.
It has been backed by both the film and record industries.
But some consumer groups have warned that the wrong people might be punished, should hackers hijack their computers' identity, and that the scheme amounted to state surveillance.
The socialist parliamentarian Patrick Bloche said the bill was "dangerous, useless, inefficient, and very risky for us citizens".
John Kennedy, chairman of the IFPI, which represents the global music industry, has described the bill as "an effective and proportionate way of tackling online copyright infringement and migrating users to the wide variety of legal music services in France". |
|
|
|
| julien2 |
I don't see this as being good, on many levels.
First, there are privacy issues and state surveillance and blablabla
But on the music industry level, this is just a strike on an industry that is unable to reinvent and adapt itself.
I'm all for paying for music, but this is not the right way to enforce it. |
|
|
| elFreak |
if the artists want more exposure they will give freebies, aka sets.
julien, you know i dloaded a few non legal tracks, but they have to do something.;) |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
| coming soon to YOUR country. not mine :p |
|
|
| elFreak |
| no one cares about russia. |
|
|
| julien2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
if the artists want more exposure they will give freebies, aka sets.
julien, you know i dloaded a few non legal tracks, but they have to do something.;) |
I agree that something has to be done, but not this.
This is just a powerful lobby representing an industry whose key players are not capable of evolution and adaptation.
In an apolitical free market, it means death, but seeing as a free market is non-existent, they can manage to survive by dragging everyone in their failing business model and restraining evolution towards better business models.
Their artist deals are crappy and are also restraining creation.
Why don't they offer a flat rate for their whole catalogue. I would be hundreds for that ?
I mean, Jay, you do agree that this a failing business model and that such laws merely keep on the artifical breathing that model, which should be extinct. |
|
|
| elFreak |
i think it is not up to the patrons to adapt, but the artist.
the companies that give them the advances are not the same entity:)
people are allowed to profit, and i am drunkish so i'll argue more tomorrow.:p
like in any other area in life, if you don't break the law you have no problems.:)
most of the music we enjoy , the artist runs the label and therefore is losing out. celine in the ass. |
|
|
| elFreak |
and yes the business model is a failing one, but free music is not the answer ever.
/delirium tremens post |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
There are good and bad things about this precedent. Bad things - already mentioned.
Good thing - because there are far too many people out there who wouldn't spend a penny otherwise on music and movies, or spend way too little. A substantial number of people dont even share that much on those illegal networks, and so many ****ing leechers are out there. They dont share, they dont buy - best of both worlds. Thats why its so hard to find/get a lot of music out there.
Also - how many of you never downloaded illegal music? Hmmmm, be honest. I downloaded a bunch myself.
But I am not worried that much. You wont see me downloading Britnay Spears or Eminem. Or much of today's (copyrighted) music. They'll have to prove in court if I was downloading "illegal" music. But I buy a lot of music, too. Without downloading, I would have never purchased more than half of the music I own today - because of "illegal" downloading I managed to discover so many artists, songs, labels out there to continue from.
But on the other hand, websites like Beaport and ITunes are so ty. I've run into countless situations when they did NOT have the tunes I was looking for, or as in the case of Beatport - restricted from my area. And I am not exagerrating. Why are they chasing people like me if they cant provide me with the music I look for in the first place?
Internet will change greatly in the future and will be more controlled. Enjoy it while you can. |
|
|
| julien2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
i think it is not up to the patrons to adapt, but the artist.
the companies that give them the advances are not the same entity:)
people are allowed to profit, and i am drunkish so i'll argue more tomorrow.:p
like in any other area in life, if you don't break the law you have no problems.:)
most of the music we enjoy , the artist runs the label and therefore is losing out. celine in the ass. |
I don't agree with your first statement. For the sake of argument, let's make it clear that I am talking about music industry as a whole, and that whole is 99.9% Sony BMG and Warner and whatnot.
They are the ones doing the lobbying here, not Archipel and Thinner.
I believe it is up to BOTH the labels and the artists to adapt.
Any artist will tell you that what he/she wants most is to have his/her music heard (unless they are in it for the money). But they still have to eat.
However, it has been shown that artists are willing to change and adapt, whether it is new business models (Archipel sells 320 and vinyl and then distributes VBR ; Unfoundsound is free and uses that publicity to promote Founsound ; etc, etc) or whether it is the new model of publicity-advert like NIN and Radiohead.
However, the big labels are not willing to change, and that is a problem. It is also up to them to change.
They are obviously a company, and have a right to profit, but this is not the argument. The argument is that their business model is failing. It sucks. They will die in the long run. They use their political weight to lobby for laws that will change nothing (come on, let's be serious, piracy is here to stay) instead of contributing new ideas, like a serious business should do.
As I said, a flat rate for the whole back catalogue. I have never heard someone against it. I know I would totally pay.
It already exists for radio, restaurants, etc, which pay a certain amount to some organisation.
As for the labels we enjoy, they are the .01% of the music industry, and are not what this thread is about |
|
|
| SMC |
| Death to all these slimy, IP-advocating, statist s. I can't stand them. |
|
|
|
|
