• http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd John Dowdell

    Hmm, when I read that article, it almost sounded like the French politicians have nationalized the work of musicians — seized the bits they produce.

    Did you read anything that in that story (or in source documents) which would lead you to suspect that the legislation would respect the rights of individuals to engage in contracts of their choice?

  • http://baus.net/ christopher baus

    That’s sounds like socialism to me. I can’t understand how anybody thinks this is good. The fact that the EFF wants me to give the government money so the government can decide how to pay musicians is reason enough to not donate to the EFF. When I think of government run organizations, I don’t get get warm fuzzy feelings. Do you?

    Remember. The government controls music distribution and paying musicians. That’s fundamentally bad.

    It is like municipal Wifi. The government controls the internet. That’s fundamentally bad.

  • Arnaud C.

    hey a french deputy just offer your book “the future of ideas” to the French Culture Minister.

  • shii

    “It is like municipal Wifi. The government controls the internet. That�s fundamentally bad.”

    You trust corporations more than the government? maybe you need to high-tail it over to the UAE, buddy.

  • http://baus.net/ christopher baus

    Yes I trust private corporations more than the government because I can choose not to do business with them. They have an incentive to provide a good service. The government has no such incentive.

  • http://cardboard.nu/ Alan Green

    Despite the protests, $8.50/month is quite a decent fee – more than most would spend on music in a month. Counting the lowered distribution costs, it doesn’t seem such a bad deal for the entertainment industry.

  • http://guillaume.h.ifrance.com Guillaume Hoffmann

    The debates have ended tonight and will continue on January 17.

    What I find remarkable about these 3 days of debates (which i could see thanks to the official video streaming service), is the amount of revelant and concrete arguments that the opposing deputies have brought, some of them which I have read in Mr. Lessig’s book Free Culture. There is also, for the first time as far as i know, a strong defense of free software, interoperability and fight against oligopolies of software and music industry, and these ideas have been heard from deputies of every party. So, things seem to be moving on.

    Yet,the majority of the present deputies rejected almost all the proposed amendments, save for this miraculous one (and few others about interoperability), which passed with exactly the required amount of voices against all expectations.

    There are rumours that the French government will ask for a second discussion of all the amendments, but it is to be confirmed.

    For people who can read French, the script of what has been told during these debates are here : http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/dossiers/031206.asp

  • Olivier

    Hi

    I had like to comment certain comments :

    �It is like municipal Wifi. The government controls the internet.That�s fundamentally bad.�

    “That�s sounds like socialism to me.”

    “Hmm, when I read that article, it almost sounded like the French politicians have nationalized the work of musicians � seized the bits they produce.”

    The law discussed is named the DADVSI (Droits d’auteurs et droits voisins dans la societe de l’information).
    It is the french implementation of the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive) of 2001, the european version of the DMCA. Noticeable is that this european directive was rapported by Janelly Fourtou, the wife of the actual boss of Vivendi Universal, also head of the BASCAP initiative, the “Business Action to stop Counterfeiting and Piracy” lead by the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) one the biggest lobby group out there on this planet.
    The DADVSI law is presented by the government under strong lobbying from Vivendi Universal (They play at home). The law has been written by the Commission Sirinelli. That commission gathered many organisation that should represent the social actors involved in the law. Open Source association and Consumer Association decided to left the commission during the writing of the law, which is something rare.

    Especially the law contained an “amendement” by amendement “VU/SACEM/BSA” (VU = Vivendi Universal) with which it would havemade the interdiction of software that didn’t include copy protection system. That would mean by definition the death of Open Source software.

    Also the law planned to include a punishment for circumvention of technical protection measure of 3 years and 300.000 euros fine. That is more than for murder, pedophilia, biologial experiments on humans without their consent…

    The goverment presentated the law the parliament under declaration of “emergency” which makes the vote much faster, excludes the senate from the process, and is pretty convenient to pass difficult laws, especially just before christmas.

    Before to start the debate the deputies have been shown video presenting the phenomenon of “Piracy on the Internet” that included images of the Word Trade Center collapsing. They also had presentation of new commercial music services, and received for free pre-paid cards for thoses services.

    To vote the law, every “amendement” is being voted seperatly, one after the other. There is actually 60 voters, that means that 30 peoples are coming to vote, and during the debates there is often just 15 peoples in the whole assembly. The big days there is normally 577 deputies…

    The “amendement” are being written by different party, even those that do not belong to the majority that support the governement.
    One of the amendement ought to give to people the right to download on P2P networks, and passed to the general surprise, with the coordinated votes of one of the strangest majority ever in France, against the will of the governement. This amendement contained:
    l’article L. 122-5 du code de la propriete intellectuelle est complete par une phrase ainsi redigee :

    ” De meme, l’auteur ne peut interdire les reproductions effectuees sur tout support a partir d’un service de communication en ligne par une personne physique pour son usage prive et des fins non directement ou indirectement commerciales, a l’exception des copies d’un logiciel autres que la copie de sauvegarde, a condition que ces reproductions fassent l’objet d’une remuneration telle que prevue a l’article L. 311-4 ; “.
    (I removed the accents coz of server)

    Seemingly (it’s unclear if it allows only download or upload also ) that allows non commercial filesharing in exchange to a payment in the “Licence Legale” system, inspired of the Statutory Blanket Licence System of Jessica Litman, and in a lesser extend Fisher and Netanel.

    To me, this is much better than a Vivendi Walled Garden.

    That is, the law gonna probably to be revoted next month.

    I don’t know what article read the guys that made those comments, but it must pretty much contain lots of bullshit and fantasms on socialism. Check your source sources carefully. Really. When CNN reports on french riots, they are able to present maps with french cities outside of the country. I’ll send the screenshot if you want.

    If you want up-to-date information on the topic, I would recomment you to subscribe to the mailing list

    escape_l@freescape.eu.org

    PS: As an insider I really prefer to have used free public schools, free public universities, free public hospital rather than the public system you have over the atlantic. Here wo do riots without guns. Don’t you think that the access to a fair education or to be cured of cancer when it is necessary are human rights ? Don’t you think the access to culture and knowledge should be a right ?

  • http://guerby.org guerby

    christopher baus: there’s something called “election” in a political system called “democracy”, you might not know about it, but it makes some politicians listen to citizens, and this is exactly what happened in France.

    Also, “intellectual property” is a government distortion of the free market in the form of government granted monopolies. While floating in this big-government invented thing, I’d much rather have global licence than DRM everywhere.

    Sincerely,

    Laurent

  • ACS

    Hello Everyone

    From my reading of the above it seems there is a general concern about socialising intellectual property so that creative works are the property of the state which allows the state to deal in those products. It does not seem at all unfair to me considering the artificial nature of intellectual property. Is it not true that all Intellectual Property is a result of government decree? If that is the case are we not bound by further decrees in regards to that property?

    If we were to abandon intellectual property altogether then it is clear that rtists would be subject to file sharing and other seemingly unreasonable infractions upon peoples rights to control thier creations. In socialising the systems of distribution the French Government recognises the failures of intellectual property to adopt the technological advances of the modern age.

    In such a system as that proposed the question now becomes how do we ensure that artists have a fair and equitable access to the amount of material used? Or are we left in a situtation where reward is disproportionate to creative energies that are expended?

    I have nothing against Parliament restricting and controlling a system that they have initially created, rather, I would require that such a system take notice of the different contributions of artists. Surely this requirement for accountability will impact on these new measures.

    Alex