Sarkozy's new law on file sharing in France

[oakbri]

Excuse me if this has been discussed already but I am a little worried abut the new law I have read that the President is about to implement regarding p2p file sharing.

I read that a department is being set up to monitor everyones internet usage. Anyone caught downloading movies etc will receive 2 warnings then have their internet cut off permanently.

I don't download pirate films or music, I have adequate TV and a good music collection. But I do download Russian TV programs and films (all very old) for my wife. I am not sure what copywrite a 1960's film has, given it has been aired thousands of times. and you are free to record it on your VCR etc.

Does anyone have a better understanding of the new law, when it will come into force and exactly what will be illegal?

Many thanks

[Meg]

This is all i've heard of It so far.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6219944.html

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

How the hell would they know what you're downloading? I watch a lot of football on the net which obviously involves high download rates for example.

Bring back Chirac. This guys spoiling all the fun. First time I've ever seen a politician make a difference.

[Clair]

Articles in English about the propositions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21931741/

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2204332/french-block-peer-peer-traffic

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2930969.ece

http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=455629&lng=1

If you read French, this is the actual text: Rapport Olivennes.pdf

[AnOther]

I think the very use of well known P2P services and Torrents could well be taken indicate that whatever is being downlaoded is less than 100% legit [;-)]

Also frankly, outside movies and games, most of which aren't commonly available for legitimate downloading, it's hard to imagine much else which would be a 700mb + download so heavy downloaders could find themselves automatically in the spotlight.

EDIT:

From the MSNBC article "The president will use his speech on Friday to "underline his attachment to culture but also his wish to see artists live from their work and have their rights respected on new platforms", his spokesman said"

Err, since when did French musicians and film makers feature highly on the scale of "popular" entertaiment material. This is a nation which still idolises Johnny Halliday [+o(]

[woolybanana]

France gives a lot of help to musicians, artists and writers as I understand it and protects them from being flooded out by cheap American trash. If their work is illegally downloaded, why not protect them. Degree of popularity is irrelevant.

What worried me about the potential legislation is that it allows even more bodies to snoop and control where they should not.

The ability to download stuff illegally is down to unprotected sites, not the downloaders.

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

Certainly an interesting way of combating piracy.

Another way would be to limit downloading to 3gb a month. Australian isps do this.

[Albert the InfoGipsy]

[quote user="LyndaandRichard"]Certainly an interesting way of combating piracy.

Another way would be to limit downloading to 3gb a month. Australian isps do this.
[/quote]

And what about all the people who have more traffic than that per month without touching entertainment downloads. I've downloaded over a Gig in the last two days. All of it was fully legit applications & information from Microsoft. I shift at least as much data again, in both directions, every time I do a job for a client.

 

[AnOther]

So do most UK ISP's and even those who do not impose a monthly limit have a "fair usage" policy whereby they can (and do) apply a bandwidth throttle to abusers.

Wooly, popularity in this sense = availability and frequency of particular material for illegal downloading and I would doubt that 1% of what's out there is of Franch origin.

I will freely admit that I download a lot of music, much of it non mainstream stuff which simply isn't available to buy or maybe never was, but at the same time, as a result of downloading something on spec that I find I really like I have, without question, bought many many more CD's then I otherwise would have.

Cut off or limit my sampler source and my purchases will fall too, who's the loser ?

 

[Gemini_man]

Going back to the OP's original question -

in the unlikely event of being caught illegally downloading films or music you will at least have 2 warnings in advance. if you are really concerned then you can run Peerguardian2 whenever you are downloading. It's an IP blocker and helps to maintain your privacy and is available free here: http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/

[AnOther]

Fraid not, all still goes through your ISP and that's where the logging takes place and from where the reporting will come [:(]

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

Guess there'll be a lot of people visiting McDonalds and downloading via their wi-fi access......

Actually, means people will have to secure their connections more. Imagine people nicking other peoples wifi and dl via that!

[AnOther]

Is that in all MacDonalds or only the bigger ones I wonder. Not the sort of place I frequent on a regular basis.

Can't imagine their speed is anything to write home about, does one measure it in Mcbytes/Mb I wonder [:D]

[Kingdingaling]

ISPs usually limit speeds of the P2P download ports anyway

everytime I download a 'movie' ;-) I get disconnected for a bit, no a prob tho, I entertain myself in other ways until it comes back on

[oakbri]

Returning to the issue of copyright.

I understand if you download a movie currently in the cinema that is piracy.

However as I said I often download old movies, which have been shown on TV zillions of times. When a movie airs on TV you can record it on your VCR/Hard Drive etc etc.

So if it is not illegal to record a movie once it is in the public domain via TV, is it illegal to record it from someone elses computer? If so why, what is the difference?

Once Sarkozys spies begin their snooping will they differentiate between piracy of new movies and downloading ancient ones?

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

Also, what about tv shows. Again available free on tv and obviously you can record them. Is there no difference to dl them to recording them off tv?

As for dl a brand new movie that's currently on in the cinema, what a waste of time that is. They are always poor quality.

[sid]

[quote user="woolybanana"]

The ability to download stuff illegally is down to unprotected sites, not the downloaders.

[/quote]

I'm not sure that's the correct analogy to use here. It sounds rahter like it's your fault if you get burgled when you leave your door unlocked [8-)]

However I do agree with the general feeling of unease about this, the invasion of privacy and so on. And most importantly, I don't understand who it's protecting other than foreign (mainly UK and US) artists and corporations. I haven't seen ANY French software/films/music that are available downloading.

Sid

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

My prediciton in home computing within the next 20 years will look something like this:

All we will have in our homes are an input device (keyboard/voice control or the like) and a monitor.

All hard drives will be stored remotely perhaps at an isp or future equivalent.

Each person will have a section of a remote hard drive for all their documents and programs etc.

You will still be able to buy software, but it will all be done remotely. eg Software installation programs will be stored remotly, once you have paid for a program you will be given access to it and able to install it to your hard drive section.

The advantages that will be told to the public are:

1. that your docs will always be backed up.

2. you will be able to access you information wherever you are in the world as the information is stored remotley. Just logon and away you go (by then wifi will be everywhere).

Piracy will be much harder to crack as the authorities will have access to your hd section, which also helps cut down on child pornography, terrorism (as certain words will be flagged), and other such nasties.

Big brother is on its way. There is good in this.... and of course bad.

The future has just started.

[Bones]

From what I've read it's a softening of the law, they cut you off instead of sending you to court, no?

Peerguardian 2 doesn't quite do what it says on the tin, or so I've read.

The ports for p2p being restricted/blocked are the ports you choose not to download via!

The last Bond movie was 'leaked' onto the file sharing sites and did better box office business than any previous Bond movie.

Pirate videos existed before the dawn of the internet and there's very little difference these days; it's still a camera in a cinema or a copy of a screener innit?

As for sharing existing dvd's: where's the beef? Firstly, they overprice cd's and dvd's and that should be illegal, and anyone familiar with the current wga strike should know that the greedy studio bosses are filling their own fat wallets and cutting out the talent as much as poss. Finally, I watch loads of 'new' movies and if the file sharing community fell apart tomorrow I'd watch very few because I don't have the dosh to buy loads of dvds. I recommend some of these films and perhaps some of those people I recommend the films to go out and buy them, they should be paying me not cutting me off! We all swap hard copies of dvd's we've bought, where's the difference?

[Martin963]

You make some very good points,  many of which are reflected in the illegal practices current in the pay-satellite world (refusal to market subscriptions outside the main country,  refusal to market cards without a dedicated box as well) etc etc.

They're the first to run to the law when things don't go their way, whilst flouting laws that don't suit them.

Poor show.

[Fridgeman]

Hello Martin

My Point Also.........................  I Second That................

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Clair]

This seems to be a popular option:

Illegal film and TV downloaders could lose their links to the web

[groslard]

1)If I make an old-fashioned video recording of a TV programme, or a Film on TV I don't think it is illegal.

What is the difference if I make a copy onto my hard disk, directly from the stream?  (I  have the dégroupé option with free)

2)If it were a simple question of protecting the artist's livelihood I could sympathise: but it is much more about a vested interest protecting vast income. Just look at the sums involved.

On a related issue of privacy:

3) For those who read French,  see this link

The Police will soon be authorised to install 'trojans' on computers to help their enquiries: an interesting point will be if a hacker cracks the system and uses information gained.

[AnOther]

One vital point regularly mispresented and grossly exagerrated by the movie industry when they quote their losses due to illegal downloads, £800 million in 2005 for instance, is that these are clearly not real "losses" at all as they are based on the totally erroneous supposition that every download represents a bum, or bums, not on a seat in a cinema, or loss of a retail purchase of a DVD. In exactly the same way the software industry regards every pirated programme as a lost sale. This is complete cobblers. Nor is it the case that denying people access to downloads will automatically get them into the cinema because it won't.

The industry simply need to come to terms with todays market and customer demand instead of stubbornly clinging on to their outdated models.

They need to realise that people want to enjoy the latest movies in the comfort of their own homes and on their expensive home entertainment systems and should create a legitmate mechanism, and crucially an affordable one, for them to do so.

It's impossible to stop piracy completely but if the price for legitimate downloading is right it could become little more than a minor irritation than a threat to revenue, be that real or percieved.

[Martin963]

The last two posters have expressed - much more elegantly than I could have done - how I feel on the subject.

Some years ago I saw a breakdown of how the £14.99 for an audio CD was distributed;  very very little of it went to the people (artists and composers etc) who deserved the money,   and the costs of production were miniscule.    What went on publicity and corportate "spending" was eye-watering,  as IIRC about 80%.

My heart bleeds for these wretched people (rights holders) it really does.   They deserve a fair slice,   but at the moment they're just being greedy.

cf Sky going after that pub landlady who - under the ideals of European Free Trade and Free movt of goods and services - took out a subscription to a Greek Sat bouquet to show the football (at one tenth ofthe price of Sky) and is now being prosecuted.    It's called competition.   And apparently it's not allowed now.

I really wonder where the current epidemic of double standards (in all spheres of life) will end....