Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

French President Violates His Own Copyright Law, Again 356

Posted by kdawson
from the trois-grèves dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

French President Violates His Own Copyright Law, Again

Comments Filter:
  • France just sucks (Score:3, Informative)

    by Absolut187 (816431) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:16AM (#29692355) Homepage

    Their "Culture Minister" wrote a book about buggering young Thai boys.
    What a joke of a country.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Absolut187 (816431)

      No seriously, google it:
      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=france+culture+minister+young+thai+boys&cts=1255098089473 [google.com]

      He actually wrote a book about it and they still made him culture minister.

      I'm not flaming.
      France really does suck.

      • by wvmarle (1070040) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:44AM (#29692917)
        Well he could write a book, that sounds very cultural, no? And it's someone who obviously has had a serious taste of foreign cultures, no? Sounds that he fulfills at least some of the requirements of a CULTURE minister.
      • by TheCarp (96830) * <sjc&carpanet,net> on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:44AM (#29692919) Homepage

        Fascinating. Though he doesn't say how old they were, as has been pointed out in blogs on this, its not uncommon for an older man to use terms like young boy to refer to people in their teens and 20s. Also there is some question as to... what is too young? or is it about age or about power? The more damning admission for me is NOT age, but the fact that he knew he was in a world of slaves and forced prostitution.

        Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds. Or as was said in that kinsey movie (I don't know if its an acutal quote by the man) "In an uninhibited society, a 12-year-old
        would know most of the biology which I will have to give you in formal lectures."

        In any case... a paedophile is someone attracted to pre-pubecent children. He is CLEARLY not one of them.

        On the other hand, he got her drunk and she didn't want to do it. Thats rape. Thats wrong at ANY age. I have seen blog post after blog post, and even now this man's defense of polanski who keep mentioning "sex with a 13 year old" and just seem to forget that it was RAPE. Why is sex with a 13 year old somehow worst than RAPE.

        I find that disturbing.

        The only saving grace here for him in my eyes is that it was so long ago. I see no real benefit in prosecurion of 30 year old crimes, unless the offender is believed to still be doing it.

        -Steve

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          I don't think it's worse, but I do think that having sex with a 13 year old is both predatory and pathetic, if you're a [physically] grown adult anyway. The brain hasn't fully developed at 13. At that age you lack the ability to make reasoned decisions as the same level as an adult, which is why we don't permit adults to have sex with them. I agree that 18 is arbitrary and that the laws relating to sex and age are capricious but I don't agree that restricting sexual congress by age is unreasonable. I do thi

          • Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Interesting)

            by commodore64_love (1445365) on Friday October 09, 2009 @11:26AM (#29693659) Journal

            I think you presume too much when you say "13 is immature" because it depends on the person.

            I went to college with a 15-year-old and he was more mature than I was at age 19. And of course being in college, he had sex with coeds five years older than he. Although that was technically illegal (statutory rape), I don't consider it immoral. A young adult is still an adult and should be free to make his own decisions.

            >>>The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.

            If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.

            • by Tanktalus (794810) on Friday October 09, 2009 @11:46AM (#29693989) Journal

              If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.

              You don't have a daughter, do you. I think 25 is fine.

              • by owlstead (636356)

                If you do have a daughter I pity her, because you are overly protective. As long as she makes her own decisions at it I would seriously advise you to let her go, certainly at an age earlier than 25. Heck, why not make it 35, you'll have no grand kids but that's insignificant in regards of protecting her, no?

            • yes, there are 13 year olds who are more mature than some 33 year olds on some issues. but your average 13 year is not psychologically mature enough for informed consent with an older person. they simply don't understand the long term psychological effects on their self-esteem, their happiness, their sense of identity, etc. maintaining these aspects of self are often not even concepts most of them recognize yet

              15 year olds? 17 year olds? where do we draw the line?

              well, we have to draw it somewhere

              look, ther

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                >>>and sex with with minors IS brutality

                Two days ago a boyfriend/girlfriend spent a night in prison for exchanging nude photos over their phones. Isn't THAT a form of brutality against minors? Your lecture on the law sounds good in the abstract, but the practical application of that law is borderline tyrannical. Laws that result in minors being maltreated are just as bad as the pedophiles, and those criminal laws should be executed (repealed).

              • by clone53421 (1310749) on Friday October 09, 2009 @01:45PM (#29695897) Journal

                and sex with with minors IS brutality.

                Rubbish. Coercion is mental brutality. Having sex with someone who isn't physically developed is physical brutality. Rape is both physical and emotional brutality. Consensual sex with someone who's physically mature (no, I don't buy the "their mind isn't developed; all sex is non-consensual" idea) is not brutality of any sort. Their body is ready and their mind is willing.

                What is mentally damaging is telling someone they're still a dumb kid, they don't know anything, and they were abused (OMG, really? like they can't decide whether or not they were, and they're too dumb to figure it out) by this old pervert (who they thought cared about them, and who they cared about too). No, since they're just a kid, they're too dumb to even figure out that this person is a perverted creep and they were abused.

                And since everybody thinks so, they have no alternative but to admit that yeah, they must be an idiot to even think of letting some old pervert abuse them like that. Great. Now they have a problem they didn't even know they had, just because everyone agrees that they should.

                so respect the rules, or be punished for transgression.

                Don't misunderstand me. I'm playing by the rules. I just think they're idiotic.

                you yourself, if you have a human conscience, should simply understand that sex with minors is a transgression against your own human conscience, your own abilit yto empathize with the fact that 99% of 13 year olds are not psychologically ready to handle sex with an adult.

                And adults somehow are?

                Nothing magical happened when I turned 18. As I said before, what they're not psychologically ready for is all the guilt and shame that accompanies them being indoctrinated to believe that they willingly allowed themselves to be raped – despite the fact that any sane person would see that's an absurd concoction of contradictory words.

            • by alexo (9335)

              If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.

              I'm making an assumption that by that definition you'd still be considered a child.

          • by alexo (9335)

            I don't think it's worse, but I do think that having sex with a 13 year old is both predatory and pathetic, if you're a [physically] grown adult anyway. The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.

            And yet, historically people of that age were not considered children. For example, in Judaism, males become entirely culpable and responsible for following Jewish law [wikipedia.org] once they reach the age of 13, and females once they reach the age of 12.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by TheCarp (96830) *

            > I don't think it's worse, but I do think that having sex with a 13 year old is both predatory and pathetic,
            > if you're a [physically] grown adult anyway. The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.

            When has the organ that changes over the course of your entire life from birth to death "fully developed" in your eyes? As a 31 year old myself, I would put it somewhere around 26 years old.

            As for "predatory and pathetic"... I guess that depends on how you see sex. I don't tend to see it as bad or dirty. Its j

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Absolut187 (816431)

          Its called statutory rape, and its a crime for a good reason.

          When a grown man has sex with a teenage girl, she is taking all of the risk (pregnancy, raising the child alone, etc.). But 13-year-olds are not typically aware enough to weight risks vs. reward. That is why it is considered "predatory". Because it is. There is no chance of any sort of "equal footing" in that "relationship."

          I'm only 30, and even 18-year-olds look really young to me. Yes, some of them are attractive, but 13? THIRTEEN? No way

          • I'll agree with you on the age of 13. At 13, most have just barely began puberty. By 14, though, most of them are well into puberty and at 15 or 16 they've just about passed it if they haven't altogether.

            Anyway, this whole cultural thing about post-puberty teens still being children is fairly new, from a historical standpoint. It didn't use to be uncommon in other cultures for people to be considered adults, and even get married, at the ages of 13, 14, 15 years old . Mary and Joseph were probably nowhere ne

            • Yeah, well, that was 2000 years ago. A lot of other things have also changed. Including lifespan. And scientific advances. And not dying from diseases we now see as trivial. But cool.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by clone53421 (1310749)

                A lot of other things have also changed. Including lifespan. And scientific advances. And not dying from diseases we now see as trivial.

                Just because we've made the best part of life last longer doesn't mean we should have to wait longer before we can enjoy it.

        • Oh, that was hard to check... second Google hit goes to Wikipedia...

          "Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes,"

          "Polanski was initially charged with with six counts: "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Sodomy", "Oral Copulation" and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse". These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with
        • 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 ol

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Polanski probably isn't a pedophile in the sense he doesn't like prepubescent girls, as a 13 year old would have hit puberty. But in our society, 13 is still too young for people much older than her. Don't point to older societies or views because you can go talk about cavemen times all you want but keep in mind you would be lucky to reach 25 or 30. Age is much more spread out now and a 13 year old should be hanging out with other 13 year olds, not creepy old men. It is always disgusting and predatory when
        • by digitig (1056110)

          Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds.

          As somebody asked on BBC R4 a couple of days ago, would you say the same thing if the person who had confessed to statutory rape were Senator Polanski the Republican politician, Corporal Polanski serving in Iraq or Father Polanski the Catholic priest?

        • by godrik (1287354)

          what is too young?

          there is this 'age divided by two plus seven' which seems reasonnable

      • by Rennt (582550) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:46AM (#29692951)

        No seriously... a country does not suck because they have shitty representatives.

        If they have enough shitty politicians their government might suck, but I don't know if I would be calling that particular kettle black

        Have you even been to France?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Jeian (409916)

          And as you're all nodding your heads in agreement, please keep the parent's words in mind next time you're tempted to rail on what a terrible country the USA is.

        • by Absolut187 (816431) on Friday October 09, 2009 @11:23AM (#29693591) Homepage

          Who elected your representatives?

          American and French citizens both bear the blame for voting for corrupt people.

        • >>>a country does not suck because they have shitty representatives. If they have enough shitty politicians their government might suck

          France's democratic government has sucked for about 200 years. Other than a few bright periods of time, they've had tons of lousy leaders. Napoleon was the first - Sarkozy's just the latest in the string. I feel sorry for the French.

          But then I remember they have topless beaches, and I figure it's not such a bad country after all. ;-)

          • by Sique (173459)

            Napoleon was never democratically elected. And most of his successors weren't either. France has started democracy in 1789, yes, but it was a monarchy for most of the 19th century until Napoleon III lost the french-german war in 1871.

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          Have you even been to France?

          Yes, and I can confirm that it does indeed suck. Its not just the politicians, most of the general public can be considered a bunch of douchebags as well.

          Have YOU ever even been to France?

      • Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Informative)

        by jbezorg (1263978) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:50AM (#29693019)

        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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Chris Mattern (191822)

          But I would also like to point out that people on both sides of the political fence are unhappy.

          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.

      • by loufoque (1400831)

        Or rather, you mean France is good because they don't discriminate against gay people or perverts.

      • by frenchbedroom (936100) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:57AM (#29693147)

        We didn't make him culture minister, Sarkozy did.

      • Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Informative)

        by loutr (626763) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:57AM (#29693163)

        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...

        • Touche.

          But we both have to admit that its not JUST our elected officials who make things the way they are in our countries.

          If half of America wasn't scared to death of gays of getting married, we probably wouldn't have had our retarded Bush Jr. fucking up our country (and the world).

          Bush did not elect himself (well, not the second time anyway).
          And neither did Sarkozy I would think.

          • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

            You'd have a point if he ran on an anti-gay platform, but he didn't.

            Seriously, the alternative was Al Gore, that guy is a nut job. I'd still vote Bush over Gore, he should just stick to flying his private jet around the world to give talks about environmental responsibility and leave us alone.

            Kerry was horrible also, but at least he wasn't crazy like Gore. He was weak though, and fake, and it is hard to get past that, especially just a few years after 9/11 and right in the middle of the hunt for Bin Ladin

        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by BitZtream (692029)

          I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.

          If you get Obama in 2012 it'll be awesome, your government's political parties will have a majority so powerful there is no way anyone can stop them from doing what they want, and yet nothing will continue to get done because they can't agree with themselves.

          I guess you haven't been paying attention to the actual politics in America, but Obama's presidency and the Democrat majority in congress has been nothing short of a joke.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by clone53421 (1310749)

            I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
            boy

            Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Lil' Bow Wow either, though "bastard" might be a little harsh.

          • Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Interesting)

            by loutr (626763) on Friday October 09, 2009 @01:32PM (#29695713)

            I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.

            May I remind you of this fine fellow named Dick Cheney ? How about Donald Rumsfeld ? They may not be pedophiles but they have fucked up the lives of much more people than Mitterand.

            If you get Obama in 2012 it'll be awesome, your government's political parties will have a majority so powerful there is no way anyone can stop them from doing what they want, and yet nothing will continue to get done because they can't agree with themselves. I guess you haven't been paying attention to the actual politics in America, but Obama's presidency and the Democrat majority in congress has been nothing short of a joke. They have their entire team in office, everything is under their control, [...]

            That's already the case for us. The opposition is a pathetic joke, Sarkozy has control of the governement and the media, he can do whatever he wants without any risk of backlash. He gets things done, problem is he's headed in a completely wrong direction.

            [...]and they still can't get anything useful actually accomplished.

            That's not the impression I'm getting from here, the healthcare reform seems much needed despite the public outcry (which I don't really understand BTW), but what do I know ? Guess I'm just a retarded european...

      • by macraig (621737)

        So because one Frenchman has a taste for little boys, that proves that all Frenchmen therefore have the same perverse behavior? One bad apple spoils the whole truckload?

        Don't quit yer day job for a career in statistics or set theory. Well, maybe statistics, considering it's abused about the same as what you did.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          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.

    • Their "Culture Minister" wrote a book about buggering young Thai boys.
      What a joke of a country.

      That's right trust information that came in vicious attacks by an extreme right party of holocaust deniers [wikipedia.org]. The guy may be guilty, but I'll reserve judgment until he's stood before a jury of his peers instead of a pack of rabid dogs like the Front National.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by godrik (1287354)

      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/2 [rue89.com]

  • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:22AM (#29692483) Homepage

    In this day and age are there still people who think that the laws apply equally to everyone?

    • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:27AM (#29692591) Homepage

      No it should not. Poor people get a slap on the hand, rich presidents get the Guillotine!

      Someone stealing bread to survive should be overlooked, the rich asshole stealing because he cant be bothered needs to be killed on the spot.

      Viva La Revolution'!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

        [JAVERT]
        Now bring me prisoner 24601
        Your time is up
        And your parole's begun
        You know what that means.

        [VALJEAN]
        Yes, it means I'm free.

        [JAVERT]
        No!
        It means you get
        Your yellow ticket-of-leave
        You are a thief

        [VALJEAN]
        I stole a loaf of bread.

        [JAVERT]
        You robbed a house.

        [VALJEAN]
        I broke a window pane.
        My sister's child was close to death
        And we were starving.

        [JAVERT]
        You will starve again
        Unless you learn the meaning of the law.

        [VALJEAN]
        I know the meaning of those 19 years
        A slave of the law

        [JAVERT]
        Five years for what you d

        • by gnud (934243)
          Or, you know, don't quote song lyrics, but the actual text?

          Liberation is not deliverance. One gets free from the galleys, but not from the sentence.

      • by MBGMorden (803437)

        Once you get into judging based on need though you open a whole can of worms.

        If starving people steal all the bread of the local baker than he and HIS family may starve instead. Or what if one poor person steals the food from another poor person, allowing him to survive while the other dies?

        What I'd suggest is for the most basic of needs (food), have some level of government assistance to turn to. Soup kitchens and the like that are tax payer funded. Nothing extravagant (the goal here is to keep people a

        • by torkus (1133985)

          What I'd suggest is focusing on making life survivable WITHOUT government intervention and social care programs. Instead of taxing a business into oblivion to support those programs...let them have the money to hire people are a fair wage.

          Oh wait...but the lovely stock market prevents companies from doing what's best for their employees. Said companies must do what's best for the stock price (and thus executive compensation).

      • by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday October 09, 2009 @11:35AM (#29693787) Homepage Journal

        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.

      • How about making fines proportional to income [wikipedia.org] ? Of course personally I still prefer the guillotine for the rich, but proportional fines are a close second.

    • by kemenaran (1129201) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:29AM (#29692641)
      We have an official presidential immunity in France. It sucks.
      I mean, it wasn't that bad when presidents acted reservedly - but now that Sarkozy starts to fuck up, sue people and everything, *while being protected of all judicial proceeding*, man...
      • by Krneki (1192201) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:35AM (#29692755)
        It was the same in Italy, another Fascist regime, but 2 days ago the law was overturned because it was found unconstitutional.
        • >>>It was the same in Italy, another Fascist regime

          So in Italy the corporations are private, but the business decisions are made by the government? That's what fascism (aka corporatism) means. It's supposed to be a halfway point between the free market (no government control) and the communist market (government owns everything).

      • by Jurily (900488)

        We have an official presidential immunity in France. It sucks.

        Didn't he break a presidential oath or something? I'm sure there are checks at least in theory to prevent this sort of abuse.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jhjjhj (1228452)
        I thought that the three strikes law took away your access without any judicial proceeding. So is the president subject to the law?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by loutr (626763)

          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 pre

          • On June 10, 2009, the Constitutional Council of France struck down the central, controversial, portion of HADOPI, that would have allowed sanctions against internet users accused of copyright violations (as opposed to being convicted for same), ruling that because "the Internet is a component of the freedom of expression" and "in French law the presumption of innocence prevails", only a judge can impose sanctions under the law.

            - from wikipedia.

            So HADOPI 2 fixes the judge problem, but does it still violate t

        • by jamstar7 (694492)
          I wouldn't count on it. Politicians tend to think of themselves as above the law.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ansa (26988)

        Amen to that man. Immunity for politicians in charge is one of the worst things for a democracy, two days ago in Italy we avoided a similar law thanks to the Constitutional Court rejecting Berlusconi's ignominous proposal... we still have a mafia's boss as a Prime Minister, but now he can be prosecuted for his crimes... of course the trials were blocked with ad-personam laws and they have to start them over again, so in the meantime he'll come up with another trick to avoid being prosecuted, but still it's

        • by MobyDisk (75490)

          The last thing you want is to have another country writing your ethics rules. This sounds like something the people of Italy need to deal with directly.

          • The last thing you want is to have another country writing your ethics rules. This sounds like something the people of Italy need to deal with directly.

            That's easy to say when the people have some modicum of control over the laws of their country. When the people are powerless, outside influence could possibly be their best hope. This is the same reason why invading forces sometimes find sympathizers among the people of the country they are invading (usually oppressed minorities, but not always).

    • Nobody does. We mention how we want our world to be, and that we still are willing to change it.

      You on the other hand, seem to have caved in, wishing to censor even the mentioning of our very ideals. :/

  • by Atreide (16473) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:22AM (#29692491)

    "Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something"

    As president / head of France does it mean whole France would be disconnected ?

  • You don't really expect high ranking politicians to follow the law, do you? If you're american, you've had bush for the last 8 years, and this shouldn't be surprising. If you're european, this should be par for the course, and if you live anywhere else, you're not important (according to the USA or Europe).
  • by poetmatt (793785) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:23AM (#29692505) Journal

    is the fact that they removed the publishers name actually criminal?

  • by rodrigoandrade (713371) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:24AM (#29692529)
    It's all about getting punished. I'm sure this will be swept under the rug in no time, by the French RIAA to boot. You know, don't bite the hand that feeds you...
    • Uuum, if that was biting the hand that feeds him, then it's him who might get swept under the rug in no time. ^^

      But if you *really* thing, the music industry is a powerful industry, you're massively uninformed. Ask any insider about the yearly revenue of the whole industry. Worldwide.
      It's a joke. They can't even beat industries on the size of the toilet brush industry.
      Let alone what's left of their profit, after refusing to go with the times.
      They are mostly made of 4 medium-sized companies.

      One can sweep the

  • Nicolas Sarkozy is just a puppet in the hands of corporations. He is too fragile to stand up for any civil right.
  • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      What you fail to take into account is that no French law is really ever used. To anybody. Unless of course you are a criminal, terrorist or foreigner. French laws are essentially a bunch of guidelines to stear you in the right way, but if you break them tastefully, you may very well get away with it. And being the President de la Republique means you can get away with murder....
  • Not as I do!

  • by Karellen (104380) on Friday October 09, 2009 @11:12AM (#29693409) Homepage

    Summary is incorrect. He would be disconnected the next time he is alleged to have pirated something.

    • I'm wondering if he'd actually get separate offenses for each copy. If so, that's several hundred strikes at once, not 1.

      If he was going to be charged with anything, I mean. Since we all know he's actually above the law...

  • 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.

    Does it really?

    Because it doesn't appear that the internet was used to illegally distribute that copyrighted material. And I don't think HADOPI is that stupid (or smart, if you lean that way).

  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Friday October 09, 2009 @11:31AM (#29693733)

    Too bad that most Western law insists that the law apply equally to everyone. Lawmakers would write simply the greatest laws . . . if they themselves didn't have to be bound by them.

    We'd have the greatest family values, the greatest IP protection, the greatest right to life . . .

    If only the lawmakers could be above the laws . . .

    • by mbone (558574)

      Too bad that most Western law insists that the law apply equally to everyone.

      This seems relevant somehow :

      La loi, dans un grand souci d'égalité, interdit aux riches comme aux pauvres de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

      The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

      Anatole France.

  • The President of the French Republic is not going to have his Internet service disconnected. I may not know much, but I know that.

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Working...