Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Free P2P In France? 190

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the viva-la-parliament dept.
cyberbian writes to tell us that earlier in the week the French Parliament voted to allow free sharing of music and movies on the Internet. This ruling puts them in direct conflict with both the Media companies and the rest of the French government. From the article: " If the amendment survives, France would be the first country to legalize so called peer-to-peer downloading, said Jean-Baptiste Soufron, legal counsel to the Association of Audionautes, a French group that defends people accused of improperly sharing music files. The law would be a blow to media companies that increasingly use the courts worldwide to sue people for downloading or sharing music and movie files. Entertainment companies such as Walt Disney Co., Viacom Inc. and News Corp.'s Fox say free downloading of unauthorized copies of TV shows and movies before they are released on DVD will cost them $5 billion in revenue this year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Free P2P In France?

Comments Filter:
  • Duplicate article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Antony-Kyre (807195) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:01AM (#14335920)
    It's a duplicate, same URL as before. I know because I saved the page from a few days ago.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      That's OK. Our responses will be a quadtriplicate from the last few times we've discussed P2P and copyright.
    • Re:Duplicate article (Score:5, Informative)

      by DrHanser (845654) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @02:02PM (#14336586) Homepage
      The funny thing is that the ruling is largely symbolic anyway, and still has to pass the French Senate. From this article [arstechnica.com]:
      But despite reports, this does not mean that P2P is legal in France. The vote would still need to pass in the French Senate, and even before then, it will probably need a second reading in the lower house, because the first one was a sham. To put it bluntly, this is a publicity stunt. The bill, which passed last night by a vote of 30 to 28, saw the remaining 519 deputies absent from the vote. They weren't there.
    • Thank god in America already allows free copying of previous slashdot articles.
  • How very ironic! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:01AM (#14335921)
    This was the DADVSI bill that was supposed to turn free software into crime.

    You have to admire an independent parliament!

    • Well... It's not as good as it sounds. Because for P2P to be "legal" you would have a "tax" on every single internet connection, that'd go to the RIAA's french subsidiary.

      After blank CDs and DVDs, here comes the internet "tax". An open Wifi network would be illegal.

      Not all that great overall.
      --
      Is eBay loosing it? [blogspot.com]
  • ... say it will cost them 5 billion...

    5 billion in profits? After what costs? Better yet, how did they come up with such a figure?
    • by Spy Handler (822350) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:06AM (#14335939) Homepage Journal
      Same place BSA pulls its figure from. Out of its ass.
  • by thealsir (927362) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:02AM (#14335925) Homepage
    ...er, I mean, curse those French Fries!
    • Obligatory Python reference:

      ARTHUR: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us money, he can have join a very nice movie on DVD
      GUARD: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen... Uh, he's already downloaded it, you see?
      ARTHUR: What?
      GALAHAD: He says they've already downloaded it!
      ARTHUR: Are you sure he's downloaded it?
      GUARD: Oh, yes, it's very nice-a (I told him we already downloaded it)
      ARTHUR: Well, um, can we come up and have a look?
      GUARD
    • I know you're only joking, but it's worth noting here that the conflict you're joking about is a good indicator. Due to the disagreements over Iraq, the current US societal expectation is that French ideas will be rejected. And yet, here we have something the French are doing that many of us agree with, and believe is good.

      Now, it would be a fallacy to assume that because the French do one good thing, that everything they do must be good. I'm not saying that. But, there is a relationship -- a shared o

  • All I have to say to that is Merry Christmas.
  • What about Canada? (Score:5, Informative)

    by eMartin (210973) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:04AM (#14335934)
    "If the amendment survives, France would be the first country to legalize so called peer-to-peer downloading"

    I was under the impression that it's already legal in Canada [slashdot.org].

    Or does Canada not count?
    • by eMartin (210973) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:06AM (#14335943)
      Sorry pasted the wrong bit into the link.

      http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html [com.com]
    • Of what I know, downloading copyrighted MUSIC is legal in Canada.

      "[ISPs] tend to ignore cease and desist orders more in Canada," said Craig Winter, MPAA Internet enforcement manager. He said that in the United States, the DMCA "says that ISPs, if they have been notified that there is infringing content, they are obligated to remove access to that content or at least notify the end users. So if Canada doesn't have something as strong and the ISPs don't feel they have any liability, they may ignore request
      • From the way I see it. Downloading copyrighted music is legal in Canada and downloading copyrighted movies is illegal but ISP don't care much about it. Laws will probaly change over time... ex: Add a levy on DVD to allow people to download/copy copyrighted movies.
    • by JonN (895435) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:39AM (#14336020) Homepage
      Oeer-to-peer is only partially legal in Canada. The government has deemed that downloading music in Canada is perfectly legal, as it is for personal use. However the issue lies in uploading music, which is illegal. More information in this article [com.com]
      • by k00110 (932544) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:44AM (#14336038)
        In the initial ruling they say "But the judge denied that request. In a far-ranging decision, the court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online appeared to be legal in Canada. "

        Makes it available to other people imply uploading so it must be legal. I think some recording associations are trying to mess with the judgement.
    • In Spain the "right for private copy" allows you to get non-authorized movies and music as long as you don't redistribute or show it to anyone else and you don't gain money from it
      • The private copy also exists in France, on intelectual property we have a similar legislation.
        The problem is that the author's associations mantains that private copy doesn't allow p2p sharing. The French Parliament have simply specified this point.
    • France would be the first country to legalize so called peer-to-peer downloading...

      Peer2peer downloading is not illegal; the unlicensed distribution of copyrighted material is illegal. It is perfectly legal to use a p2p network to distribute uncopyrighted material. If Jane Siberry [sheeba.ca] -- an accomplished artist who gives her work away -- wants to put everything she's ever done on p2p, then she is free to do it. And this is as it should be.

  • by kentrel (526003) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:06AM (#14335941) Journal
    People will freely distribute Celine Dion songs without any fear of retribution.
    • by Guppy06 (410832) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:41AM (#14336028)
      1. Distributing Celine Dion is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
      2. Blame where blame is due: Celine Dion is CANADIAN!
      • *starts to sing the hit classic show tune from South Park: Blame Canada*

        Sheila: Times have changed
        Our kids are getting worse
        They won't obey their parents
        They just want to fart and curse!
        Sharon: Should we blame the government?
        Liane: Or blame society?
        Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
        Sheila: No, blame Canada
        Everyone: Blame Canada
        Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
        And flappin' heads so full of lies
        Everyone: Blame Canada
        Blame Canada
        Sheila: We need to form a full assault
        Everyone: It's Canada's fault
  • Please ! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yogikoudou (806237) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:14AM (#14335959)
    Please please stop saying that P2P is illegal. P2P is legal everywhere, downloading/uploading copyrighted material is illegal.

    By the way, stop using IP as an acronym for Intellectual Property, IP is Internet Protocol.
    • Re:Please ! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by melonman (608440)

      By the way, stop using IP as an acronym for Intellectual Property, IP is Internet Protocol.

      It's both - short acronyms are as sought-after as short domain names, and there is even less you can do about someone else using the one you thought you owned. Lawyers talk about IP all the time.

    • Right on i sorta feel like i been waiting my whole life for someone to put both them points streight :D
    • Re:Please ! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld@NOSpam.gmail.com> on Sunday December 25, 2005 @12:32PM (#14336310) Homepage
      By the way, stop using IP as an acronym for Intellectual Property, IP is Internet Protocol.

      No, stop using IP as an acronym for Internet Protocol. Intellectual Property came first.
    • Re:Please ! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Travelsonic (870859)
      To be technical though, it's downloading music that is copyrighted without permission from the copyright holder that is illegal - there are copyrighted works that are legal to share. ^_^
    • By the way, stop using IP as an acronym for Intellectual Property, IP is Internet Protocol.

      Slashdot pencildickness reaches a new low.

  • Seriously, 5 billion lost? People that download music and movies would rarely actually buy the music or movies if they had no other choice. This is just more bullshit propaganda spread by the **AA.
    • by JonN (895435)
      While it is true that the majority of heavy p2p users would never purchase everything that they have downloaded, think beyond the magnitude. I know personally there are many CDs which I have not bought, because I could download them. If I couldn't download them, then I would have purchased them because I enjoy the music.

      Also, before any flame, I live in Canada so it is perfectly legal :)

      • That's interesting. Personally, there are many CDs that I would have purchased over the last 10 years but didn't find the cost-benefit ratio acceptable. In other words, it wasn't worth $15 to purchase any of them. So I didn't. Five dollars and there probably would have been a number of sales. Economics 101.

        Having said that, there's no way I would engage in copyright infringement by using P2P. I just do without. It's an "ethical" thing in my case; I don't consider it fair use unless I paid for the ori
      • If you live in Canada then you already HAVE purchased them, in the form of the taxes you pay on all media.

        I'd be on P2P 24/7 if I lived in Canada for this reason.
      • I know personally there are many CDs which I have not bought, because I could download them.

        And I never bought as many CDs as I did during the Napster days.
        "Hey, these tunes are pretty good... I'll grab the set."
    • Of course it's bullshit. And, even if such a figure was anywhere near reality, as that money is instead spent elsewhere, and quite probably on something vastly more worthwhile than financing media marketingblitzes and coke parties for hollywood execs, it would be a net gain for the economy and something to cheer about.
  • Mind you, for successful p2p downloading, there has to be another person at the other end uploading. If this is still illegal, then not much has changed really.
    This was actually the case in sweden until not too long ago.
  • Of course not ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by straybullets (646076) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:22AM (#14335978)
    What the representants that rejected the government bill to ban P2P really want is to impose a new monthly tax that will be given back to the artists, kind of like what is done already with radio broadcasted music. Gee ... what a not so great idea !

    It is also important to note that among those so called pro P2P stand some of the most right winged politicians, namely Christine Boutin, known for her brain washed positions against abortion, homosexuality et al ... You would think of some better advocatee to defend freedom .

    IMO this pro P2P stand is taken by a bunch of know nothings politician that just want the free exposure and a chance to look modern and up to date, as the majority of the population here is pro P2P. All this noise is a real shame too as you would think that after 2 weeks of urban riots these people would have some more important things to care about.

    One good thing tho is that the actual "ministre de la culture" who is a total dick is in a real bad position now, being defeated by the left and right of the parliament.

    Rest assure that the right wing government will promptly deal with this situation and burry the problem fast.

    • by mangu (126918) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:59AM (#14336069)
      What the representants that rejected the government bill to ban P2P really want is to impose a new monthly tax that will be given back to the artists


      Seems bad, really bad... You can always break the law, as Heinlein once said: "But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am responsible for everything I do." ("The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", 1966). It's much harder to avoid paying a tax that's built into the price you pay for access to the web.


      As I mentioned this morning on another story [slashdot.org], the problem with illegal copying is that products are priced much higher than their true value. I was in France a couple of weeks ago and saw some fruit stands in Paris that worked based on customers' honesty. The fruit were in cardboard boxes on the sidewalk, you picked whatever you wanted and stepped into the store to pay. Are French people so honest that they will always pay the price? I don't think so. Although I wouldn't mind picking a few 500 euro bills from a box on the sidewalk and then step inside to write a check, no bank in France works the same way grocers do.


      Each business must work according to the product being sold. What's so wrong about this bill in France is that they seem to be transfering the duties of the merchant to others. Jewelers in France must provide their own safes and break-proof glass showcases. Fruitstand vendors must keep an eye for people who walk away without paying. Yet the media industry want to transfer to the ISPs the chore of making sure that no one copies a song without paying...

      • by Suhas (232056) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:12PM (#14337977)
        > I was in France a couple of weeks ago and saw some fruit stands in Paris that worked based on customers' honesty. The fruit were in cardboard boxes on the sidewalk, you picked whatever you wanted and stepped into the store to pay. Are French people so honest that they will always pay the price? I don't think so.

        You must be an american. I find it extremely funny that this is surprising for you. I don't know about france but this is the de-facto way of selling for all types of stores in Japan. Not just fruits and vegetables, but cosmetics, toys, books, CD's etc. as well. Yes, people ARE that honest in other parts of the world. Why, in a Tokyo suburb called kokobunji, I have first hand seen unmanned fruit stalls on hiking trails where you pick what you want and drop the money in a cardboard box.

        • Yes, people ARE that honest in other parts of the world

          It's really odd that some merchants assume that everyone else is out to rip them off. I guess in a cutthroat environment like major US cities people have to be careful.
  • by Kjella (173770) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:27AM (#14335991) Homepage
    If the amendment survives, France would be the first country to legalize so called peer-to-peer downloading, said Jean-Baptiste Soufron, legal counsel to the Association of Audionautes

    ...no civilized country hae outlawed peer-to-peer downloading, that is the technology itself. For a specific exchange to be legal though, you must have the necessary rights to that specific content such as being in the public domain or with permission from the copyright holder.

    What we're talking about here is extending the concept of "private copying" to include peer-to-peer downloads. This is allowed by many copyright laws, almost all passed when you had generational loss and copies would be inferior. In short, it is a legal way to copy the works of others without the copyright holder's permission.

    Since digital copies are perfect clones, and there's no borders on the Internet, it would pretty much obliterate all copyright in the private sector world-wide. What do you think the odds are of that passing? Not until you see the Devil wearing a pink tutu doing a triple axel on ice skates in Hell.
  • This HAS to be the result of some drunk parliamentarian doing something to piss of the guy from two counties over. It'd be great if they're serious about it, then maybe our country will take after the French one more time (all the slaverey, murder, lies and all the b.s. our country is based on...i'm convinced we got the ideas from the French), legalize file-sharing, and I can continue to not feel bad about downloading music. Heh.
  • by Oniros (53181) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:31AM (#14336000)
    No, it would not be the first country to make P2P downloading legal. P2P downloading for personal usage is perfectly legal in Canada; which is just an extension of the right to private copy which let you borrow a CD from a friend and make a copy for your own private usage. What is not legal is uploading / distributing unauthorized copies of copyrighted material; likewise it's an extension of the existing laws, you can't make copies and give/sell them to others.
    • P2P is not legal in Canada, as P2P requires two ends the uploader and downloader. As you stated, uploading copyrighted music is illegal in Canada, therefore P2P = illegal.
      • P2P is legal in Canada. It's not everyone who use P2P to download illegal stuff.
        Btw, anyone noticed that Canada appears to be a freerer country than USA when it comes to the Internet ? I wonder why our americans friends don't defend their liberties more.
      • Who says that the uploader is in Canada? P2P is legal in Canada (as in most other countries) its not the technology that has been made illigal. What is illigal is participating in a P2P exchange as the person doing the uploading while in violation of copywrite law.
  • by Pierre Carrey (806548) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:32AM (#14336002)
    Just to be precise : the 2 amendments voted are first steps towards the introduction of a global licence for download of video and musical content. People will be able to download content legally if they pay somehow for it. The next step should be to introduce a tax in the internet access fees in order to make the download fully legal.
    BUT, that is if the amendements are really fully accepted. The government is trying to reverse the movement and cancel the amendments (the bill intended at first was supposed to forbid P2P and be a real pain in the a**). The debates should start over in mid january.
    (Sorry, no english links to provide, everything I wrote is from french sites (ratiatum.com, liberation.fr))
    • Debates might well end on jan 17, what with the government being in such a hurry that they formally declared urgency on passing this law. And while they're agreeing on creating a committee to study the problem, such a committee would be entirely on their side to boot.

      However, there is a sligh chance that things turn out not so bad (1) if proponents of free software and of personal use voice their concern loud enough before jan 17, and chances still if they don't give up after jan 17.

      (for the French ppl out
  • by mikeswi (658619) * on Sunday December 25, 2005 @10:53AM (#14336058) Homepage Journal

    "...free downloading of unauthorized copies of TV shows and movies before they are released on DVD will cost them $5 billion in revenue this year."





    Poor babies. If they don't want me downloading movies before they are released to DVD (officially), then they need to release the damn things sooner.




    I buy a lot of DVDs. I have a small shelf, four levels, full of DVDs, with a box filled with more DVDs right next to it. I despise movie theaters. I'm not going to one, except in very rare cases. But I will see the movie, regardless.




    I can't wait for that company Morgan Freeman has founded to start operating. Downloads of movies released at the same time they are released to the theaters.




    The MPAA and RIAA needs to accept the fact that they cannot ignore the internet or the consumer. They don't want to work with the internet, because they fear piracy. So either they won't release anything on the internet or they wrap it in obnoxious DRM and at low quality. And in doing that, they are directly responsible for most of the file trading. If the INDUCE Act ever becomes law, they will be its biggest offenders.

    • by Microlith (54737) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @11:27AM (#14336125)
      They don't want to work with the internet, because they fear piracy.
      Well considering the way the general populace of the internet has behaved, I don't blame them.

      And in doing that, they are directly responsible for most of the file trading.
      False. Movies are traded on P2P because people like getting shit for free. There's really no philosophy, unless it's mentioned and people hide behind one "Uh yeah, cause I can't buy it. Right." It's only a question of whether it's J-Random-Warezd00d or the studio releasing it unprotected first. The feeding frenzy that is p2p trading would be just as vigorous.
      • People trade movies on the internet because they want to be able to download it easily. Seriously, look at the ads used to sell ADSL or Cable internet services. "Download music and videos faster" is their typical sales mantra. The problem at this point is that there isn't an easy way to download videos legally. If a quick and easy, yet legal way to download video content that people want becomes available, one that doesn't involve jumping through hoops of DRM fire to get at the content, I assure you a lot o
      • Movies are traded on P2P because people like getting shit for free.

        I download shit because it's the easiest way to get it. I would pay for something that was even more convenient.

        The problem is, of course, that for legal paid-for downloads you need a system for money transfer, which always adds some complexity. Then again, there is no economic basis for capitalism in duplicatable goods.

      • Not entirely true.

        Back when I was poor, I could work 20 hours a week to get "free" software. Once I made enough money, the attraction of maintaining connections and uploading so much crap to download items lost its appeal and I purchased most of my software.

        The problem is that the cost of music is too high- to me movies are not too high- I mean come on- if you wait 3 months you can get just about anything for 7.50. If I spend more than 15 minutes getting it "Free", I just blew more than 7.50.

        However- as b
      • Well said. You can see this in work with examples such as video games and applications that have freely available demos. There is a freely downloadable demo of civ4 for example, so the people downloading it from p2p have absolutely sod all excuse or justification. What they are doing is basically a big 'fuck you' to all the people who worked hard to make that game.
        At least have the guts to admit what you are doing if you download something rather than buy it.
        Movies, songs, games, and software arent food or
  • This works for me. I can hear, for free, pretty much any music I want over broadcast radio. I have to wait to hear what I want, but still, it's free, and is of higher quality than mp3s. I can record these also, and still have better quality than an mp3.

    If I were to download a song illegally in mp3 format, then what's the big deal? To me, the product that the artists put out for sale are far superior to mp3s, so what I have can hardly be considered "their product" now can it? Wellll, yeah, but I mean it's li

  • This is going down (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lewisham (239493) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @11:24AM (#14336120)
    For those that can't be bothered to RTFA, down the bottom you'll see:

    "The amendment was approved 30 to 28, with 22 members of the UMP voting in favor. While there are 577 members of the lower house, few were present for last night's vote."

    And if you look back up the article (obviously the author was trying to sensationalise this):

    "The government can overturn the amendment, either by re- opening debate or if the Senate votes it down when the bill moves to the upper house. French Culture Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres has asked that parliament re-open debate on the amendment today, Agence France Presse reported."

    So only one-tenth of the house were present for the amendment. It seems like everyone else had gone home. 22 of the votes in favour were by a (what appears to be) minority party. As soon as parliament reconvenes, this will be gone. It's way too crazy/stupid/radical, I very much doubt the majority party want this, and you'd need a serious rebellion from that party in order to push this through.

    It's not news so much as a political machination that happens all the time ("Quick! They're asleep! Slip in that amendment!")
    • by jon1012 (831761)
      Mhh.. UMP is the majority party in France (they are right-wing), but they do this to actually gain popularity and remove this amendment later.
    • I'm confused. One tenth of the Parliament can vote on something? Don't you need a quorum to conduct business? It seems ridiculous to allow such a small part of Parliament to conduct business. Then again, I guess you don't have to worry about long and boring quorum calls.
    • "So only one-tenth of the house were present for the amendment. It seems like everyone else had gone home. 22 of the votes in favour were by a (what appears to be) minority party. As soon as parliament reconvenes, this will be gone. It's way too crazy/stupid/radical, I very much doubt the majority party want this, and you'd need a serious rebellion from that party in order to push this through."

      Only a few people were still in the parliament because it was very late during the second night of discussion

  • by xoip (920266) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @11:33AM (#14336137) Homepage
    France loves American culture but wants to preserve their own. By alowing free access, it takes money out of the pockets of the large media interests and makes it less likely that they will be subjected to American films and save themselves the agony of bad translations.
  • Sounds stupid but it makes a big difference. In US Supreme Court cases -- Roe v Wade for example -- the SC does not "legalize abortion," rather, it in effect illegalizes states from passing laws prohibiting the practice. So if you think states ought to have the right to pass any law the elected officials choose, this type of precedent limits freedom. How does this line up with the France P2P situation?
    • SCOTUS doesn't have the power to make anything illegal. They do have the power to decide cases. In deciding cases, they have the power to effectively nullify laws. This is because once something has been decided in SCOTUS, lower courts can't really contradict this without giving instant grounds for an appeal. This can then make it's way back up to SCOTUS, which could overturn the previous SCOTUS decision.

      To summarize: SCOTUS cannot make anything illegal, they can only nullify laws. This is not the sam
  • Jeez... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Deadstick (535032) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @11:49AM (#14336190)
    ...first cellphone jammers and now P2P. Maybe they didn't name 'em Freedom Fries for nothing.

    rj
  • by grumpygrodyguy (603716) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @11:51AM (#14336202)
    The free sharing of resources and pooling of indexed harddisks, what a tragedy.

    The grandest vision of the early ftp/http devs has come to pass, and now everyone wants to put the ship back in the bottle. Screw all of you naysayers, this is what the internet was for...the free sharing of information.

    I'm sorry so many of you think abundance is such a threat to your livelyhood.

    Maybe you should back politcal change in the form of progressive solutions instead of trying to cram decades of legacy materialistic thinking down the proverbial throats of your children's future.
  • If the Internet Provider decides to set up bandwidth shaping to limit p2p traffic, it is going to suck.

    Rogers in Canada has set Bittorrent traffic to lowest priority which for me has made it take days instead of hours to download anything. Instead of getting decent speeds, I am lucky if I get 17k. I have heard this has also affected iTunes.

    Course Sympatico hasn't set up a cap (too bad I can't get DSL in my neighbourhood) but this remains to be seen..
    • It's Rogers new policy, everything that takes bandwidth has to be cut to allow "unlimmited" bandwidth. As long as they get your money it doesn't matter for them. Unlimited my ass.
    • In France at least, p2p is the main factor for the development of high-speed internet access (cable and DSL). If one ISP decides to limit bandwidth, it will immediatly loose customers.
      • This happened before in Canada when Sympatico decided to put a cap on their user's downloads. I can't remember what it was but it was relatively low (like 10 or 20G a month). There was a huge migration over to Rogers. I think that lasted about a month or so before that disappeared. They have since introduced a cap of around 100G but Rogers also has that as well with the extreme package(5M).

        I can understand why they would want to do it as it is probably 10-20% of their users who are hogging 80% of their ban
  • Actually, just adding a little bit of information since this is my association. Here is the website of the audionautes : http://www.audionautes.net/ [audionautes.net] But most of our english information is on our blog at : http://www.audionautes.net/blog/ [audionautes.net] and on my personal website : http://soufron.typhon.net/ [typhon.net] If someone ca add it in the news. Thanks to all for sharing the information :-)
  • by Anonymous Coward
    35-hour workweeks, legalizing P2P, man, what will they do next?

    All this shows is that Bush hates them for a reason ;)

    Beaucoup merci, belle patrie!

    Allons enfants de la Patrie,
    Le jour de gloire est arrivé !
    Contre nous de la tyrannie,
    L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis)
    Entendez-vous dans les campagnes
    Mugir ces féroces soldats ?
    Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras
    Egorger vos fils et vos compagnes !
    Aux armes, citoyens,
    Formez vos bataillons,
    Marchons, marchons !
    Qu'un sang impur
    Abreuve nos sillons !
  • Clarification (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ursabear (818651) on Sunday December 25, 2005 @01:49PM (#14336549) Homepage Journal
    Some things to clarify, after reading the comments... P2P is a technology. It is an excellent technology. The 'net grandaddys wanted to make it so we could do this very thing.

    I'm really tired of the thinking of RIAA == musicians. This isn't true. Most artists care about their music and their fans.

    Only a small portion of artists are bling-bling, Ferrari-drivin', $100,000-watch-wearing, $20M-mansion-living people. The vast majority of us musicians are average, have normal lives, and make normal livings. (It's surprising that rich musicians can be just as terrible as us poor musicians, isn't it?)

    The music business is evolving (albeit more slowly than music itself). It will all work out fine in the end. Things will go in such a way that people will make money somehow, and fans will get their product.

    It is OK to want to protect one's works. If anarchy was the rule of the day, many of the nay-sayers wouldn't have jobs. Somehow, some way, there's got to be a healthy balance between sharing/access and sales/income. Standing in your living room saying that music and movies should be free because you're entitled to them is narrow-minded. If you'd like stuff for free, work with artists - lend them a hand (technical, promotional, etc.). They'll give you free music and more.

I am here by the will of the people and I won't leave until I get my raincoat back. - a slogan of the anarchists in Richard Kadrey's "Metrophage"

Working...