French President Violates His Own Copyright Law, Again 356
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been caught violating someone's copyright again. This time, presidential services made 400 unauthorized copies of a DVD when only 50 had been made by the publisher. Mr. Sarkozy, of course, is the one pushing the HADOPI law, which would disconnect the Internet service of an alleged pirate after three allegations of infringement. This isn't the first time he's been connected to copyright violations, either. His party had to pay some €30K for using a song without authorization. If he were he subject to his own law, Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something."
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
So... he's above his own law? (Score:2, Informative)
Let's see, he's pushing a law that enforces copyright by punishing those whom violate it and yet can't keep his own people from violating it on his behalf?
Looks like the problem isn't as clear as he would lead you to believe if even his own staff and himself can't stay within copyright laws.
Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Informative)
No seriously, google it:
And so I did....
French minister in 'boy sex' row [bbc.co.uk]
The Bad Life: A Memoir by Frederic Mitterrand (Author), Jesse Browner (Translator) [amazon.com]
But I would also like to point out that people on both sides of the political fence are unhappy. From the BBC article:
Socialist Party spokesman Benoit Hamon told Reuters: "As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker accused of raping a child and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking."
Marine Le Pen, vice president of the right-wing National Front, read excerpts of Mr Mitterrand's book aloud during a television interview, and said it left "an indelible stain on the government".
She called for the culture minister to step down.
"Resign, Mr Mitterrand and perhaps, afterwards we'll be able to give lessons to other people," she said.
Mr Mitterrand said it was an honour to be dragged though the mud by the National Front, and criticised the Socialists for making common cause with the extreme right.
Re:whole impact ? (Score:4, Informative)
Point of order:
Zimmerman note, WW1.
Panzer development, 1920s.
Stalingrad, WW2.
But I'm sure you know what you're talking about since you didn't go to American "school."
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Informative)
Please don't mix up our joke of a governement with our entire country. The public opinion here is just as appalled as you are by this affair (even if the medias try to downplay it), this minister and this governement as a whole.
You (assuming you're american) had your G.W. Bush, we've got Sarkozy. I hope we'll get our Obama in 2012...
Next time he is *alleged* to pirate something (Score:5, Informative)
Summary is incorrect. He would be disconnected the next time he is alleged to have pirated something.
Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:3, Informative)
This was the first version of the law ("HADOPI 1"), which was overruled by the Constitutional Council precisely for this reason.
In HADOPI 2, a judge will order the suspension. But it will almost be an automatic ruling, you can't come and defend yourself, and the judge's decision will be based solely on the logs of the private firms which will monitor P2P networks.
Keep in mind that the Constitutional Council has not examined HADOPI 2 yet, and as this 2nd version is just as moronic and iniquitous as its predecessor, I think (hope, anyway...) that it will be torn to pieces by Chirac and his buddies.
Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad it's the opposite. There's a poor man doing life in a California prison for stealing a candy bar (three strikes law), while a chicken plant manager who chained the fire doors shut to keep the workers from stealing chicken parts got two years after the place burned down, burning twenty five people to death.
Rich people only go to prison if they steal from someone richer than themslves. Stealing from the poor is encouraged.
"informed consent" is the concept your looking for (Score:2, Informative)
its not good enough to consent
you also have to be considered psychologically mature enough to know what exactly you are consenting to, what it implies, what its effect on you will be in terms of self-esteem, etc
physical maturity is not the same as psychological maturity
even if the 13 year old girl, perfectly sober, had agreed to have sex with polanski, its still rape, because by any coherent standard, a 13 year old is not ready to fully understand the implications of the arrangement. 15 year old? 17 year old? look: there's some 11 year olds who are more mature than some 51 year olds in certain aspects of life. but by any coherent standard, 13 year olds by and large simply don't understand what the hell is going on PSYCHOLOGICALLY (they understand what id going physically) when it comes to sex. this is valid observation for a binding legal standard by any rational effort
yes, some archaic societies and historical ones pretty much agree 11 year old girls were fair game for marriage/ sex/ etc
and these same societies also had things like slavery, absolute monarchy, cannibalism, etc. so there's no validity in pointing to brutal societies to justify burtality
in other words, we live in a modern advanced society. as such we recognize concepts like psychological maturity and informed consent and human dignity. and we respect them, and we incorporate them in our legal codes and we punish people who violate the concepts. why? so that we can stay being a modern advanced society. so should you respect the concept of "informed consent", not if you wish to remain a part of this society, but if you want to consider yourself a modern rational human being who understands and respects human dignity and who has a human conscience
or don't. and we'll rightfully punish you for your willful transgressions
Re:France just sucks (Score:3, Informative)
I am not fond of my minister of culture nor my government. But that is false. The book is not about his sexual relation with young Thai boys but about his life and the things he never told anyone before. It is like "Confessions" by Rousseau.
There is a chapter where he says he paid for sex with male young ADULT. I read an excerpt and there is no confusion possible. Perhaps he had relation with minor (that I don't no) but the book does not say so.
An article (in french) on this subject : http://www.rue89.com/2009/10/07/ce-que-frederic-mitterrand-a-vraiment-ecrit [rue89.com]
Re:France just sucks (Score:3, Informative)
It's because the French people allow a Frenchman with a penchant for little boys to remain their Minister of Culture.
That suggests the French people are pretty fucked in the head. Even if the average Frenchman does not want this person to be in that position, it is the French people who created the situation that allowed the man in that position, and keeps him there. The blame for the government of any democratic system rests on the people who put that government in place - that is the voting population. That holds true for the US, and I think we are soon going to feel the impact of electing a president who has absolutely zero business experience in the middle of a financial crisis.
One bad apple spoils the whole truckload?
Yes, actually, it does. You realise that old saying (One bad apple spoils the bunch) came about because if you found an apple spoiled with worms in a bucket full of apples, you could no longer trust the apples in that bucket, because worms spread.
Do you even think before you write?
Re:France just sucks (Score:3, Informative)
The UK age of consent is 16
18 if the other person is in a position of trust, such as their teacher (at least in England and Wales, not sure about Scotland)
drinking and smoking are both 18
Not so simple. As Wikipedia correctly points out:
Children under 5 must not be given alcohol unless under medical supervision or in an emergency (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937). However, children aged 5 and over may legally consume alcohol in their own home or someone else's as long as they are under the supervision of an adult.
The minimum age for the purchase of alcohol is 18. People aged 16 and 17 may consume wine, beer or cider on licensed premises (pubs/bars/restaurants) with a table meal. In England & Wales, an adult must order. In Scotland, no adult is required to be present. The legal age for the purchase of alcohol from an off-licence (store/supermarket) is 18 (16 for liqueur chocolates).
Purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor is illegal in Scotland, England and Wales. This means acting as the young person's agent.
18 is right for buying tobacco products, but I don't know what the law is on whether younger people can smoke tham.
Re:France just sucks (Score:3, Informative)
The state of their personal satisfaction with life is frickin' irrelevant. What matters is the HE IS STILL MINISTER OF CULTURE. Until he resigns or is fired, Sarkozy and his party are condoning him.
Re:France just sucks (Score:3, Informative)
Ahh, another victim of Poe's Law [rationalwiki.com].