Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

French MPs Consider P2P Downloads Again

Posted by Zonk on Fri Mar 03, 2006 02:32 PM
from the swashbucklers-beware dept.
Movies Music Politics
gregbains writes "French MPs are preparing to vote again on a proposal that would allow users to download music and movies in exchange for a flat fee per month. This announcement caused outrage from the music and movie groups, but excitement from the vast majority of civilians." From the BBC article: "A report by the Economic and Social Council which advises parliament on new laws argued that P2P exchanges should be made legal. Meanwhile France's highest court, the Cour de Cassation, ruled there was no automatic right for consumers to make private copies of their own DVDs. As MPs prepare to vote again, backing for the global licence remains strong despite the government's opposition."

Related Stories

[+] Legal Victory for P2P in France 237 comments
nietsch writes "The Register is reporting that a french Kazaa user that had been sued by the SCPP (the french equivalent of the RIAA) has been acquitted by the courts in his county. 'The Judges decided that these acts of downloading and uploading qualified as private copying' Ars Technica has more coverage on the subject, or you can read it in english from the organization that lead the defense."
[+] Free P2P In France? 190 comments
cyberbian writes to tell us that earlier in the week the French Parliament voted to allow free sharing of music and movies on the Internet. This ruling puts them in direct conflict with both the Media companies and the rest of the French government. From the article: " If the amendment survives, France would be the first country to legalize so called peer-to-peer downloading, said Jean-Baptiste Soufron, legal counsel to the Association of Audionautes, a French group that defends people accused of improperly sharing music files. The law would be a blow to media companies that increasingly use the courts worldwide to sue people for downloading or sharing music and movie files. Entertainment companies such as Walt Disney Co., Viacom Inc. and News Corp.'s Fox say free downloading of unauthorized copies of TV shows and movies before they are released on DVD will cost them $5 billion in revenue this year."
[+] France Moving Forward on Legalized P2P 194 comments
Romerican writes "Over a month ago, Slashdotters joked about France's efforts to legalize P2P. Originally dismissed as a trivial coup by a small group, the French government continues to entertain the topic. News.com is reporting the French Minister of Culture will advocate P2P as a flat-fee service." From the article: "The draft law, which originally aimed to tackle online piracy, is backed by consumer groups in France but heavily opposed by such companies as Vivendi Universal, which owns Universal Music, the world's biggest record company, and a stake in film and TV company NBC Universal. French cinema and music trading associations together with rock stars such as Johnny Hallyday have spoken out against the law, arguing it would kill their work. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

French MPs Consider P2P Downloads Again 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.

  • If the content companies are so pissed... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spazntwich (208070) on Friday March 03 2006, @02:37PM (#14844859)
    ...they can just stop making movies.

    I think the biggest problem in the past 10 years with entertainment companies AND consumers is that each side forgets it needs the other. The MPAA and RIAA fuck with their customers enough, and someday it WILL be too much for Joe Blow, and in the same turn, if we completely fuck the entertainment companies and take away their incentive to produce content, well, they'll just stop.

    I don't see why we have to be enemies, and as long as each side is saying "They started it with their (piracy/DRM)!" we won't get anywhere.

    • Re:If the content companies are so pissed... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by slavemowgli (585321) on Friday March 03 2006, @03:06PM (#14845173) Homepage
      No, they won't just stop. No matter what they say, as long as they're making even the slightest amount of money, they won't stop. They will *tell* you that they might stop in order to scare you, of course, but that's just another way of squeezing more money from you.

      Ultimately, they cannot win. Contrary to what you say, we do not need the entertainment industry; until less than 200 years ago, they didn't even exist, yet humanity was doing quite fine. Did Bach, Mozart or Beethoven need the RIAA in order to be able to compose their works? Did Shakespeare need the Author's Guild in order to write? Did da Vinci need, well, whoever in order to pain the Mona Lisa? Not at all.

      It's important to realise that. The entertainment industry is a convenience, but not a strict necessity, and it would be well-advised to not let things reach a point where they're more annoying than convenient. People don't need the entertainment industry, but the entertainment industry very much needs people. Without consumers, they literally would not exist.
      [ Parent ]
      • Did Bach, Mozart or Beethoven need the RIAA in order to be able to compose their works?

        Nope. They all had rich patrons who commissioned their work.

        I agree. We should go back to this. We will let Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer tell us what we can listen to...
        • We should go back to this. We will let Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer tell us what we can listen to... and Bush... and anyone else with the money.

          This would be a good thing. You see, nowadays, "people with money" includes ordinary people. This may not have b
    • Um dude, the consumer does NOT need the movie companies. not in any way shape or form.

      There are so many good indie groups out there making films that there is no way in hell that the consumer would have nothing to watch, Hell if all the big MPAA Studios

        • Well since there are only Seven Basic stories What do you propose to make movies about without remakes?


          A man kills an orange. The stampede of giraffes fly Mozart blue. All the lightbulbs vanish in the end.

          Ok, so you don't like it, but at least it's origi

    • We're best buddies (Score:3, Insightful)

      by poptones (653660)
      But most of the free riders are too blinded by self interest to see it. In fact, this law is seriously misguided and I hope the good people of france gain he foresight to see through it. The license fees ultimately paid in any such exchange would go direct

    • Re:If the content companies are so pissed... (Score:4, Informative)

      by KiloByte (825081) on Friday March 03 2006, @04:17PM (#14845877)
      I think the biggest problem in the past 10 years with entertainment companies AND consumers is that each side forgets it needs the other.

      Wrong.

      Check out how $16-1c paid for a single record gets split (source:

      $0.17 Musicians' unions
      $0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
      $0.82 Publishing royalties
      $0.80 Retail profit
      $0.90 Distribution
      $1.60 Artists' royalties
      $1.70 Label profit
      $2.40 Marketing/promotion
      $2.91 Label overhead
      $3.89 Retail overhead

      The only part that is not complete waste is $1.60 that goes for artists' royalties. This includes recouping all of their costs, taxes, profits, etc. Everything else is just overhead.

      Pressing CDs is a matter of a few cents, boxes and covers are a bit more expensive. Distribution of CDs can be way cheaper than it is the case for daily newspapers -- a CD is a bit smaller, and no one will notice if it takes weeks instead of hours to get to its destination. You can add marketing costs if you don't believe in alternate means of promotion -- just to count all the costs in the classic way.
      Every penny extra goes to anti-customer anti-artist parasites, the worst possible type of middle-men.

      Now, the analysis above applies only if you use the old way -- CDs in plastic boxes. In comparison, using the Net reduces the distribution costs to fractions of cents per record -- and it can do all marketing for you as well.

      So, why exactly do we need RIAA and MPAA again?
      [ Parent ]

  • this wont work (Score:2, Interesting)

    by psycho chic (958251)
    i dont see this working. as much as i like file sharing, record companies need money to make it. If file sharing is deemed legal, there will need to be more then a flat fee (assuming the fee is minimal) to keep media companies afloat. money does eventually
    • record companies need money to make it.

      Who cares? I'm more interested in the artists anyways, the record companies add nothing of value to music IMO. And artists will survive, even if the music business shrinks to a tenth of it's current size, artists wi

  • Yay (Score:2, Funny)

    by kin242 (789922)
    Vive la France!!!
  • I'm glad to see that French MPs are considering P2P downloads again, but what about the rest of the people in France?

    BTW, which P2P software do the MPs prefer?

  • I'm actually considering launching a Canadian music download service. I want to get sued so I can change this [slashdot.org] law. Also, I'm broke and I have nothing to lose. Any suggestions as to where I should begin?

  • Some sense at last (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jdduke (733610) on Friday March 03 2006, @02:44PM (#14844949)

    Users would pay a few euros a month to download as much music or film material as they wanted, with proceeds going to the artists.

    Socialist MP Patrick Bloche helped draft the amendment.

    He argues it makes no sense to treat several million French internet users as potential offenders.

    "Rather than outlawing, punishing, and paradoxically maintaining to a certain extent an illegal system," he says, "let's make a different choice: authorising peer-to-peer downloading, but in return, putting in place a system allowing artists to be paid."

    Wow, there is someone listening after all! Props to French MPs for standing up to the music industry.

  • Look, non-news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shihar (153932) on Friday March 03 2006, @02:58PM (#14845091)
    I can't even begin to count the number of filed lawsuits, proposed laws, and stupid shit some official with no power to enact law has said that has made it as news on Slashdot. People, this isn't important news. This stuff doesn't matter.

    People sue over the stupidest things all the time and promptly have their case thrown out or simply end up loosing on a later date. That isn't a failure of the court system; that is simply how it works. Everyone gets make their case, no matter how stupid and inane it is. I could go sue CNN over their theft of my copyright of the word "the". Even though you can't copyright the word "the", and even if you could I still wouldn't own it, it would get posted on Slashdot like it is news. We would have a spam of posts decrying the end of the world is coming because of patents, and ignore the fact that my case is going to be thrown out as soon as a judge looks at it.

    The same happens with these proposed laws. They are proposed laws, nothing more. When a state or nation enacts a law that affects geeks, THEN report it. Maybe if it is a really large and important law you might report on it before hand. A proposed French P2P doesn't even come close to meeting this criteria, nor was the proposed treat video games as porn law in Utah. Proposals are nothing more then that. Proposals. If this is passed as a law, then sure, it is news. Until then, this is just more Slashdot clutter.

    • Re:Look, non-news (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rob T Firefly (844560)
      There is always the very real danger that a bunch of lawmakers who know no better will pass malformed laws with unforseen consequences. Spreaqding the word about the germination of a potential stupid law in its early phases and causing an uproar among the

  • They need something to do after their 35 hour work week is completed and during their 5+ weeks of vacation!

    (No, I'm not jealous, I'm just cracking wise. My current job (programmer) is hourly (W-2, not 1099), so I get paid for every .1 hours I work and i
  • Offtopic as hell, but with all the fairly anti-French comments that are going to get modded up as funny, I think I might as well set the facts straight.

    A lot of Americans love to make a mockery of the French. A lot of this revolves around the French surrender in world war 2, and how the Americans had to "save" the French from Nazi occupation.

    Let's make a few things clear here:

    1) The French lost 1.5 million men in the First World War, with over 4 million wounded. [source] [wikipedia.org]. The social and moral effect of this were devestating. The French are still feeling the demographic effects to this day. Petain, the infamous Nazi collaberator dur WWII, was one of those in command during the first war and was very aware of the devestation of modern war, and one of the major reasons for the surrender was that neither he, nor a huge amount of the French public were willing to pay such a high price again.

    Americans love to mock the French over this, "Cheese eating..." surrender, but think for a moment of American war sentiment in the aftermath of Vietnam. Having suffered only ~60,000 war dead, America effectively became war adverse until after the first Gulf War, and probably till this day to some extent.

    Multiply that by x23 times and then try and reasses the French situation.

    2) Not everyone in France rolled over and surrendered. Everyone on these boards has heard of the french resistance, and not without good cause. "La Resistance" is to this day a phrase synonomous with any freedom fighters all over the world. Try to remember that quite a lot of French people did what most americans would never do if their country was occupied. Red Dawn is a feelgood movie, not a social commentary on American patriotism.

    3) This one is Serious.

    America did not win the Second World War In Europe.

    The western front was absolutely not what defeated Germany. No way in hell. The war was decided on the Eastern Front. Almost completely. Russia defeated the Nazi's. Not British stiff upper lips. Not the D-day Landings. No. The Russians defeated the German Army.

    Don't get me wrong. The Western front was a vital moment in that it ensured western europe did not fall under another dicatorship. But please, do not bullshit either yourself or others by perpetuating this myth that America, or England, defeated the Nazi's. It wasn't Shermans that rolled into Berlin.

    So take a moment to come off the pedastal, realise that not everyone in the world lives in a nice safe and secure democracy, and please, stay out of penis size competitions with the French, because they see a lot more action than American's do. Both kinds.

    Disclaimer: I am not French, and to be honest, I don't like France very much.

    • Re:Lay Off The French OK (Score:4, Insightful)

      by msbsod (574856) on Friday March 03 2006, @03:13PM (#14845240)
      Most people in the US have forgotten how much this country owe the French for their sacrifice.
      A bit of history: http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/caphenry.htm [xenophongroup.com]
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Lay Off The French OK (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DrEldarion (114072) * on Friday March 03 2006, @03:50PM (#14845602)
      Having suffered only ~60,000 war dead, America effectively became war adverse until after the first Gulf War, and probably till this day to some extent.

      To be fair, it's one thing when you abandon a war when fighting in another country, but a completely different thing when you're fighting for your own. If there were a country attempting to take the US over, I'm sure we wouldn't just roll over and let them have it after a few thousand dead.

      Note that I'm not trying to defend the anti-french sentiment, I just think your statement is misleading.

      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Lay Off The French OK (Score:3, Informative)

      by Kadin2048 (468275)
      I think your comment about the Eastern Front neglects to really appreciate how close the Russians were, at several points, to losing that portion of the war. It's quite believable that if the Germans hadn't had to fight a war on two fronts simultaneously,

  • I must say... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by danpsmith (922127) on Friday March 03 2006, @03:09PM (#14845194)
    ...that this is what I've been wanting for a long time in this country.

    I've always said that I wish the movies, music, and whatever industries would just get together and charge a flat fee, and offer all their content for one monthly fee. It might be expensive, say 100 a month or something, but that would be better I think. That way the people who like music more wouldn't be punished by the RIAA or have to buy a billion CDs for 15 a piece. You don't have to go bankrupt to be interested in pop culture and we can finally have a truly free exchange of information. How many people buy more than 100 dollars a month worth of movies and music anyway? I know I'd be under that bar even if I was still buying albums. I think this french thing is a great idea.

  • France is doing quite well right now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats (122034) on Friday March 03 2006, @03:25PM (#14845353) Homepage
    Work. Yes, a 35 hour week and 5 week vacations. An hour of work in France buys more stuff than anywhere else.

    Energy. 80% of electricity in France comes from nuclear plants. Most of the rest is from hydroelectric plants. Cheapest electricity in Europe. France exports electricity. Now that's energy independence.

    Back in 1973, at the first "oil shock" of the Arab oil embargo, there was debate in France over what to do. The decision was made to go for energy independence. Unlike in the US, that decision was carried out. And now France is reaping the rewards. They don't have to fight wars for oil.

  • FTA:

    Users would pay a few euros a month to download as much music or film material as they wanted, with proceeds going to the artists.

    So the money goes to the artists. But how is the pot of gold divided up?? Are the numbers of downloads for each arti

  • Sign the Petition (Score:2, Informative)

    by GRW (63655)
    Sign the petition [bugiweb.com] for a global licence by L'Alliance Public-Artists [bugiweb.com] (public and artists for a legal solution for exchanges on the Internet). The organization mentioned in the BBC story is L'Association Des Audionautes [audionautes.net]. All pages are in French. Use Googl [google.ca]

  • question about the writeup (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shark72 (702619) on Friday March 03 2006, @05:23PM (#14846434)

    "This announcement caused outrage from the music and movie groups, but excitement from the vast majority of civilians."

    I've read a few articles on this, but none have supported the claim that this was supported by the "vast majority" of civilians.

    As a sanity check, I most certainly would not want a socialized music system in the US. I don't want to pay a tax for something I wouldn't use. Of the people who are within 50 feet of me at this moment, some might like the idea, some might hate it, but most of them couldn't care less. When I expand this circle to include everybody in my family, the "couldn't care less" ratio increases dramatically.

    Is it really the case that the French are different, and the "vast majority" of them want a socialized music system?

    My guess is that the writer has made the assumption that because all of his friends happen to be file sharing fans (which is plausible, if he's in high school or college, and/or his friends all happen to be nerds as well), then this mindset is shared by everybody.

    • As a Frenchman, let me give you some insight. We *already* have a socialized music system (and a TV system too). Let's say you're a taxi driver. While driving your customers, you listen to radio. *Any* radio, including a non music radio. Well, you have to

    • Re:The basic issue (Score:3, Informative)

      by 2.7182 (819680)
      You're joke is in bad taste. Many people in the French resistance died fighting for freedom, despite the popular notion that the resistance didn't do much. Read the wiki entry. [wikipedia.org]
        • I do agree that they don't have 100% free speech. For example, they control the language of the songs played on the radio (a certain percentage must be in French). But you don't get put in prison for criticizing the government.
          • No, but french SWAT-equivalent cops do wear masks so you can't recognize their faces.

          • Re:The basic issue (Score:5, Insightful)

            by lovebyte (81275) * <lovebyte2000@@@gmail...com> on Friday March 03 2006, @03:29PM (#14845390) Homepage
            It's true. There are laws in France requiring radios to play something like 30 percent French songs. But you can say (French or any other language) bad words and show breasts on TV without any problems. And you Brits and Americans, you can't. So whose got the better end of the free speech stick?
            [ Parent ]

          • Re:The basic issue (Score:3, Interesting)

            by msbsod (574856)
            Actually they only control the ratio of French over other languages. I know there is a lot of good music in the world. Most of it is not in English. Now, how frequently does your radio station in the US (except for NPR) broadcast something in a language ot
        • It is clear that the grandparent intended on using "you're", but omitted the word "a" and accidentally inserted "is". The poster intended to say "You are a joke in bad taste".
    • Try learning enough French to read French technical review sites. You will find they are far more probing and critical than US ones. The same goes for their dead tree magazines.

      However, the French do have laws that protect personal privacy. Also, EU countr

      • One person's lies are another person's truth. Who decides?

        I'm always suspicious of people that want to put limits on the flow of ideas, e.g. speech. If an idea is abhorrent or rings false to most people, they will speak and act against the speaker. Free

      • Re:Depends on what you mean by free speech (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lgw (121541) on Friday March 03 2006, @03:45PM (#14845544) Journal
        and that carries implications that there will be laws against one section of the community stirring up hatred against another. If that is curtailment of freedom of speech, I think most people would support it.

        I am always suspicious of the people who try to extend the notion of freedom of speech to include the publication of actual lies.

        Popular speech does not need to be protected. The only interesting freedom of speech is freedom of unpopular speech.

        To not bash the French (just for variety), in Germany you can go to jail for 3 years for disrespecting another's religion, as the man who was selling toilet paper with the word "koran" printed on it has learned. So inoffensive speech is presumably protected, but expression that offends someone? Off to jail for 3 years.

        Freedom of speech is exactly freedom of highly offensive speech. Why do people have a hard time with this concept? If you want to value "not offending people" higher than freedom of speech, that's fine for you, but don't call the result "freedom of speech", call it something else.
        [ Parent ]

      • From your link:

        Middle English cassatioun, from Old French cassation

        It's a french loan word. It's even spelled the french way in modern english. It's not an english word any more than Gran Turismo is Japanese :P

    • Re:Cour de cassation? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Matlo (824176)
      Cour de cassation is like court of appeal. That's where you go when you want to appeal from a previous decision. I would not call it the highest court. There are several of them, in major cities. And the highest court, similar to the Supreme court, is the

      • Re:Cour de cassation? (Score:4, Informative)

        by El Cabri (13930) on Friday March 03 2006, @03:43PM (#14845526) Journal
        I'm afraid this person who I assume is a fellow French national, is a little bit misinformed himself about the workings of his own country : the Cour de Cassation IS the highest court for civil law. There are three institutions that cover what the Supreme Court does in the US : The Cour de Cassation and the Council of State are the highest appeals for respectively civil law and administrative law. The former rules whether justice was administered properly in cases involving crimes and felonies of people or businesses. The later judges whether the State and the local governments act within their legit powers and is the highest appeal for people who, to put in in American terms, "sue the government". And finally the Constitutionnal Council censors bills when they are incompatible with the constitution or international law, _before thay are made into law_. It is not possible to appeal to it once the law is signed, unlike with the Supreme Court.
        [ Parent ]
    • Yes : to break the ruling of a lower court. That's what the cour de cassation, which is the highest court for civil law, does. Note that the CdC does not rule on the content of cases, but only on the way justice was administered.

    • Re:Misguided (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shark72 (702619)

      Sadly, I can anticipate the answer to your question about the little guy. It goes something like this:

      "If musicians are so worried about making money, then they're businesspeople, not musicians. They should be in the business just for the love of crea

Check for more

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.