Slashdot Log In
P2P (More) Legal in France
Posted by
Hemos
on Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:20 AM
from the not-in-the-free-and-open dept.
from the not-in-the-free-and-open dept.
A reader writes:"A french appeal court ruled yesterday in favour of somebody who downloaded about 500 movies, on the ground that those were private copies, and that he didn't redistributed them, and that a tax was payed on blank media. This sets the huge precedent that P2P is legal over there. For the details, apparently no distinction was made on the method used to download the movies (upload issues) and the famous EUCD directive was even used by the defending lawyer." You'll want the fish for this one, unless you speak French.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Precedent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Insightful)
(from my handy legal bilingual dictionary)
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Informative)
Jurisprudence is used in ruling in France just as much as in North America for the common rulings where there is no defined law. There really is no difference.
This particular judgement was made based on an existing law that says that, if a piece has been broadcasted to the public (like a movie at a theater), everyone is allowed to make a private copy. Private means you can view it at home, but cannot broadcast it during a public event, or even to a crowd at your workplace, or anything else. In that case, the "broacast to public" was not proven since the guy only invited a few friends to watch movies or gave it to one or two of them.
Now, whine against France again, slashdotters! ;-) There are a lot of niceties like this in this country that makes life much more worth it!
Parent
Re:Precedent? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Precedent? (Score:3, Funny)
And as an added bonus, he can squish Elf-Aquitaine!
Re:Precedent? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not, but they used the precedent of if you pay the tax, you have paid the due. The royalty on blank media was the precedent and he was right that the royalty provided rights to use them.. I'm glad to see a court get it right. To fix the loophole, all they need to do is eliminate the royalty tax on blank media, then it could be a different ballgame.
Opening phrase of the article (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a seriously cool word. Better than "web surfer" or "'netter". I say we port it to English immediately.
Re:Opening phrase of the article (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Opening phrase of the article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Opening phrase of the article (Score:5, Funny)
This term is actually also in common use in Poland.
...except they spell it yntyrznyrczyt.
Parent
Re:Opening phrase of the article (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Opening phrase of the article (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Opening phrase of the article (Score:5, Informative)
Weirder french terms are:
polluriel (spam)
addiciel (add-on)
applette (applet)
bidouilleur (hacker)
fumiciel (vaporware)
obésitiel (bloatware)
pollupostage (spamming)
rustine (patch)
Parent
Here's the Google Translation into English (Score:5, Informative)
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease [komar.org]
Re:Here's the Google Translation into English (Score:5, Funny)
I think I was better off reading the French...
Parent
Obvious Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obvious Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obvious Question (Score:3, Interesting)
He was?
on the ground that those were private copies, and that he didn't redistributed them
He paid the royalty for the private copies by the tax on the blank media. The royalties were paid. That's what the court saw.
Torrents upload (Score:3, Insightful)
Blank media tax... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Blank media tax... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Blank media tax... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Blank media tax... (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with the USA. In France people go to seem more French movies than American ones. So the French cinema industry is probably more affected by this ruling than the American one. And after all, why would a French judge give a shit about another country?
Parent
France to piss of America?? (Score:4, Insightful)
This makes no sense at all. Not everything that anyone does on this planet is done to either please or piss off America.
You just strengthened me in my idea that the majority of Americans have no idea about what is going on in the rest of the world. It scares me.
Parent
Re:Blank media tax... (Score:3, Interesting)
And here's one that makes the mind boggle: I live in England. No that's not makes the mind boggle, this is: what happens if I import some taxed blank media from France, then download and burn a movies onto it? What if I downloaded the files from France? Is that legal? Does the fact that they're both European countries matter?
Re:Blank media tax... (Score:3, Informative)
What the media companies wanted to do here is have thier tax and sue the taxed too. They were trying to double dip.
Re:Blank media tax... (Score:3, Informative)
French music... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:French music... (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as we like P2P... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, it seems like an exceptionally harsh judgement against the MPAA and RIAA to say that anyone who wants any of their wares can aquire them for free. But, I guess issuing a huge judgement such as this in the USA would be the only way to move us away from record company monopoly and towards fair internet distribution paradise.
Re:As much as we like P2P... (Score:3, Insightful)
Woohoo (Score:3, Insightful)
AllofTV.com..
Allof..... heh! it's early
Re:Woohoo (Score:3, Funny)
Troc.
Logic jump (Score:4, Informative)
Not necessarily. It sets a precedent that the downloader isn't doing anything wrong, but I don't think it says anything about the person doing sharing. Note:
on the ground that those were private copies, and that he didn't redistributed(sic) them
So he's fine since he wasn't redistributing, but it sounds like the act of redistributing just might change the outcome of the case in other circumstances.
Re:In France (Score:3, Informative)
Haven't you ever wondered why audio CDR blanks cost more than data CDR blanks?
A summary of the article (Score:5, Informative)
An IT student was sued by 17 movie companies including all the big names and their French distributors for downloading 488 movies over a period of years. He admitted watching them privately, with one or two friends, and sharing a few copies.
The first court, and the appeal court, rejected a claim by the prosecutor for EUR 5.000 in damages (and 10,000 Euro interests and costs) against the defendant, accepting the defense's argument that under European Union law, all surfers (internaughts!) already pay a tax on blank media, PCs and blank CDs that covers their use of these material as consumers.
The main point was that the student's use of the downloaded movies was personal - the small amount of sharing he did was not enough to classify it as "collective use". I assume that if he had shared the movies further, or shown them to a public audience, he would be liable for damages for those actions.
The charge of "piracy" was essentially thrown out.
Further this ruling would appear to affect all EU countries, though the French case will affect only French law initially - defendants in other countries will be able to refer to the same EU conventions.
(Note that the EU conventions are not law per-se, but all countries agree to implement them in national law, so it comes to the same thing.)
Lastly, this would appear to being EU into line with Canada as regards the legality of downloading media for personal use.
Lets Move To France (Score:3, Funny)
Finally Some Sanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright has been designed to protect the publishing and distribution rights so to make a copy for private use is "fair dealing"(UK) or "fair use"(US), the court clearly understood that this enhances the cultural richness of France.
What is illegal is making counterfeit copies for gain or public distribution then you hurt the copyright holder.
Now people listen to music and everyone listens to more music than they own, this encourages them to make more music and buy more music.
Copyright was always intended to enhance the cultural richness of the Public Domain by encouraging publication and creation.
It was never intended to create or support monopolistic cartels Practices.
Nice precident (Score:3, Interesting)
(I suppose he could have gotten them off oc the usenet, but then how did he get caught?)
Borders (Score:4, Insightful)
So how was he caught? (Score:5, Interesting)
He must have downloaded a few movies from the wrong sharer (i.e. copyright enforcer). But if those files were offered for public download (to trap the unwary), how can they be illegal. Hey, you offered them. Why am I in trouble for taking what you freely offered?
Something is missing in this story so far, and I really would be interested in hearing what it is.
CRAP! Now I can't bad-mouth ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Basing a decision on the fact that people are already being taxed for 'illegal use' of blank media (whether they do so or not) and the fact that he did not re-share the data is perfectly reasonable.
I have long argued that in places where blank media is taxed and awarded to the various copyright consortiums should either be lifted or that consumers should be immune to prosecution for being in possession of 'personal data copies' of any given media. The tax is based on the fact of presumed guilt (that's like spanking your children based on the reality that you probably didn't catch them doing *everything* bad... or how about a mandatory year in prison for anyone who owns a gun under the assumption they will certainly use the weapon to commit a crime.)
But giving the people a level of legal immunity based on the fact that they have already been 'punished' for making copies of copyrighted works without permission is a very novel result. I wonder, then, if the media groups will rethink their 'blank media tax' in order to strengthen the prosecutability of other copyright violations?
A brief nitpick, if I may? (Score:4, Insightful)
From the summary:
This sets the huge precedent that P2P is legal over there.
P2P is legal everywhere. Downloading movies is what landed this guy in court. The method used is irrelevant.
Perhaps the submitter meant to highlight the possible point that a P2P user was not held liable for people using his PC to download copyrighted material from - but even then it is still different from the submission text.
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:5, Insightful)
And I think the French judge was right on in this decision. The tax having already been paid, the *AA's were just trying to make more money and scare normal downloaders. There, I said something on topic.
The flamebait mod was probably because there's considerably more in the military history of the French than that bigoted post made out. I mean, you could say almost the exact same thing about Poland, but you won't see anywhere near the amount of anti-Polish prejudice in America that you will of the anti-French variety. Any country that's in Europe has been invaded a shitton of times, Germany and England included. That answer your question?
Parent
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Complete Military History of France (Score:5, Informative)
I'll tell you that. An active campaign during the latter half of the 20th century.
Historically, the USA has not been anti-french. The French were allies in the War of Independence. The founding fathers were very much inspired by the Enlightenment, which was to a large part a French movement. The French peacefully sold Louisiana to the US. The French gave the US the Statue of Liberty. And so on.
But there is an old Anglo-Saxon grudge against the French which dates back forever. That much is true.
What happened, happened during and after WWII. The USA and UK didn't want De Gaulle to lead France, since he was a rather proud/arrogant guy, strongly independent, and would not let himself be convinced to do something unless it was what he considered to be best for France. In other words, he acted a lot like America does.
So France went off on their own, unilaterally leaving NATO, for instance. America responded by calling them arrogant, ungrateful, and playing on existing anglo-saxon stereotypes of 'snooty' French. The french, to an extent, do consider the Americans to be arrogant as well. Whereas both nations have really done nothing other than support their own self-interest.
There is also a general anti-European sentiment in the USA (and vice versa, of course, but the forms are different). There has been a very deliberate effort from the American republicans in the last half-century to paint a bad picture of Europe.
Because Europe is more to the left than the USA, giving the Democrats the argument of a Good Example would be a dangerous thing. So Europe (and France in particular) has been badmouthed at every opportunity. High taxes. Strikes. Inefficiency. Listening to American media reports, you'd think Europe is part of the third world.
And the strategy worked: I'll give them that. You cannot refer to Europe in American politics. It's political suicide. Taboo. Tell Americans something is European and they'll vote against it on sheer principle.
(European anti-americanism is different. Referring to the USA in European politics happens all the time.)
As for the 'french surrender' crap. It's a lie and a prejudice. An uncommonly stupid and hurtful one, at that.
Parent
bittorrent (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if it stands up legally, but mora
Re:Freedom Court (Score:4, Interesting)
Earlier this week, the US decided to renounce and reject the treaty, on the grounds that other countries were trying to use it to gain access to their citizens detained in the US.
Apparently, international law is for the convenience of America to impose its views on other nations and woe betide those who try to use it the other way round. International Law, according to the current administration, is a one-way street, with US checkpoints at both ends, each of which has the right to fire at will at anything that moves.
The last time things got this bad for any nation, England passed a law stating that NO king may ever again hold the name of John. Now, that is seriously pissed off.
Parent