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

French Record Labels Go After Limewire, SourceForge 326

Posted by kdawson
from the lawyers-on-airplanes dept.
An anonymous reader notes that TorrentFreak is reporting: "French record labels have received the green light to sue four US-based companies that develop P2P applications, including the BitTorrent client Vuze, Limewire, and Morpheus. Shareaza is the fourth application, for which the labels are going after the open source development platform SourceForge. ... Putting aside the discussion on the responsibilities of application developers for their users activities, the decision to go after SourceForge for hosting a application that can potentially infringe, is stretching credibility beyond all bounds." SourceForge is Slashdot's corporate parent.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

French Record Labels Go After Limewire, SourceForge

Comments Filter:
  • by Tubal-Cain (1289912) * on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:00AM (#25775467) Journal

    SPFF had already sued the various companies and organizations last year, but until now it has been unclear whether the US based companies behind the applications could be prosecuted under French law. A French court has now ruled that this is indeed possible, which means that they can proceed to court.

    How are non-french companies not operating in France (so far as I know) subject to French law?
    Someone should let them know that only America can get away with that.

    • Re:Juristiction? (Score:5, Informative)

      by saihung (19097) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:04AM (#25775505)

      That would depend on France's conflict rules, which (unusually, if I remember correctly) are that the courts of France have jurisdiction over any matter harming a French national. You are broadly correct - in the USA or most other countries, the courts would likely NOT have jurisdiction over the case. But France is France. That doesn't mean that the defendant would be able to enforce the judgment though. A US court could examine the question of whether the French courts had jurisdiction over the matter before agreeing to enforce the judgment, and that probably wouldn't fly.

      • Re:Juristiction? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Xenographic (557057) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:44AM (#25775673) Homepage Journal

        I just hope there are no French people who have contributed code to Shareza. I wouldn't put it past them to go looking for someone with any sort of connection to the project at all to hold accountable for the entire thing...

        Then again, maybe French law is different in that regard, but these crazy litigants all seem to be the same about doing that sort of thing, no matter what country they're suing from.

        • Re:Juristiction? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by lysergic.acid (845423) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @04:21AM (#25775819) Homepage

          that's because stupid is contagious. it's no big secret that other countries emulate the U.S. culture is our greatest export, and so what happens in the U.S. becomes a precedent for other nations. unfortunately, this also includes our political/legal culture.

          the U.S. passed the DMCA in 1998, and soon other countries started getting their own DMCA-analogs. so it shouldn't be surprising the RIAA's legal shenanigans are being copied by their foreign counterparts. that's globalization for you.

          • Re:Juristiction? (Score:4, Informative)

            by sumdumass (711423) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @04:45AM (#25775899) Journal

            You really need to look past your ignorance. The DMCA was required by WIPO treaty and as an extension to part of the berne convention as changed to allow the US to ratify it (which BTW, caused the copyright extensions).

            The US didn't create the DMCA out of nothing. It was literally response to a treaty that all of Europe and other countries signed on to before we made the DMCA. The DMCA goes beyond the treaty a little but the meat is the same as the treaty requirements. The other countries creating their own DMCA are doing it for the same reason's the US did and that is because of treaty obligations.

            Now you can claim that RIAA influenced the treaty and so on, this might be true, The recording industry was responsable for implementations of other treaties which more or less made Phonographs, tapes and CDs compatible across country borders which I would think most people see as a good thing.

            Something else about the WIPO treaties, there are portions of them that basically say if the law in one land doesn't address something in the treaty, then the law of the aggrieved land can prevail. This will give France's court Jurisdiction over an American country just like it gives the US courts jurisdiction (including extradition rights) over other countries when violations occur that aren't violations in the other land. If France can pin the Source Forge action to a treaty, a US court must honor it unless the Supreme court finds something unconstitutional in some way. I suggest you look into the treaties we are obligated to if you actually want to effect any meaningful changes instead of blaming the wrong people. You can charge windmills all you want and probably never see changes in what your railing about because you don't understand the concept behind it.

            • Re:Juristiction? (Score:5, Informative)

              by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:01AM (#25776165) Journal

              The US didn't create the DMCA out of nothing. It was literally response to a treaty that all of Europe and other countries signed on to before we made the DMCA.

              LoL
              Yes, the USA created the DMCA out of nothing.

              Clinton formed a working group under a guy named Lehman,
              BUT, there was resistance in the USA to the anti-circumvention recommendation.
              In response, Lehman took a shortcut through WIPO and a bad international treaty obligation was born.

              As a result, the USA had to harmonize* the law with their treaty obligation.
              The real tragedy is that because the US didn't want to pass the law in the first place,
              everyone has to modify their copyright law.

              *sometimes this is good and sometimes this is bad. It is rarely good when it is used to shove an unpopular law through your country's backdoor.

              • "Backdoor" (Score:2, Funny)

                by Mathinker (909784)

                > It is rarely good when it is used to shove an unpopular law through your country's backdoor.

                "Backdoor"? Is that what they're calling it now on Slashdot???

              • Re:Juristiction? (Score:4, Informative)

                by sumdumass (711423) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @09:39AM (#25776947) Journal

                Bruce Lehman was the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks under Bill Clinton. Clinton did form a working group but it didn't submit any laws until after WIPO. And yes, because of his positions in the Clinton administration, Lehman would have have direct input in the WIPO treaties, he did serve as the chair of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, and so on. The WGIPR did nothing but submit reports for revew within the group's parent structure.

                Then in 96, the WIPO organization met and came away with two treaties requiring the DMCA to be corrected. These treaties were the "WIPO Copyright Treaty" and the "WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty," which were adopted by consensus by over 150 countries. [ipwatchdog.com] A goof portion of the DMCA, especially title one and two, comes directly out of the WIPO treaties and over 150 countries are required to make the same laws.

                You should look at the report they put forward. [uspto.gov] (PDF warning) In which they recomend a general structure and highlight points that should change. If you look at the recommendations portion, you will see that the terms of the WIPO as well as the DMCA are only similar in spirit but the real meaty portions of the DMCA aren't really there. By Meat, I mean the stiff penalties and so on.

            • Re:Juristiction? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by dbIII (701233) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:34AM (#25776285)
              OK - so you are seriously suggesting Europe is to be blamed for some weird broken US IP laws inspired by Mickey Mouse and submitted by Sonny Bono? It is such a weird situation that people can easily remember such things instead of convenient revisionism a decade or two later.

              Nice urban myth you've got there, but it's not going to work on anybody over thirty or anyone of any age that has paid attention to the subject. Your IP laws are your nations own fault and even those countries that accepted them (eg. a watered down version implemented in Australia as part of a condition for a "free trade" agreement) could have chosen not to so they are also responsible for their own IP laws.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by sumdumass (711423)

                OK - so you are seriously suggesting Europe is to be blamed for some weird broken US IP laws inspired by Mickey Mouse and submitted by Sonny Bono? It is such a weird situation that people can easily remember such things instead of convenient revisionism a decade or two later.

                NO, I'm seriously suggesting that Europe is just as much to blame for a treaty that require DMCA like laws be put in place. The So called weird broken US IP laws inspired by Mickey Mouse and submitted by Sonny Bono was actually inspi

                • Re:Juristiction? (Score:5, Informative)

                  by djmurdoch (306849) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @09:57AM (#25777013)

                  two WIPO treaties that 150 of countries signed on to.

                  Which treaties are you talking about? The relevant one is the Copyright Treaty, and only 68 countries have ratified it. Another 26 or so have signed it but not ratified it, which means it's not in force in those countries. (Of the G8, only the US and Japan are among the ratifiers.)

                  The signature on the treaty is used as an excuse by the proponents of it to say that countries have international obligations to put a DMCA-like law in place, but it doesn't mean that at all. The signature is a general sign of support for it, but it implies no legal obligations.

                • Re:Juristiction? (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by HiThere (15173) <charleshixsn@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> on Sunday November 16, 2008 @05:21PM (#25779877)

                  The DMCA is an evil law. It may have not evil applications, but they appear to be in the vast minority. That it would be such a law was predicted before it was passed.

                  I've seen the way the US implements treaties. The US only implements treaties to the extent that the government wants to. The DMCA goes far beyond what the treaty requires, and is probably, in a logical system, unconstitutional. (Granted the constitution is too vague to form a complete specification as a logical basis. Many terms are undefined, and much is presumed as common knowledge...including much that is no longer common knowledge. Still, this seems to clearly be a law regulating speech or the press.)

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by bersl2 (689221)

              Speaking of Berne, let's not forget that the French were the ones who pushed hardest for that treaty in the first place. So thanks a whole lot for the shitty version of copyright.

          • but when another country does something wrong in this world, guess what? you blame that country, not the usa

            i know, this is some radical thinking i'm playing with over here

            to actually suppose that there are, get this, other countries in this world and, i know, floor yourself, they have their own governments and make their own decisions, and aren't just cut out cardboard characters who simply reflect what the usa is doing

            pretty far out stuff huh?

      • Actually, from what I understand (and I do not claim to be an expert on these matters at any extent) the courts generally consider, when looking at matters of jurisdiction, in which way justice is better served; in some cases, that might mean that the Courts will decide they have jurisdiction over an act that took place entirely in a different jurisdiction because of fairness.

        For example, look at all those laws that make it illegal to go to other countries and have sex with children there.

      • Re:Juristiction? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Gorgonzolanoid (1394311) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @04:49AM (#25775909)

        I think you're wrong about one point: AFAIK US courts, according to US law, DO have jurisdiction over foreign nationals for acts committed on foreign ground, as soon as US citizens or companies are affected (as alleged victims).
        There was even some dismay in the news media here in Europe when the US adapted a law allowing US Marshals to arrest (read "kidnap") foreign nationals abroad to drag them before US courts. I don't remember what period that was exactly, but it's at least 10 years ago.

        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

          [citation needed] Can you cite what law this is you're speaking of?

          If they're important enough that we want them, we'll try extradition first. If extradition fails or extradition treaties don't exist, then the States would likely send in special forces to kidnap them. Depending on their profile, they may or may not ever see a court.

          If they're not important enough to warrant sending in commandos, then we'll just go with extradition. And if the country doesn't have extradition, well - then we'd probably send

    • by CSMatt (1175471)

      Someone should let America know that they can't get away with that either.

    • The courts in the US are hopelessly backlogged. Maybe France could handle some petty US drug dealing and drunk driving cases, as well?

      It would save the US courts time and money, and it might deter crime. Because a potential criminal knows that if caught, he will be defended by a court appointed french lawyer.

      But going after SourceForge? That's "just not cricket." Or maybe a "faux pas."

    • It's called Universal Jurisdiction [wikipedia.org], and although controversial is applied more frequently than would otherwise be expected.

    • by Smivs (1197859)

      I think it's quite reasonable for the French to want to protect this multi-trillion dollar industry. I mean, where would we be without all that great French music from companies like....er.....um.....Ooooh......oh, never mind.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Ash-Fox (726320)

        I think it's quite reasonable for the French to want to protect this multi-trillion dollar industry. I mean, where would we be without all that great French music from companies like

        Like Vivendi, which own,

        • A&M Records
        • Barclay Records
        • Decca Records
        • Deutsche Grammophon
        • DreamWorks Records
        • Geffen Records
        • Hollywood Records1
        • Interscope Records
          • G-Unit Records
          • Vagrant Records2
          • Island Def Jam Records

          • MySpace Records
          • Island Records
          • MO Records (Montreal)
        • Jazzland Records
        • Lost Highway Records
        • MCA Nashville Records
        • Mercury Nashvil
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Smauler (915644)

      Non-french companies not operating in France are not subject to French Law. However, these companies are operating in France, if there are customers in France.

      Imagine a situation in which Massive company no. 1, based in Canada, supplies all of the US's need for one thing. Massive company no. 2, based in the US, supplies all of Canada's needs for the same thing. Why on earth should Canadian legislation apply to exclusively to company 1, and US legislation exclusively to company 2?

      Bottom line - I think if

  • Good luck .. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by asifyoucare (302582) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:00AM (#25775473)

    .. enforcing a French ruling in the U.S. If these companies have no assets in France, they can tell the French court to go take le flying jump.

  • Cool! (Score:5, Funny)

    by zmollusc (763634) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:01AM (#25775485)

    I hope they go after those evil, piracy-enabling, hard disk manufacturers next.

    • Re:Cool! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Arimus (198136) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:52AM (#25775707)

      No, they need to go after the evil people who produce the silcon used in chips, no wait - add the mining companies who mine the metals used, the oil companies for the oils used to make plastics, for producing the stuff in the first place for us to find it and (ab)use it.

      • Re:Cool! (Score:5, Funny)

        by MrNaz (730548) * on Sunday November 16, 2008 @04:05AM (#25775749) Homepage

        You're not seeing the real force behind the evilness here. They need to sue monkeys for evolving into humans who would then go on to commit copyright infringement. Damn those tree-dwelling purveyors of immorality!

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. We're their distant cousins, not their children.

        • by Puls4r (724907)
          We're lucky Monkeys didn't patent opposable thumbs.
          • We're lucky Monkeys didn't patent opposable thumbs.

            They did but kept it submarine: they just did not implement the idea, but waited for someone else to use it to sue.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by eddyk (1278496)
      Already done. In France there is a special tax on hard disks (and CD, DVD,..) to pay for private copies ! (Even if you don't use your hard disk for music...)
      • The tax doesn't apply to bulk hard disk, or PC HD. It only applies to removable media.
        You have 2 ways of bypassing this nonsense:
        1. Order in UK or Germany (yeah common market!)
        2. Buy HD and enclosure separately

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Absolutely! Who needs a terabyte of storage at home, if not for illegal purposes?
      640K should be enough for anyone, even Gates already knew that in '81.

    • by sam0737 (648914)

      Hell! they should sue the singers and artists! without them making those songs, we have nothing to pirate!

      Or they should shoot their own foot! If there is no recording label, there will be no song published by recording label to be pirated!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This just reveals how poor the knowledge of everything open source, and of IT itself is among the french top-rankings. As a french citizen, I'm ashamed of that clueless, inquisitorial attack. I just hope the french judges (who are often as IT-ignorant, but more open-minded and impervious to big companies pressure) will realize how ridiculous the grounds of the complaint are.
  • by Intrinsic (74189)

    The French Record Labels really want to go out of business with a bang. good riddance. they just upped the ante as now regular developers are going to be in opposition against them.

  • Pricks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kramulous (977841) * on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:03AM (#25775501)

    This scares me a little. I mean, we should sue the gun makers because guns kill people. We should sue the ore miners because they produce the steel that is used in the guns.

    If the French have such a problem with P2P why don't they just block it at the ISP level? Why go after the FOSS developers who just write a program? Because you can't possibly blame the citizens who breach copyright.

    This is coming from a country that were happy to set off nukes in the pacific because they didn't what to bow to international pressure. Pricks.

    • If the French have such a problem with P2P why don't they just block it at the ISP level?

      Maybe they couldn't get away with blocking all p2p content (just copyrighted stuff), and since they can't identify a copyrighted file by the small chunks that are sent, they need to block it at the application layer

      FTA:

      Recent French legislation which inspired the labels to go after the P2P companies, suggests that all P2P applications must have a feature to block the transfer of unauthorized copyright works. The clients that are sued by SPFF obviously donâ(TM)t have such a feature. In fact, it is questionable whether it would be technically possible to develop such a filter. Nevertheless, SPFF demands it, and is claiming millions of dollars in damages for lost revenue.

      • Re:Pricks (Score:4, Funny)

        by KDR_11k (778916) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:22AM (#25775589)

        Meh, just specify that all copyrighted works must be flagged with the Evil Bit.

      • If you can't get away with blocking all P2P traffic because it may block legitimate traffic, then how can you attempt to sue the companies making the programs that facilitate that P2P traffic that you can't block?

        Having that initial premise of not being able to block all P2P proves the case that their software is not only for unlawful P2P, which in turn would make the same argument against blocking all P2P valid against persecuting the companies and sponsors of said P2P applications.
        • by sumdumass (711423)

          You can sort of make the accusation under the same thought concept that because most of the defibrillator machines work perfect and save lives, the ones that aren't used properly or malfunction and kill people shouldn't be pulled from the markets. In the same note, the sony laptop batteries that were bursting into flames should be left alone because when used properly, there wasn't a problem.

          Now I know that seems ridiculous and off kilter but it isn't to far off. There is an aspect of responsibility for the

          • You can sort of make the accusation under the same thought concept that because most of the defibrillator machines work perfect and save lives, the ones that aren't used properly or malfunction and kill people shouldn't be pulled from the markets.

            Now I know that seems ridiculous and off kilter but it isn't to far off.

            Lemmy see if I understand this.
            An automated system that detects infringing uses of works protected by copyright within arbitrary input data is just about as hard as creating a defib machine and user's manual that doesn't kill people to death?

            A ladder has the warning that the top step isn't a step (then why the hell is it there)

            You can figure that one out, I'm sure.

    • by BESTouff (531293)

      If the French have such a problem with P2P why don't they just block it at the ISP level? Why go after the FOSS developers who just write a program? Because you can't possibly blame the citizens who breach copyright.

      It's worse than that. We have just passed a law to stop internet access for citizens sharing a file.

      For my part I'm happy they sued: I just hope the courts will be intelligent and just throw the case away.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HuguesT (84078)

        Hello,

        Actually the HADOPI proposed law, which I think is the one you are referring to, has only gone through French Senate for a first reading, but this only means the deputies' Assembly can now vote on it, which is scheduled for early 2009. Then assuming it goes through it must go back to the senate, then to the constitutional council and finally be published for it to become law.

        HADOPI is a broad permission and obligation for ISPs to cut off internet access for a set time if users are caught sharing "ille

        • I can't wait until deputies and senators have their internet access cut off by some automated script.

          Exactly what I thought. Malware with a P2P client that just downloads a whole lot of material whose copyright is owned by someone litigious. Of course the same could be done with "material useful to terrorists" in Britain, or with child porn anywhere, but this is far more likely to get work because there are well funded people looking for downloaders.

          The reason it might not happen is that there is not actual motive for anyone to do it apart from pure malice - i.e. no money in it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bahstid (927038)
      A little aghast as to the fact that you got an insightful mod for this.

      This scares me a little. I mean, we should sue the gun makers because guns kill people. We should sue the ore miners because they produce the steel that is used in the guns.

      Yes, I agree 100%

      But

      If the French have such a problem with P2P why don't they just block it at the ISP level? Why go after the FOSS developers who just write a program? Because you can't possibly blame the citizens who breach copyright.

      How do you get to eq
  • What happened to the overlord description of the relationship between Slashdot and sourceforge? Is that an editorial change directed by legal to lessen the perceived value of the cooperation to reduce any potential monetary judgment against the firm?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:31AM (#25775629)

      It's a conspiracy involving CmdrTaco, CowboyNeal, SourceForge, the French government and the Illuminati. I'd tell you more, but I've probably said too much already.

      Posted AC for the obvious reasons.

      • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:44AM (#25775671) Journal
        Yes. Yes of course... It, it all makes sense now! The single user that has posted the most comments on slashdot: Anonymous Coward!. He's involved in this. No, wait, he is this! This whole "conspiracy" is just one of his mind games to increase ad revenue and developer mind share. No one is really suing Sourceforge, except Sourceforge itself!. Also the french nation is a proxy for Sourceforge. Their crazy laws are just more of his humor. Like troll here on slashdot, but funnier because it actually effects people's lives.
  • Enlightenment? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by imroy (755) <imroykun@gmail.com> on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:05AM (#25775511) Homepage Journal

    Once again the Enightenment [enlightenment.org] category/icon is misused on a Slashdot story.

    I guess it goes to show how long Slashdot has been around, that it has a category for the Enlightenment window manager. And how certain software packages can come and go. But I hear that E is being used on mobile phones [openmoko.com] now...

  • by isBandGeek() (1369017) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:06AM (#25775517)
    They should sue Google for not censoring results to sites that host P2P applications.

    Then they should target ISPs for not blocking access to Google and all the other "infringing" sites.

    And while they're at it, sue Slashdot for talking about this.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by El_Muerte_TDS (592157)

      And while they're at it, sue Slashdot for talking about this.

      /. is owned by SourceForge inc., so that's aready covered.

  • by BountyX (1227176)
    It'd be nice if they sued my isp, at&t, for me dos'ing them.
  • The French have decided to ban the Enlightenment [wikipedia.org], and all related materials, including the open source desktop environment.
  • This is just natural progression. Application developers, web hosts, ISPs, and then HDD and computer manufacturers. The RIAA and clones would love for all computers to be mandatorily locked down.

  • Long story short... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:53AM (#25775711)

    The French courts ruled that the French record labels have the legal right to make stupid lawsuits. Duh.

    It does not mean that the French court system agrees that SourceForge should be tried, it does not mean that SourceForge will be found guilty, and it does not mean that even if they ARE found guilty that it would actually mean anything. (Good luck trying to enforce a ruling made in France, over a company not there.)

    My guess is that the French courts are rolling their eyes over the thought of having to hear these cases out. They basically said "yes yes, technically you're right, we have to hear these cases too, however stupid they may be. "

  • ... for hosting a application that can potentially infringe,...

    This seems to have some interesting ramifications. Are we going to see criminal cases against utility companies for providing water, electricity and gas? All are potentiall murder weapons, much more serious than taking away income from a bunch of useless parasites, wouldn't you agree?

  • What will happen? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by w0mprat (1317953)
    So the french MafRIAA think they are merely suing a software download host?

    What they are doing is prodding the FOSS community in the ribs with a stick, which is likely to make it angry. This is not a good idea.
  • by _Shorty-dammit (555739) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @04:32AM (#25775855)
    Why aren't they suing the computer and electric companies, too? The programs all need computers to run on. The computers all need electricity to run on. And how about suing the schools/books/etc where the programmers learned their programming skills? Obviously they should be suing them, too. And the elementary schools and even their own parents for helping them learn to speak a language that allowed them to communicate in the first place. If they couldn't communicate, they wouldn't have been able to learn any of the skills they needed to write those programs. Evil song-stealing parents!
  • by Gorgonzolanoid (1394311) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @04:35AM (#25775861)

    In France, using encryption has long been illegal. I believe even SSL connections weren't allowed until the law changed in 1999.
    So I wouldn't call this "stretching credibility", it's just on par for the course in that country where the government clearly doesn't have a clue about IT.

    Worse, they're learning about IT - from the media mafia. For example, a year ago there were voices calling out [ifpi.org] for a complete internet ban for whoever is caught sharing a file, enforcing ISP's to act as police, attorney, jury and judge. Who came up with that idea? The IFPI. Who fell for it? The government.

  • Whenever a stupid (or actually it's mostly about a smart) law is passed in France, they start to block freeways and throw stuff at the ones responsible (and some others).

    So now it's up to the French to DOS http://www.sppf.com/ [sppf.com] and raise their voice!

  • by loopkin (267769) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:48AM (#25776335) Homepage

    The thing is the French political system is built only on ideas, not people (politicians). As such, there is right wing party, left wing party... but most of our politicians are professional bureaucrats (and the rest are professional politicians, often with a lawyer background). Very very few of our politicians have a clue on science (i mean physics, medicine, ...) in general, let alone IT.
    All this gives a pretty one-sided view on a lot of problems, "culture"-related issues being one of them.
    About these stupid laws TFA is referring to, the worst is yet to come: a new big law (nicknamed Hadopi) is about to pass, as well as new ISP rules (they want ISPs to filter everything, using such wonderful technologies as DNS blacklisting). And you know what, most of these topics are handled by our culture minister, which, as a job reference, is the former director of the Versailles Palace museum.
    But the worst part is that they will sell the ideals of the French Revolution to pure incompetence, helped by our undemocratic mass media system.

    Well, thanks god, everybody in France know that freedom and human rights problems are only in Iran, China, Russia and Guantanamo...

  • by fgaliegue (1137441) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @09:25AM (#25776893)

    Just a question, has any of you ever downloaded any French music in your lifetime?

    People can't be that stupid, can they?

  • Smith&Wesson and Colt companies has been accused of murder, along with the cities where their factories are located.
  • by symbolset (646467) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @12:58PM (#25778115) Journal

    Copyright was created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. It has mutated into a troll that prevents progress. Copyright is now a monster that must be slain.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) *

      Copyright was created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. It has mutated into a troll that prevents progress. Copyright is now a monster that must be slain.

      Well, there's not much question that the big media companies are little more than international rogue organizations. They're causing damage to legal systems, corporations and individuals around the world. At some point, there are going to have to be international treaties banning such "industry trade organizations", at least the kind that like to sue everyone and corrupt governments.

  • Yahoo Vs. France (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ducomputergeek (595742) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:01PM (#25779001)

    Didn't Yahoo go before the 9th circuit of appeals about 10 years ago and get a ruling that a US company need not know or comply with all the laws of other countries if they are operating a business out of the US and designed for a US audience?

  • by Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @03:19PM (#25779103)
    After all, both Windows [microsoft.com] and OS X [apple.com] allow users to share files across a network. Hmm ... French equivalent of the RIAA versus Microsoft. Who to root for?

Help! I'm trapped in a PDP 11/70!

Working...