RSSFrench battle back on restrictive HADOPI copyright law
By Angela Gunn | Published April 9, 2009, 12:24 PM
Liberty, equality, fraternity... money? France's National Assembly has tossed out the HADOPI bill approved late in the night last week by 16 members of France's Senate. The bill, amended, is apt to be re-introduced later in 2009.
The sticking point on Thursday for the "Creation and Internet Law," known as HADOPI after its French acronym (la Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet), wasn't its notorious graduated-response / "three strikes" aspect, which states that after three accusations of piracy the government may take away an accused person's Internet access for up to a year.
Nor was it the lack of judicial process for managing accusations. As the law currently stands, there is still no appeals process for addressing piracy accusations, nor substantial burden of proof on accusers to show that the alleged piracy was committed by the person whose account is to be cut off. (That may yet cause trouble from HADOPI in the broader EU community. The European Parliament has already in fact asked for an amendment forbidding the suspension of Internet access, and has voted three times against the "graduated response" as set forth in the bill.)
No, the final straw apparently concerned money. An amendment to HADOPI would have required that users cut off from the Internet under the three-"strikes" rule continue to pay their ISP for Internet access. Even in a nation of Jerry Lewis fandom, some ideas are simply too silly to tolerate; Assembly members previously friendly to the legislation changed their votes, and the bill fell by a vote of 21-15.
The defeat was followed quickly by calls from members of the Socialist Party, which has undertaken a sustained attack against HADOPI, to concede defeat and drop the whole thing. That's not likely. According to Numerama, which has been following HADOPI closely, a revised version of the bill might be introduced as soon as the end of the month.
1. What ROYALTIES do owners of copyright PAY for the formative ideas inculcated in them by their education--which is often paid for by the State? (Right--their education is, in part, paid for by us copyright 'thieves'.)
2. What ROYALTIES do owners of copyright PAY back to society by the virtue of the fact they live in and come from this society? Ideas which they've inculcated--taken directly--from society and built upon and which Copyright Law gives them total exclusivity to and to regurgitate in any way they please. Ideas which were never fully theirs in the first place.
3. What ROYALTIES do owners of copyright PAY for the formative ideas that they have acquired by standing upon the shoulders of the forefathers of prior art? Ideas and knowledge without which they would never have been able to to produce their art.
...Right, absolutely NONE.
I am not calling for the abandonment of Copyright Law but I am calling for it to be made much more equitable.
In 1886 while the world was sleeping, dreaming or otherwise occupied, right under its nose a small band of influential people headed by the Frenchman Victor Hugo managed to hoodwink governments into giving them total and exclusive control over anything that they wanted to say, write or regurgitate in a slightly different form to that which had been said previously. This 'right' they have held onto tenaciously and increasingly so ever since and to the very considerable detriment of the general population and society as a whole.
Laws such as this outrageous HADOPI are the continuation of that 1886 'Outrage', and they need to be strongly resisted by the citizenry on the basis that they are an affront to and and assault on society.
For the first one hundred years of the International Copyright Treaty it was a fait accompli for the 'Victor Hugos' of this world as few had printing presses or the ability to make gramophone records. Now technology has changed everything.
We all know something is seriously wrong with Copyright Law even if we can't articulate it. Moreover, that's why the power elites defend it so strongly, they're worried that a small leak in the dyke might bring about its collapse. Propping up bad Law requires ongoing effort, and when it's not the natural order of things then it becomes hard work. Ask yourself why do so many millions of normally law abiding people--who'd never steal anything say from a shop or supermarket--treat Copyright as a joke or with contempt? The answer is simple: there IS something naturally wrong in protecting ideas. Saying this is my idea and I'm going to lock it away and you'll have to pay an arm and a leg to see it is not seen by our society as being normal or a sociable thing for humans to do.
We really do need a world movement to strike back at these pernicious Copyright Laws. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Twenty First Century, drastically overhauled and adapted to the modern world of the Internet and electronic data transfer. Outrageous Copyright provisions such as copyright being valid for 70-plus years after the author's death must go. Orphaned works should automatrically be in the public domain and so on.
Copyright Law is another instance where those with power and influence have wielded it to gain even more. It's time we ordinary people made the imbalance a little more equitable.
Score: 0
|"Ask yourself why do so many millions of normally law abiding people--who'd never steal anything say from a shop or supermarket--treat Copyright as a joke or with contempt?"
Because they can get away with it with little or no accountability. Watch these supposedly "law abiding people" drive home and your argument falls apart.
Score: 0
|Actually the only "issue" here was that the members of the French National Assembly (over 570 strong) largely failed to turn up.
Even those from Nicolas Sarkozy's own party.
Sadly the word is that when they reintroduce the bill later, perhaps in a few weeks, NS is likely to do all that he can to ensure a sufficient turnout, although the Bill may be amended.
But with luck the EU and/or EU Parliament will tell them to go f*ck themselves and take their and their idiotic (US sourced) ideas on copyright and sharing and place them where the sun does not shine.
Side-ways.
Score: 1
|And in the vein of "he might be French if:"
"President Barack Obama is seeking $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president"
Yup, that asinine high spending fiscal irresponsibility of the previous admin has to be remediated and the Iraq/Afghan policy reversed...
Change?
Sure, as Obama flip flops on his fundamental campaign positions as he extends complete immunity from scrutiny and legal liability to the DOJ beyond that which he so highly criticized under Bush!
I suspect there must be room for some Frog in the guy amongst all the bullsh!t.
Score: -1
|http://www.timesonline.c...rope/article6067641.ece
Score: 0
|Forcing people to pay for something but denying them the use of it. Sounds like fraud.
Score: 0
|Well, if the Socialists don't want it...
LMAO!
Its nice to know they can find something to occupy their time when not blockading EuroDisney with their tractors.
Score: -1
|Ha!
You would have thought that was just about the only bit of the bill they'd be FOR rather than against. Money grabbing arseholes that they usually are.
Score: -1
|This a good article but (there is always a but you know) the phrase "Even in a nation of Jerry Lewis fandom, some ideas are simply too silly to tolerate;" seems uncalled, callous and unnecessary beligerant. Please remember the meaning of the W in the acronym WEB. But you're still my favorite writer around here (if that means anything ;) )
Score: 0
|""Even in a nation of Jerry Lewis fandom, some ideas are simply too silly to tolerate;" seems uncalled, callous and unnecessary beligerant" and right on the money.
Absurdity is often illustrated by the use of absurdity.
Now go back and watch your Jerry Lewis movies.
Score: -1
|I didn't realize WEB was an acronym at all. I thought it was a word that meant... web. Silly me!
Score: 1
|Hi Lastjuan -- aw, very kind. And yeah, it was sort of a cheap shot. I'm not necessary a fan of Mr. Lewis's comedy work (I get why it's important but I prefer the Three Stooges for my dimwit-slapstick needs), but it's hard to dismiss the amount of attention and effort he's put toward fundraising for muscular dystrophy. And besides, he's a geek! Video assist is one of those ideas that you can't imagine Hollywood *not* having, but it really was his baby. Cool stuff.
Score: 0
|