Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet Your Rights Online News

Internet Pirates In France To Lose Broadband 388

Posted by timothy
from the don't-kick-against-libe-goad dept.
slyjackhammer writes "France is purporting to take a hard line on copyrighted media (movies and music). According to timesonline.co.uk, a new measure approved yesterday by the French Cabinet would kill the Internet connection to those caught downloading illegally. 'There is no reason that the internet should be a lawless zone," President Sarkozy told his Cabinet yesterday as it endorsed the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" scheme that from next January will hit illegal downloaders where it hurts. Under a cross-industry agreement, internet service providers (ISPs) must cut off access for up to a year for third-time offenders.' Google and video site Dailymotion have refused to sign up as consenting participants, and the state data protection agency, consumer and civil liberties groups and the European Parliament are all kicking against the goad as well. France may be pioneer in this kind of legislation, but they sure have their work cut out for them."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Pirates In France To Lose Broadband

Comments Filter:
  • Democracy (Score:5, Informative)

    by tomalpha (746163) * on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:10AM (#23869845)

    France may be pioneer in this kind of legislation

    At least they're debating it in parliament. In the UK Virgin Media's behind-closed-doors deal [slashdot.org] with the media industry has already been covered here.

    Note to self - I need to switch away from an ISP that is itself a content provider with vested interests in censoring my internet connection. Soon.

    • Re:Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pembo13 (770295) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:14AM (#23869867) Homepage
      While I understand your point. Democracy does not inherently mean that the best result will be the outcome. What percentage of parliament is ever near objective, and full aware of the what is as stake on both sides?
      • Re:Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by somersault (912633) on Friday June 20, 2008 @05:57AM (#23870581) Homepage Journal

        What are you suggesting is at stake? I have downloaded music illegally on occasion, though I've actually bought a few albums because I like what I hear. For example I downloaded the Guitar Hero III soundtrack and have bought albums from 5 of the artists on there, 4 of whom I'd never heard of before. I do own the game though so maybe that's a bit of a grey area. I have received music from a few people illegally and similarly I just bought a Dream Theater album as a result of that. So I can see the point of people who want to encourage file sharing and say that it doesn't always damage the industry, though I also accept that it is currently illegal. Some people will always be jerks and just want to get everything for free. I met someone recently who went on about SoulSeek and how it's great you can get everything for free etc, I was pretty disgusted because I think that anyone who likes a band should give something back to the artist rather than use the excuse that the artist should do it just for the love of music, though it is a fair point because a lot of bands don't get paid much if anything and really do play just for the love of music (I used to be in a band, it was good fun, though if I were to do it as my main occupation then I would definitely want paid - hiring a decent recording studio for a day costs about as much as I make in 2 weeks.. and hiring a practice room for an hour costs about as much as I make per hour). Using the "music should be free" reasoning, a coder should always work for free (open source is good, but how do you pay the bills?), doctors should always work for free (I know doctors and nurses that pay to go out to other countries to help out, but again how do they pay for their training or bills if they don't have a job?). People that act like everything should be free that are just freeloaders who pretend to be acting for the greater good, but really are just making the whole situation worse and giving the RIAA et al an excuse to push for bullshit control laws like this. I don't have a problem with this as long as it's just monitoring actual illegal music downloading, but how are they even going to know if someone is downloading music if for example they are using an encrypted network?

        • Re:Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)

          by journeymanmetal (1266822) on Friday June 20, 2008 @06:15AM (#23870677)
          Exactly. I buy a lot of records for example, and I download them so that I can also listen to them on my computer sound system and mp3 player. I also download music then buy the album if I like it, and delete it if I don't. How is the anyone going to know the difference between what I've done and some dickhead who thinks they can get away with not paying for music because "it's the 21st century now"? The answer is that they can't. They shouldn't continue with this because legit consumers will get screwed over.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It should be noted that no government in history has ever significantly and permanently reduced its power or revenue through the process of democracy. There is simply no historical example of a peaceful dis-empowering of a democratic government, let alone centralized power in general.

        I suggest we think long and hard about this, because it spells out the eventual outcome of all democracies, and indeed, all governments: economic collapse, or war.

        Was the process of democracy intended to result in a never-endin

    • by cloricus (691063) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:16AM (#23869885)
      Download movies at work. Report your worksite. Rinse and repeat three times.

      Do it on a country wide scale (say every /. reader in France) and bingo, law will either be thrown out or the economy will collapse.
    • by kdemetter (965669) on Friday June 20, 2008 @04:11AM (#23870129)

      In other news , French telco's are going broke , as apparently , most of their high bandwidth users where pirates .

      • by IAR80 (598046)
        As everywhere else. And the loss to the telcos is going to hurt France directly.
      • by Nicolas MONNET (4727) <nicoaltiva&gmail,com> on Friday June 20, 2008 @07:17AM (#23871035) Journal

        Free [www.free.fr] provides 28Mb/s ADSL2+ with free international VoIP, free basic TV over IP for 29 euro a month. No capping whatsoever, awesome network quality, they also are the first to provide IPv6 to all their customers, and they make record profits. That's because they invested heavily in infrastructure and logistics, developed their own hardware (both set top box and DSLAMs), and managed to take advantage of significant economies of scale.

    • by DrYak (748999) on Friday June 20, 2008 @05:25AM (#23870429) Homepage

      France, on the other hand is one of those countries that have a tax on blank media.

      A suit had been mentioned on /. a couple of years ago were a French "pirate" was acquitted on the ground that the financial damage due to copying of the movies (for private use) was already paid by the tax on blank media.

      Some consumer interests group should remind that to Mr. Napole-rkozy.

      But don't be afraid : after all, manifesting in the streets is a national sport in France and the subject is bound to be brought up.

  • by bmcage (785177) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:11AM (#23869851)
    So if I do a crime, my wife and children must be punished too?

    Isn't that like in the Middle Ages?

    • by TornCityVenz (1123185) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:15AM (#23869879) Homepage Journal
      What about the public...What happens when public access points become the route of choice for these downloaders? I can see it now when the library has no broadband.. Or the local coffee shop? Or the next door neighbor who had little knowledge about secureing his wireless router...
      • by Nicolas MONNET (4727) <nicoaltiva&gmail,com> on Friday June 20, 2008 @04:33AM (#23870223) Journal

        As a member of April [april.org], the French free software association, I have been following this nonsense since it started. We have raised those issues already. W have been in touch with government officials, and this much is clear: they don't get it, because they don't care. The Sarkozy government is about as corrupt and authoritarian as the Bush administration, and similarly incompetent.
        (Even Chirac, who didn't have the most spotless of records to say the least, had at least surrounded himself with competent and well meaning people.)
        To illustrate this point, there's no better story than that of former member of parliament Cazenave. He was a member of Sarkozy's (and Chirac's) party, UMP, and one of free software's best advocate in the legislative branch. But before the last election, Sarkozy decided to give the party's nomination for that district instead to convicted felon Carignon. I shit you not. Carignon lost to the socialist candidate, in a district that had never voted left in decades.
        Anyway, we have been in touch with members of several parliaments (assembly, senate, european), and have found strong allies. Former Prime Minister and current MEP Rocard for example was instrumental in defeating software patents in the European Parliament, and he voiced strong opposition to this current nonsense.
        But we know how Sarkozy operates, he's learned from the worst, and, like Tom DeLay, he's going to strongarm his party's members in the legislative to toe the party line, even if they have reservations.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jez9999 (618189)

          The Sarkozy government is about as corrupt and authoritarian as the Bush administration, and similarly incompetent.
          (Even Chirac, who didn't have the most spotless of records to say the least, had at least surrounded himself with competent and well meaning people.)

          This starts to make sense when you realise they were/are comparing Sarkozy to Blair.

    • by Brain Damaged Bogan (1006835) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:49AM (#23870011)
      why not just register a new internet account with your wife's name, then with your kids name.... by then the year suspension should be over on your first account, rinse and repeat
    • by Dan541 (1032000)

      While their at might as well shut off your electricity, gas and water

    • by jez9999 (618189)

      You don't have a wife and children; you are a pirate [apirate.info].

    • by gsslay (807818)

      Nope, not like the Middle Ages, just blatantly obvious. Name any punishment for any crime that doesn't also in some way adversely affect the criminal's family.

      Cos I can't think of one.

    • by IAR80 (598046)
      Well convicted without proof in a court of law and you are worse than the middle ages.
    • by MagdJTK (1275470) on Friday June 20, 2008 @06:57AM (#23870913)

      If you use a knife to murder someone, it will be confiscated for evidence. That's even if it was your wife's favourite kitchen knife.

      I'm not saying I agree with the law, but why do people have to go so over the top in their discussion of it (and why do people think nonsense like this is insightful)?

      • by plasmacutter (901737) on Friday June 20, 2008 @10:13AM (#23872719)

        If you use a knife to murder someone, it will be confiscated for evidence. That's even if it was your wife's favourite kitchen knife.

        I'm not saying I agree with the law, but why do people have to go so over the top in their discussion of it (and why do people think nonsense like this is insightful)?

        that confiscation is done with a warrant under judicial review.

        the confiscation of that knife does not bar you from buying another, unlike this initiative.

        this is not over the top.

  • Bonjour! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:12AM (#23869857)

    Arrrrrrrrrrgh!

  • they just want their law to be respected, not your money.

  • three warnings? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thermian (1267986) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:15AM (#23869881)

    At risk of being modded down with a baseball bat, this sounds fair.

    Three warnings should be more than enough. If you are unaware of the infringing use when you get your first warning, you should try to find out who's doing it. If you don't bother, then well that's your own fault.

    It's a whole lot better then being sued for thousands of dollars, at least you get a chance to find out what's happening, or if you are the downloader, to stop with no consequences.

    • Re:three warnings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cliffski (65094) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:47AM (#23869997) Homepage

      agreed 100%, and I am fully expecting the whole of slashdot to agree with you, as (from what i read here), the vast majority of people using p2p are doing it to download creative commons and open source programs and linux distributions. All that traffic to the piratebay is just people sharing their holiday photos etc.

      I think it's pretty fair, if I get caught speeding i get fined instantly, I don't get given 2 warnings first.

      And anyone who expects mass public campaigns against this needs to get out and speak to ordinary people. Most voters care about taxes, education, health and the economy, not whether or not their kids can keep maxxing out their bit-torrent speeds.

      • Re:three warnings? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Znork (31774) on Friday June 20, 2008 @06:11AM (#23870661)

        if I get caught speeding i get fined instantly

        You're not, however, denied the use of roads.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by LordKronos (470910)

          Try getting caught speeding over and over, and sooner or later your license will be suspended. It may take a few more than 3 tries depending on how serious your speeding offense is. Doing 100 MPH in a 25 MPH zone three times would probably do it.

          • by plasmacutter (901737) on Friday June 20, 2008 @09:49AM (#23872415)

            Try getting caught speeding over and over, and sooner or later your license will be suspended. It may take a few more than 3 tries depending on how serious your speeding offense is. Doing 100 MPH in a 25 MPH zone three times would probably do it.

            there's a huge difference here. the COURTS do this after PROOF is tendered. You have the option of a JURY TRIAL, and to face your accusers in a fair forum.

            this is done BY CORPORATIONS ON MERE ACCUSATION.

            disgusting, ALL OF YOU.

    • Re:three warnings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:48AM (#23870003) Homepage Journal

      If by "strike" you mean "being found guilty of some crime by a jury of your peers" then sure. But I don't think that's what the media companies have in mind.. considering that there are no laws which criminalize downloading of copyright restricted works - not even in France.

      • Re:three warnings? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Halo1 (136547) <jonas.maebe@elis ... .be minus author> on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:56AM (#23870051) Homepage

        If by "strike" you mean "being found guilty of some crime by a jury of your peers" then sure. But I don't think that's what the media companies have in mind..

        Indeed. One of the big problems is that you can only appeal the final warning. I.e., if the first warnings were completely baseless (e.g., because you download a file with a name similar to some RIAA/MPAA blockbusters but with completely different content) and the final one turns out to be factual, then you're out too.
        • Other problems in theory

          1. ISP or other group monitors your internet usage. Would people agree to have all telephone conversations wiretapped in case they do something wrong?

          2. Media company downloads from you(person A) to prove it was their IP. If it's a false positive but it's person B's IP. Shouldn't person B be able to sue/disconnect the media company?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by QuantumG (50515) *

          Blah, there's is simply no law against downloading. It isn't a crime. It isn't even copyright infringement. If you want to introduce some bullshit "3 strikes and you're out" law, you have to actually introduce laws to make downloading a crime (or even copyright infringement) first, then you can try your extra stupid 3 strikes law.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by teh kurisu (701097)

        I'm wondering whether the courts are involved in this, and whether a conviction is necessary for disconnection.

        It's fair enough to say that internet connectivity can be revoked for offenders, just as a driving licence can be revoked. But revoking a driving licence always involved a conviction in court, to my knowledge.

        That's aside from the problems with making this law workable - burden of proof, enforcing, etc.

    • Nowhere does it say that you won't still get sued if caught. This is a seperate, government mandated, measure and has no impact on the possibility of media companies sueing the infringer.
    • by Dan541 (1032000)

      But where's the crime?

  • Yeah, okay (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Auckerman (223266) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:30AM (#23869941)

    Also, you know the reason someone like Google won't sign up to be willing participants is because it's signing away their common carrier status. That will have HUGE legal repercussions in the United States. They will be suddenly responsible for even the most minor violation and susceptible to law suit. No company in their right mind would do that. It's not going to be out of the kindness of their hearts. If they could help nail people who are violating copyright without carrying any legal responsibility at all, I'm sure they would.

    I'm not seeing a problem with this. You don't have a right to "share" material that is copyrighted by someone other than you if they didn't give you consent. You may not like this, you can come up with all the (possibly valid) reasons things should not be that way. It's not for YOU to decide. The only real problem is how something like this is enforced. I'm willing to bet it will be done with a false positive rate that won't go over well with the French people, who from this side of the pond seem the kind of people who don't put up with their government doing stupid things (I seriously commend them for their idea of how to go on strike).

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by timmarhy (659436)
      uh, why would a law in france affect google in the USA, and is there even such a thing as common carrier status in france?

      this law is pretty even handed. 3 strikes and you lose internet access for UP TO a year, so you know it's going to be less. this is much better than being sued and having the RIAA france eating up court time filing john doe suits.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Auckerman (223266)

        US citizens and companies are bound to US law when outside the country. When you agree to willingly give up your common carrier status in France, that can be used in court in the States to demonstrate you are no longer a common carrier. They may or may not win, something like that hasn't been brought up yet, but it's a foreseeable problem that is easily avoided. It is for that reason that no company that does business in the States would ever sign up for something like this, because to do otherwise just

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mpe (36238)
        this law is pretty even handed. 3 strikes and you lose internet access for UP TO a year, so you know it's going to be less.

        What mechanism protects you against false, let alone malicious, accusations.

        this is much better than being sued and having the RIAA france eating up court time filing john doe suits.

        They are limited in how many such suits they can file, if they abuse this they can be indefinitly barred from using the courts. Also if you are sued you can always counter sue.
        This whole "3 strikes thi
    • Re:Yeah, okay (Score:5, Informative)

      by KiloByte (825081) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:44AM (#23869981)

      Repeat after me: ISPs are not common carriers. They have already bought other laws so the don't have to.

  • by Fallen Andy (795676) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:34AM (#23869947)
    Make malware share files illegally. Sit back and watch as it causes mass shutdowns of internet connections.

    Better still, tie it in to the mechanism used in the current rounds of SQL injection attacks.

    Idiots. All they'll end up with is a DDOS attack on their legal system...

    Andy

  • by arse maker (1058608) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:44AM (#23869983)

    Lets start a 3 strikes system for theifs. We can then cut off their hands when they commit the 3rd offence.

    Sure, hands are fundemental a humans quality of life. The internet is heading towards that, and growing year by year.

    Its nice to see we are going back to the days where it make sense to cut off someones hands for stealing some bread, hear hear!

    If the people who didnt push these laws through didnt have money, means and power I would most likely support them. You could probably check their home computer 3 times in a year and 3 times they would be breaking some law, they can enjoy the fruit of their labour then.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:47AM (#23869999)

    The punishment doesn't fit the "crime". To the "knowledge worker" Europe wants to base it's future on, losing broadband is the digital equivalent of house arrest. Without access to radio, television, books and newspapers.

    I like the three strike approach though. Should be applied to politicians. Sell out your voters to special interest groups three times and your out. Would really cleans out the European Commission and the European Council.

       

  • Some more precisions (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:48AM (#23870009)

    What is not said in TFA.

    The three step mentionned are optionnal. You can be banned from internet at the first time.
    And the decision is not up to judges, as we can think, but to a new and "independent" (read leaded by the majors) entity. So very little to no possibility to contest the punition, since it's not french court that rule over it. Meh...
    Moreover, the law try to push forward filtering of content, in order to detect "illegal" file sharing. That could prove useful to control population, in the future, isn't it ?

    And if the media would accept to talk about it, maybe people could try and fight against this project, but you hardly hear a word about it out of computer oriented websites.

    We're in for a wild time...

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As a frenchman I'd like to reply to that... we already have an independent entity that is overlooking computer use (it was set in place in the 70s with the "informatique et libertes" law). I haven't ever heard anybody say that it was "sold" to any interest (be it government or to any industry, for that matter). the only problem is the amount of money they get to do what they have to do.

      I won't answer to the plot theory, because if you just look at french history, you will see that we're not that easy to co

  • by Budenny (888916) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:51AM (#23870021)

    The issue is standards of proof. To be caught doing something illegal on the net three times may seem to justify disconnection. However, simply to be accused of it cannot. The fundamental problem here is economic. The rights owners cannot justify prosecution, because that demands a standard of proof of misconduct which is very expensive. You have to get the evidence, display it, allow it to be subject it to public questioning. Witnesses have to testify to how it was obtained.

    This is an attempt to bypass all that. It is far cheaper to simply disconnect on three accusations. However, the problem is going to be EC human rights legislation and the first suit for false accusation. Human rights legislation is going to be a problem because the EC Charter explicitly guarantees access to information. You are only going to be able to ban someone from Internet access with the same sort of evidentiary justification that you would need to ban them from a public library or from reading the newspapers. The first suit for false denial of access to information is, for the same reason, going to be explosive. The ISPs will be acting as a cartel, so where one, acting alone, could throw anyone off for any reason, all acting together are in effect conspiring to deny the person access to information.

    One supermarket may ban someone from shopping. If all start to subscribe to a common list, there's a human rights issue.

    In the end this is not going to work because you cannot get around the requirement for high standards of proof before depriving people of what the EC, with a different hat on, has defined as their fundamental human rights. Hoist with their own petard, as they say in Brussels!

  • by guile*fr (515485) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:54AM (#23870035)

    The trend nowadays in France is to complain about purchase power.

    But the goverment is unwilling to lower taxes and the reccord industry is unwilling to lower their profits margin.

    for instance a NIN CD sells 8 UKP (10EUR) the same CD sells 22EUR in France.

    go figure why people are pirating

    • by fluch (126140)

      One can always order it from amazon.co.uk for the cheaper price. Delivery within Europa is the same as to UK (if I remember it right)....

    • by jez9999 (618189)

      If they're pirating NIN, I really am having a problem figuring it out.

  • by fluch (126140) on Friday June 20, 2008 @03:56AM (#23870053)

    Sofar people didn't have any big preasure to do so. I know, there are a lot of lazy people around, who just think: I don't care what happens to my computer. But I know enough people who do download and who wouldn't want to miss it.

    So, how long does it take untill people run their download software in a virtual machine, completely seperated from the rest of the operating system, on a hiden true crypt partition and store the music/movies in the same way. And communication only over encrypted channels. Of course it has performance issues, but the computers are fast enough (and get faster).

    And then let them cut of the internet? I would always defend myself and claim: false positive! And go public of course!

  • If it is the law, they will automagicaly become either consenting participants or not do any business in France.

    I just hope that this does not mean that the local **AA can decide who they want to report, but still go through the legal hassle.

    That way they need to file three lawsuits, where the people can easily say 'sorry' or not even show up. That way the local **AA must put its money where its mouth is. If they think it is worth it, they will. I bet they won't bother.
    Otherwise it would be several million

  • wrong summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    Dumb Internet Pirates In France To Lose Broadband

    Internet Pirates In France With The Slightest Bit of Technical Acumen To Carry On As Usual

    there, fixed that for you

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Hitto (913085)

      Hmm, even with technological acumen...

      "Bonjour, Mr Tom Pirate! Since we're your ISP, we noticed you were smart enough to download TOR/insert your alternative, then over the next three days, 37 gigabytes of we-don't-know-what were downloaded. We still called the cops, though. TOR = pedophile or terrorist, you know?"

      If they *want* to find out - no software will save you.

  • by sTERNKERN (1290626) on Friday June 20, 2008 @04:06AM (#23870101)
    And they had no revolutions in the last 40 years... something has to be done there.
  • by kju (327) on Friday June 20, 2008 @04:13AM (#23870133)

    Dear media outlets: Please accept the fact that you are fighting a war that you cannot win. Even with custom-tailored laws at your will the internet won't change and piracy won't go away at large. It is also still doubtful that it is piracy what is causing your alledged losses and not a general loss of quality in and appreciation of music. For the latter part it's even you who is to blame: Music is nowadays everywhere - with your permission. Bad versions of your "hits" are sold as overly annoying cell phone ringtones - with your permission and appraisal.

    Some parts of the media business already have learned that both giving away for free and piracy is actually increasing business, not hurting it. Eric Flint, a sci-fi writer has pointed this out: http://baens-universe.com/articles/salvos8 [baens-universe.com] and http://baens-universe.com/articles/The_Economics_of_Writing [baens-universe.com] Instead of treating your customers like shit, making a witch-hunt and introducing bull shit like DRM which only scares away your loyal customers towards piracy - pirated versions don't have silly limitations - you should finally realize that you need to do what every business in trouble need to do: Adapt. Or die. Whatever.

    Sincerely
    Reality

    • Wrong.
      Media can and will win this war against consumers.

      In 20 years i can guarantee that your Digital TV will only play legal DVD/HD/BD. Any self-burnt DVDs of Doctor Who you download will never even play. Each DVD/BD/ will have a RFID inside which will inform the Player it can play. Absent the chip, the player will not play.
      Much like the present "Wrong Region" messages you find on an US DVD Player. Oh, and each set of Blank DVD you buy at Tesco will NOT contain RFID and will work only on PCs/Macs for stora

  • by loutr (626763) on Friday June 20, 2008 @04:14AM (#23870139)
    The process to come up with it was not. This law is based on a report by Denis Olivennes, CEO of the FNAC (largest brick & mortar music seller in France), in collaboration with the majors, but not with the consumer defense groups. The minister of culture talked with the majors several times, while the consumer defense groups were left waiting on the sidewalk, although they had a petition signed by several thousands citizen (and RMS' support ;)).

    As a french citizen, I don't really disagree with the principle of this law, but to see our government act like the RIAA's lap dog is very unnerving. And the fact that the ministry of culture seems completely out of touch with today's technology annoys me even more (Not long ago this ministry published a tender for translation of their websites. They specifically asked for automated translation. Let's just say the translators union was not very pleased, and sent them a letter, along with an man-made english translation of it, and a french translation of the english letter made by google translate. The original letter and the google one had not much in common...)
  • by AlgorithMan (937244) on Friday June 20, 2008 @04:17AM (#23870165) Homepage
    France is purporting to take a hard line on streets. According to timesonline.co.uk, a new measure approved yesterday by the French Cabinet would take away the cars of those, caught speeding. 'There is no reason that the streets should be a lawless zone," President Sarkozy told his Cabinet yesterday as it endorsed the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" scheme that from next January will hit illegal drivers where it hurts. Under a cross-industry agreement, car-manufacturers must cut off access for up to a year for third-time offenders.'
    • Funny? That's exactly what happens ... speed too many times and you lose your license.
    • France is purporting to take a hard line on streets. According to timesonline.co.uk, a new measure approved yesterday by the French Cabinet would take away the cars of those, caught speeding. 'There is no reason that the streets should be a lawless zone," President Sarkozy told his Cabinet yesterday as it endorsed the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" scheme that from next January will hit illegal drivers where it hurts. Under a cross-industry agreement, car-manufacturers must cut off access for up to a year for third-time offenders.'

      Careful with joking around. This is Sarkozy-led France after all, and actually it's not 3-strikes-you're-out, but only two. Moreover you don't just lose the right to drive, but you go to prison. Look up délit de grande vitesse.

      Oh, and with all these radars that they've deployed, you're sure to be caught.

      Be careful with car analogies, we're talking about France after all...

  • by Ron Bennett (14590) on Friday June 20, 2008 @04:41AM (#23870257) Homepage

    Such punishment may have made sense 10 years ago when the internet was a novelty / toy to most people. But today, many people rely on the internet for basic everyday needs, such as communication, employment, paying bills, filing taxes, etc.

    Ron

  • by koinu (472851)

    we need only one worm that starts "illegal" downloads on every PC and whole France as a country is offline? Where are the script kiddies when you need them?

    You need to learn about your own stupidity by having PITA. That works best.

  • They could try the Australian approach. Have a whitelisted subset of the internet that anyone can access, which includes municipal services and trusted websites suitable for all ages and bound by licensing contracts, and require registration and age verification to access anything more. Of course, access would be a privilege, which could be suspended or revoked for a range of offenses (copyright violation, non-payment of fines, "anti-social behaviour", &c.)

  • by bill_kress (99356) on Friday June 20, 2008 @11:37AM (#23873953)

    I'm amazingly pissed off when I see stuff like this...

    Not so much media companies buying laws but the fact that governments are able to address this somewhat questionable problem with such a "Final" solution and not stop the bullshit like botnets that are absolutely evil and destructive to all.

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...