French Court Levies First Fine Under 3-Strikes Piracy Law 229
itwbennett writes "In the first trial resulting from the controversial three-strikes copyright law, a French court on Thursday fined a man €150 for failing to secure his Internet connection. His negligence led to the illegal download of files, including two Rihanna songs that were downloaded by his wife."
Keep the woman in line? (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently in France, it is a man's responsibility to police the behavior of his wife. After all, women are property.
Re:Keep the woman in line? (Score:5, Informative)
According to the 3-strike law, it's the responsibility of one who signs a contract for internet access contract to make sure that his/her computer cannot be used to breach law. The lady will not be fined because it's just too difficult for the Court to prove she downloaded the file (and not a neighbour or a relative on a visit). But the guy can be fined, because the contract was in his name, and it can be proven that his connection was used to download a song illegally.
Re: (Score:3)
because it's just too difficult for the Court to prove she downloaded the file (and not a neighbour or a relative on a visit).
Yeah, due process is pretty hard. Why don't we just get rid of all of it? Just throw people in prison based on mere accusations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Prisons have free Internet access, don't they? I wonder what happens if someone downloads music while incarcerated....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was just objecting to the "it's just too difficult" line of reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have that in police states.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the article, his wife admitted to downloading the two songs, and even gave the court (a police tribunal actually) a written statement saying so.
Good job France! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good job France! (Score:5, Informative)
What do you mean "out of nowhere"? France was the first country to pass 3-strike laws for copyright violations and has been pushing this crap for years. /. covered this extensively 4 years ago... [slashdot.org] and I'm pretty sure it was on here even before that, but I'm too lazy to do more Googling.
I'm just surprised it's taken them this long to enforce the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was that little slug Sarkozy getting blow jobs from his RIAA/MPAA wife foe legislation. Don't be surprised if the law isn't revised to death before too long. He would keep trying to force the law through and it was continually knocked back by the government, until the very end.
Obviously the law is corrupt as it requires the level of expertise equal to degree in computer science with security experience to truly effectively defend against, rather than something the general user has any hope of managing
Re:Good job France! (Score:5, Insightful)
France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.
A lot less dumbass than elsewhere: 150 euros is a slap on the wrist. I bet speeding tickets go for more. This is downright enlightened by G20 standards. In the United States, people get thrown in jail, or face hundred thousand dollar fines -- thus ensuring permanent poverty for life.
Re: (Score:2)
Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)
Re:Good job France! (Score:4, Informative)
Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)
They don't, not directly. What they do is get a judgement against you. Then the debtor repeatedly files motions to have you appear in court, which when they have a judgement against you, they can do, so the judge can assess your income, pay back plan, etc. The key word here is repeatedly, sometimes several times a month. Since these judgements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, there's no hope for them to repay it. And as you might imagine, when you have an appointment two or more times a month for the rest of your life, sooner or later circumstances are going to arise where you miss your court date.
And that is when you go to jail: For failing to appear, or contempt of court. The sentence in either is indeterminate; An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.
God Bless America.
Re: (Score:2)
Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)
They don't, not directly. What they do is get a judgement against you. Then the debtor repeatedly files motions to have you appear in court, which when they have a judgement against you, they can do, so the judge can assess your income, pay back plan, etc. The key word here is repeatedly, sometimes several times a month. Since these judgements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, there's no hope for them to repay it. And as you might imagine, when you have an appointment two or more times a month for the rest of your life, sooner or later circumstances are going to arise where you miss your court date.
And that is when you go to jail: For failing to appear, or contempt of court. The sentence in either is indeterminate; An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.
God Bless America.
can you cite the case where this happened? it sounds a bit fishy to me. there is something called 'abuse of process'.
Re:Good job France! (Score:4, Informative)
can you cite the case where this happened? it sounds a bit fishy to me. there is something called 'abuse of process'.
Here's your fish [huffingtonpost.com]. Many more can be found by simply googling for 'debtors prison'.
Re: (Score:2)
An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.
I'm going with citation needed here...a quick googling only picked up one anecdotal instance of a judge sentencing someone to indefinite incarceration until he could raise a payment. This is obviously a questionable ruling but so was the source, which provided very little detail of the case.
I can't find evidence of laws such as you describe in any US jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
But not for a copyright case.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they throw you in jail? Dragging you through the court system for years is far worse. Jail is easy time compared to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Except he got it for failing to "secure" his internet connection, not for copyright infringement. Imagine you're a building owner renting out the apartment to tenants with internet connection. They download, you get fined. That level of indirection is a new level of stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.
A lot less dumbass than elsewhere: 150 euros is a slap on the wrist.
Well, that doesn't make the law any less dumb. In theory, the fine can be ten times that, and can be accompanied with a one month suspension of internet access.
Now, courts can't just ignore the law, but it just so happens that they have a lot of leeway about the effective penalty they pronounce (to the point that, very rarely, a person can be condemned without penalty). This is a case of the courts, not the law, being reasonable.
Maybe the current government, too: the procureur (prosecuting magistrate) requi
Re: (Score:2)
A lot less dumbass than elsewhere: 150 euros is a slap on the wrist.
Tell that to someone that earns about 1000 euros a month...
Re:Good job France! (Score:5, Insightful)
France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.
doesn't sound quite as dumbass as fining him 2 345 423 dollars for it.
150e doesn't cover the expenses generated by the proceedings though.. so I guess it's true french.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither does sentencing a murderer to jail. The point in both cases is deterrence.
Re: (Score:2)
150e doesn't cover the expenses generated by the proceedings though.. so I guess it's true french.
Well, this is assuming that EUR 150 is all he'll have to pay.
However, in France (just like in many other places and possibly even yours), the losing side of the trial may have to pay a fine (here, the 150 euros), but also bears the costs of the trial, or "dépens"), which I think are the proceeds you are speaking of.
So I guess it (meaning your comment) is true... lacking in the fact-checking department. :)
Hope this (meaning my explanation) helps, if ever so slightly, a lessening of broad-prejudice-bas
well at least it is 150$ (Score:2)
Re:Good job France! (Score:4, Insightful)
Good riddance I say. Let the rich leave, and other entrepreneurs start new businesses that actually make the economy grow.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem, of course, is that the rich are the entrepreneurs. That's how they become rich in the first place. The other problem, of course, will be the need to kick those awesome entrepreneurs you speak so hopefully of out of the country once they commit the sin of actually making some money and magically morph into one of the damn dirty rich people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
" the rich are the entrepreneurs"
Not quite true for 2 reasons.
The first is that the means of becoming or being rich aren't necessarily entrepreneurial. Corporations demonstrate this every day by enjoying government protection from having to actually serve the market. These types are not entrepreneurial at all.
The second reason is in your own claim. 'That's how they become rich in the first place'. This necessarily implies existence of entrepreneurs that are not rich. This fact is overlooked(particular by th
Re: (Score:2)
The 75% income tax does not apply to athletes, artists, "creators" (whatever that means), etc...
Working from this, you'll have CEOs say the tax doesn't apply to them, because they're magicians. "Look, 75000 jobs, DISAPPEAR! Poof!"
Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Either marriage is very different in France or this is a bizarre ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
The law will punish who it likes and however much it likes. It doesn't matter out tortuously or illogically the law needs to be interpreted, it only matters who the defendant managed to piss off.
Re: (Score:3)
Either marriage is very different in France or this is a bizarre ruling.
Er, both? In France, marriage is a private affair between the husband, the wife, and the personal trainer. And it's a bizarre ruling because nobody went to jail or had their lives ruined... which is common in both french marriages and file sharing cases.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a mistranslation. The actual term is more closely translated to "domestic partner."
The tell-tale sign is that they had been properly married, the man would have been fined $10,000 per song instead of a measly $150.
Re: (Score:3)
I just read the story in a french newspaper. They are in divorce.
Re: (Score:3)
RTFA
Sir, I'll have you know that's a curse word on this site!
That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/11/1740241/8th-circuit-upholds-220000-verdict-in-jammie-thomas-case [slashdot.org]
In the USA it's $9250 per song. In France it's â75 ($190 US) per song.
The penalty in France seems to me to be proportionate and sane. The person penalized did, or allowed to be done, something illegal but not especially malicious or very damaging. They face a penalty which will certainly be unwelcome and which will probably encourage them to act within the law. No huge court case, no lives wrecked, no lawyers riding the gravy train. *This is how a legal system is supposed to be.* That is the difference between "The Rule of Law" and "The Rule of Lawyers".
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, behaving within the law means the guy turned off his broadband completely. Needing to defend your home broadband against members of your family is crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
Until you've accidentally left a drive open containing your legitimate collection of 5,000 MP3s amassed over the last decade.
We cannot excuse stupid laws by being hopeful that the sentence is lenient, or that the executive may have mercy.
As to lawyers... while I do speak as someone with some legal education, if you honestly don't think you can get anywhere representing yourself then a lawyer's lied to you. (And, as you may be able to tell, having representation may not get you any further - indeed, it'll on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
English familiarity, here, though US not wildly different. I know very little French beyond what's common to EU law - if you are right, it is interesting! though it would also be necessary to see whether French law admits multiple counts of the same offence spaced apart in time...
Re: (Score:2)
Going to have to be a bit more specific than that - your assertion would be at least contrary to ECHR art.6(2). Perhaps you mean that a prima facie case shifts the burden onto the defendant?
Re: (Score:3)
Your expression is as giddy as your message apocryphal.
Re: (Score:2)
"accidentally left a drive open"????
I use p2p applications such as bittorrent (Transmission and rtorrent clients) and ed2k (aMule). Since the demise of Kazaa and similar there hasn't really been a circumstance where the p2p user might have "accidentally left a drive open". If I get caught I will be pissed off but I won't really have a right to complain if the penalty is proportionate.
I didn't make any claims about self representation, so your attempt to take me to task for this is a straw man argument.
The
Re: (Score:2)
there hasn't really been a circumstance where the p2p user might have "accidentally left a drive open"
Windows share? NFS? FTP? Vulnerable machine, perhaps not updated properly? We're assuming someone borrowing yer wireless, yes? It sounds like you're saying that there is no way a home user could leave files available to anyone within 100 metres unless he tries, and that just ain't so.
I didn't make any claims about self representation, so your attempt to take me to task for this is a straw man argument.
You are unnecessarily confrontational. I was making a general point that people should not feel helpless when confronting the law.
Having said that, conspiracies about a gravy train for lawyers just disempower the individual. It
Re: (Score:2)
"Windows share? NFS? FTP?"
Making these shared is a deliberate act.
"Vulnerable machine, perhaps not updated properly?"
That would be negligent. If I fail to maintain my vehicle and I crash it into your garden fence because the brakes failed I am still responsible. I can try "I forgot to check the brakes work" as a reason/excuse in the correspondence with the insurance company but it is doomed to failure, along with "the dog ate my homework" and "it was my twin" and "I thought the fence was communal propert
Re: (Score:2)
Making these shared is a deliberate act.
Or maybe you misconfigured your server, or forgot that you had shared a folder which you later use for storage. Maybe you chose a password so obvious that it is effectively null, not thinking/knowing that a stranger could access your local network.
That would be negligent.
And you had said:
there hasn't really been a circumstance where the p2p user might have "accidentally left a drive open".
To clarify in English law: intent requires the outcome to have been your purpose in doing whatever. What you might be describing is subjective recklessness, i.e. you do something even though you are aware of a risk of the outcome. For example, if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No it isn't. Stop thinking like a perfect geek.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If by "lazy and inept" you mean "anyone who wants to temporarily give access to a group of other people" or "anyone who finds out that WiFi devices don't always interoperate with all the security turned on" or "anyone who doesn't buy modern equipment first hand" (my WiFi equipment from 10 years ago still works fine), then yes, "lazy and inept".
Since we're illegalising lazy and inept, can I bring a private prosecution against you for your lazy, inept argument? I was hoping you had something clever, but it tu
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing about needing to be an expert required. Just be able to read the external packaging on a box, and the quick start guide (almost always a single sheet of paper these days, even if it fold out big). OMFG, requiring that someone
Re: (Score:2)
if you "fix" your car to let more people ride in it by modifying
A WiFi router is not like a car. It is not a deadly box zooming around at 30+ mph. Its usage is not regulated by licence.
the quick start guide
Never seen a "blaming the victim" section in a manual for a wireless router.
OMFG, requiring that someone either know the law
Ignorance of the law is not being plead, merely its nitwittedness.
Yeah, I hope you hate it, we don't need any more arrogant pricks, we just got rid of Palin to tour the lower 48, and we don't need you coming up to fill the void of ignorance left behi
Hey, thanks for showing me how she managed to get elected in the first place.
You are a dullard. I shall not be reading any further response.
Re: (Score:2)
Its usage is not regulated by licence.
It is regulated by license (FCC), though not in France, as well as contract. It is the contract "license" that is in question.
Never seen a "blaming the victim" section in a manual for a wireless router.
The "victim" in this is the poor innocent media company who had their valuable works of art stolen by raping and pillaging pirates. When you accuse someone of blaming the victim, you should at least bother to identify the victim first.
Ignorance of the law is not being plead, merely its nitwittedness.
Yes, I understand you are pleading nitwittedness with every post you make. I can't dispute that. If the person understood the law, and their respon
Doesn't sound too bad... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The law stated that the new organism responsible of applying the 3-strike law (the HADOPI) should have written and published such specifications, but the HADOPI didn't (and they probably never will), and still pursued their prosecution mission."
Then the entire case and the law should have been argued and thrown out on those grounds. If that doesn't work the next set of riots should be after the rights holders, government officials who passed this crap, and the judges who didn't toss it out w
Ah, FRANCE (Score:2)
Three strikes is a bullshit law (Score:2)
Of course, France maybe interested in free speech like the civilized world is.
The people trying to push censorship on the Internet, try it in the US first, and if it fails there, they try and push it in other countries to see how it could be spread around the world.
Perhaps this is a good thing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, why is he liable for what his WIFE did? If she committed the crime she should be fined. Not him.
I can understand the ISP cutting service due to a violation of TOS by sharing with your neighbors, but sharing with your own family is a ( potentially criminal ) TOS violation??? WTF?
I hate to use a car analogy, but if you loaned your car out to a guy across the street, and he robbed a bank and used your car for the getaway ( but you didn't know he was of course, or we would have a different legal
Re: (Score:2)
Because the law states it's the subscriber's liability for any infringement done on the connection. This also has nothing to do with e ISP's ToS. Lastly, this is not a criminal matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the law states it's the subscriber's liability for any infringement done on the connection.
Which is completely idiocy. The husband is negligent because he let his wife use the connection that was in his name? Are they kidding?
What that effectively means is that each individual must have their own connection, and not share it with anybody. I'm sure the ISPs would love that, but it makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they be kidding?
I think somebody else said that 'wife' may not be the correct translation, but let's run with that. When you marry, you generally tend to take on joint responsibility on shared resources. But let's also run with the idea that, in fact, you don't take on joint responsibility.
Don't you think that, in such a case, it would be wise to ask your wife no
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fine wasn't for her copyright violation, it was for his negligence.
Here's a more appropriate analogy:
In my state, you're required to have an emergency exit for every bedroom. The apartment I used to live at, before my roommates sued, had a bedroom with only one exit. This would be equivalent to punishing the landlord had my roommate fallen asleep with a lit cigarette and been killed/injured in the fire because he couldn't escape easily due to the building not being up to code.
The appropriate thing to be outraged about is not that he is being held responsible for his wife's crimes -- they're saying he was negligent and that's a pretty well accepted concept. The thing to be outraged about is that they've decided that having an open wifi network is negligent. I intentionally disable the security on mine...what would they call that? Conspiracy? Aiding and abetting?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And in my case, when my wife gets a ticket, I do end up paying for it, regardless of whose picture was taken.
Re: (Score:2)
It will broadcast the SSID if you want it to, and the intended purpose of that is to let other people connect.
And, in an odd twist, it's more secure to broadcast your SSID than not. Broadcast and encrypt.
How is it reasonable to prosecute person A for what person B does with person A's equipment?
Ask that to the people convicted for loaning a car to someone that used it in a crime. Happens regularly in the US. So quite absurd for the Americans to complain about others doing the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle [wikipedia.org] for one.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like being fined for not locking your gun safe. You're not being charged with the murder somebody committed using your gun.
Obviously a gun is something that generally requires a license in most countries, unlike the internet, so the expectation of access point responsibility is a little far-reaching in my opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no search warrants in France. The police (and especially the Gendarmerie) is allowed to enter any building, any house, any property, within certain conditions (for example, they're not allowed to wake you up before 6AM). The only time that a DA has to sign something off is if there is no official case yet, and the owner of the property did not agree to it being searched.
Other than that, they can just walk in and have a coffee for all they care.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (Score:4, Informative)
There are no search warrants in France. The police (and especially the Gendarmerie) is allowed to enter any building, any house, any property, within certain conditions (for example, they're not allowed to wake you up before 6AM)
They still need a Commission rogatoire delivered by a judge, which is almost they same thing as a warrant. The exception is the flagrant délit, when a policeman just witnessed a crime. But I bet that it is the same in other country: if you kill someone in front of a policeman and then hide in your house, in what country the police needs a paper to arrest you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is quite right. The law states that liability for infringement is on the subscriber of the internet service.
No, he is not liable for infringement. He is responsible for securing his connection so that others can't infringe, and failing to do this is what he was fined for. The infringer is liable for infringement, but since the connection was not secured (for which he was fined), it is very, very hard to prove who the infringer was.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you Chris Brown?
Sadly, the guy downloading a copy of Rihanna's songs gets more punishment than the guy who beat the shit out of her.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's advocating violence against men - which, my political correctness compass tells me, is absolutely fine.
150 euro fine, in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Mebbe, contrary to popular belief here in the States, France just might have something to teach us. Just, not about music. Rhiannon?? Really????
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
_______________
Source: I've tested it multiple times and with different accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
look, it's a sort of "mobius strip" joke, where the logic twists on itself at the end. it was facetious. anyone not having a shitty day can see that. change your fucking tampon and move on, bitch. i'm not your fucking boyfriend so don't yell at me (don't hit me, either).
for all your trouble, my post is 50% mixed positive/50% troll (labelled troll), while your actual woman bashing poster has 50% funny/50% troll (labelled funny). so your crusade really, really, los
Re:Heh (Score:4, Informative)
You're clearly hysterical. Violence is always funny.
Re: (Score:3)
EXCUSE ME? Is this advocating violence against women supposed to be funny on Slashdot? On any website? I hope the mods not only -1 this post, but every post of yours they can get their hands on, you little shit.
Be careful what you wish for.
Re:No, NOT a troll (Score:5, Funny)
I also wish for a pony.
Rare, medium or well done?
Re:No, NOT a troll (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it's not very rare, definitely not well done, and I don't think it can tell the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I already saw that video on the internets, pick a new toy.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may need to re-read the post you're flaming... "entitled woman" does not imply violence, and "she'll smack him around" implies this hypothetical (and yet strangely familiar) woman is the one being abusive.
It's not a troll to tell someone that advocating violence against woman is wrong... unless you're doing it in response to something that has absolutely nothing to do with advocating violence against women.
It's like if I posted "I'm planning to move to the tropic of cancer" and someone replied w
Re:No, NOT a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not a troll to tell someone that advocating violence against women is wrong.
The problem is that you have made the leap from telling a joke about domestic violence to seriously advocating violence against women. That is a flawed argument. People make jokes about all sorts of subject, but it doesn't mean that they are making serious comment about the issue. For example:
Q: What does NASA stand for?
A: Need Another Seven Astronauts
Does anyone who tells this joke really advocate murdering astronauts, or blowing up space shuttles? No. It is just using a tragic event for shock value. Mel Brooks once said "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die". That is basis of a lot of comedy. It is precisely what is happening when people laugh at the Darwin awards.
Here's another one.
Q: What's the biggest difference between 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing?
A: Foreigners once again prove they can do it better and more efficiently.
Is that joke OK? If so, why is a joke about hurting one person not OK? If it is not OK, what is? Perhaps you could provide a list of the acceptable topics for jokes. Or maybe you think we should just eliminate humour completely?
On the same topic as above, let's have a go at another group of vulnerable people:
Q: Why didn't Superman stop the planes from hitting the Trade Towers?
A: Because he's a quadriplegic!
It is a shame that it wasn't Linda Carter who broke her neck, because we could have added a sexist element to that joke too. If there was such a thing as a black, female superhero then we could have had the entire set, but given that female superheros must show 90% skin then it is obvious why there are no black ones. They would use up too much ink!
I seem to be going further off topic, but I hope you get my point. A joke isn't real. You can always tell comedy that tries to have a PC message, because it tends not to be funny. The best thing to do if you belong to of a group that is the butt of a joke is to just ignore it. Irish people do it, blondes do it. Even Australians do it (to their sheep). I say that last one as an Australian. Here is what I am talking about:
A ventriloquist visiting Australia walks into a small outback village and sees a local sitting on his porch patting his dog. He figures he'll have a little fun, so he says to the Aussie: "Hey, mind if I talk to your dog?" ...?! )
Aussie: "The dog doesn't talk, stupid!"
Ventriloquist: "Hello dog, how's it going mate?"
Dog: "Doin' all right."
Aussie: (look of extreme shock)
Ventriloquist: "Is this your owner?"
Dog: "Yep"
Ventriloquist: "How does he treat you?"
Dog: "Good. Walks me twice a day, feeds me well and takes me to the lake once a week to play."
Aussie: (
Ventriloquist: "Mind if I talk to your horse? "
Aussie: "Uhhh..."
Ventriloquist: "Hey horse, how's it going?"
Horse: "Cool"
Ventriloquist: "Is this your owner?"
Horse: "Yep"
Ventriloquist: How does he treat you?
Horse: "Pretty good. He rides me regularly, brushes me down often and keeps me in a nice warm barn."
Ventriloquist: "Mind if I talk to your sheep?"
Aussie: (in a panic) "The sheep's a liar!!!"
My sheep and I had a really good laugh at that one!
Re: (Score:2)
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: Thats not funny!
Re: (Score:3)
You are referring to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com], of course.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that you "love fucking technology".
Re: (Score:2)
Um. That's "fucking" used as an adverb.
Re:2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny, that's about the ratio for health care costs in those two countries as well...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Downmodded because: 1. you can't even spell "faggot" and 2. the only people who use "faggot" as an insult are those that are too stupid to think of anything else.
Now, kindly piss off and get back to doing your homework. Those fractions aren't going to denominate themselves! Before you do go, since I'm not all bad, I'll even help you with your book report; the dog gets his red ball back then goes to rabbit's birthday party.
Re: (Score:2)
"Kudos to the French for getting it only half wrong, when we in the US have it completely stupid."
As we recently were told, they only spent 12 millions to get this result of a fine of 150€.
For the customers, it's cheaper than cable.
Re: (Score:2)
This law is interesting to me as part of my wireless connection is open, a simple deal with BT meaning that in return for allowing some bandwidth to be used by anyone in range I get to use hotspots all over the world for free where others would have to pay.
However, as the router handles this the IP from BT remains the same regardless of which network is used. This means that copyrighted content can be downloaded via the open network and it would appear at first glance that I am the likely culprit. How would