|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2011 2:33:56 GMT 1
Nicolas Sarkozy's war on illegal downloading has begun in earnest, with the state internet surveillance body dubbed "Big Brother" warning more than 100,000 French internet-users that they have been caught accessing pirate material.
The controversial anti-piracy law is one of Sarkozy's pet projects, backed by his singer wife, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. The couple argue that artists must be protected from the nation's massive illegal download culture – France is thought to be the world number one in illegally accessing film and music online.
The internet policing system, known under its acronym Hadopi, investigates specific incidents of illegal downloading reported by music and film companies.
It obtains web-users' details from internet service providers and issues a series of warnings by email and letter. Repeat offenders risk one month's suspension from all internet access.
Those accused of counterfeiting can be fined and cut off from the internet for one year. At least 100,000 warning emails have been sent since early October.
The French left has attacked the law as draconian and against civil liberties. But it is also criticised as ineffective and out of date. The law targets peer-to-peer sites, but not streaming and direct download sites.
|
|
|
Post by Madame Moorhen on Jan 5, 2011 13:17:18 GMT 1
What about torrents? Don't understand most of this but what's it got to do with Sarky if we want to download a TV series that's already been aired? It shouldn't be any more illegal than if you had asked a friend to record it for you. Ditto borrowing someone's DVD of a film or CD of music to watch or listen to.
|
|
|
Post by BartyB on Jan 5, 2011 20:21:54 GMT 1
What about torrents? Don't understand most of this but what's it got to do with Sarky if we want to download a TV series that's already been aired? It shouldn't be any more illegal than if you had asked a friend to record it for you. Ditto borrowing someone's DVD of a film or CD of music to watch or listen to. Ooooo it's a strange one this. On the one hand the TV/film makers make huge amounts of money from selling DVDs of their product, so naturally they want to protect what they've spent millions of pounds/euros producing.... The same broadly goes for games and computer software. BUT experience from the music industry which is the only one for which long term statistics are public is that downloaders actually buy more legitimate product per head than non-downloaders.
|
|
|
Post by Madame Moorhen on Jan 6, 2011 8:30:46 GMT 1
I can understand something which hasn't been aired on television being protected (like music or new films) but something which has already gone public and is legal to record from the television shouldn't be illegal to download if you missed an episode of something!
|
|
|
Post by BartyB on Jan 6, 2011 9:48:09 GMT 1
I can understand something which hasn't been aired on television being protected (like music or new films) but something which has already gone public and is legal to record from the television shouldn't be illegal to download if you missed an episode of something! No, but that's not what the law is all about. The targets are users and providers that use/supply the products on a commercial basis (overtly or otherwise). Don't be fooled by the claims that it's "free" everything has a price/value.......... If you have web traffic coming to you then you can generate revenue from it from the completely up front and clear advertising downwards. At it's most extreme what you are suggesting is that Amazon record the DrWho Christmas Special off the TV, copy and sell the DVD. Sadly the consumers are always the easy targets especially as the providers in here are oftem based outside easy juristiction.
|
|