Sarkozy Talks About 3 Strikes As Defending Freedom, But Only Freedom For The Industry

from the individuals-need-not-apply dept

Tue, Jun 23rd 2009 3:47pm — Mike Masnick

It appears that French President Nicolas Sarkozy still cannot understand why so many people are opposed to a "three strikes" rule for cutting people off the internet. Despite it just being ruled unconstitutional in France, Sarkozy is still standing by the law fully, promising to "go all the way" in getting it implemented. His reasoning, however, is quite bizarre, and shows a very narrow view of creativity these days:

"By defending copyright I do not just defend artistic creation, I also defend my idea of a free society where everyone's freedom is based on respect for the rights of others. I am also defending the future of our culture. It is the future of creation."

That shows a massive misunderstanding of creativity, expression and freedom these days. He's basically saying that freedom of expression shall only apply to "professional" creators, who get rights. Everyone else's rights get trampled. I don't quite see how that's a "free society" at all. It sounds like a corporately owned society, where the rights of certain "professionals" outweigh the rights of individuals.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: france, freedom, nicolas sarkozy, three strikes

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2009 @ 4:02pm

"everyone's freedom is based on respect for the rights of others"

This is the one thing that is missing from the file traders - respect for others.

Mike, when it comes to this stuff, you really do turn into a bit a fool. Everyone has the same freedoms - you don't have the freedom to steal (aka infringe) on other people's works. It's something that ordered and polite society has decided on. It doesn't limit your rights, except that your rights END where other people's rights start.

Put it another way, you don't have the right to tell an artist that they have to give you something for nothing.

Too bad this doesn't agree with your New World Order Of Digital, Masnick Remix - eat it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TPBer, 23 Jun 2009 @ 4:40pm

Re:
Sorry AC but in this NWO it does not matter what you or any of the other industry shills believe, the one and only fact is that when it is digital and makes it's way to the net it is up for grabs. You can cry foul until the sun burns out, does not matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 23 Jun 2009 @ 4:47pm

Re:
This isn't just about filetrading, you shortsighted jackanape.

This is about people being able to use past art in a way that creates new art without being branded a criminal for doing so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2009 @ 4:48pm

Re: Re:
Spoken like a true truculent child who threatens to hold his/her breath until Mommy or Daddy give in.

In this so-called NWO, the takeway appears to be "I don't care what you want because what I want is more important."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:02pm

Re:
I suppose , that since the RIAA and its ilk are allowed extra-judicial rights, that vigilantes should be getting the same rights as well? The Minute Men down in Texas would sure love that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:03pm

Re:
Mike has stated several times that he does not support the sharing of pirated material.

More importantly, this isn't about whether there should be anti-piracy laws. It's about this whole ridiculous three-strikes notion that you suddenly don't even require proof or evidence, merely accusation-times-three, that someone is committing a crime to punish them. The court found it unconstitutional for a reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wizened (profile), 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:08pm

name calling aside
All the name calling aside today's situation with copyright is not what was envisioned by the creators of copyright. It was not that long ago that people who created art, music, books etc. enjoyed no protection. They still created but anyone was free to copy what they did. The technology did not exist to make that simple, however. At the time the copyright law was written the idea was to provide some protection for a limited time, to allow the creators to profit from their work and then to allow that work to move to the public domain for the good of society. Today, however, those rights have passed to corporate giants rather than individuals. Those corporations have used their money and their influence with lawmakers, who are easily bought, to extend the length of time that works are protected to the point that their is now no practical limit to it at all. Nothing ever passes into the public domain for the good of society. As the law was originally written it was a good thing and a balanced thing. Today is has become a way to remove tens of millions of works from society that can not be obtained because they are out of print but still owned by companies who will never print them. They won't publish them but they won't let you have them either. They are just gone. This is true of music, art, books and everything covered by copyright. There once was a balance but what we have today is not that balance. The laws need to be fixed. That is not to say that people have a right to take what they want. It means that there should be a balance between what is good for the individual and what is good for society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wizened (profile), 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:10pm

Re: Re:
Excellent point. No one should be found guilty and punished for being accused 3 times of anything. It totally circumvents the concept of due process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JAy., 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:12pm

Who Actually Comments Here?
I wonder who actually makes a lot of the comments here (not to mention what skin MM has in this issue).

Who here is actually trying to survive based upon the creative arts? I ask, because all too often, the people that promote "free use" and "free access" also are consumers, not creators. The artists that I know would much prefer that you pay them to view and/or utilize their content.

As full disclosure, I have no skin in the game. I am a consumer, only. I neither creator, produce, distribute, or profit (financially) from art.

More directly related to this post, good copyright law protects all those who create, professional or not. And those of us who appreciate art should make an effort to support those whose works we consume, through legal consumption, including paying for what we consume and/or re-use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:12pm

Re:
This is the one thing that is missing from the file traders - respect for others.

Hmm. In many cases, yes. Which is why I don't support file sharing. However, I'd argue the technology itself has many useful benefits for those who embrace it.

But we're not talking about file sharing and respect. We're talking about the ability to cut off an internet connection without a court order. That's a huge rights violation, don't you think?

Put it another way, you don't have the right to tell an artist that they have to give you something for nothing.

Indeed. We agree 100%.

So why does a record label have the right to kill someone's internet connection with just accusations?

Too bad this doesn't agree with your New World Order Of Digital, Masnick Remix - eat it.

Wait, I thought I did agree with you?!? You live in some netherworld where you've decided what I think.

Try again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CleverName, 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:16pm

Re: Re:
It's also about due process, do they have something similar in France ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CleverName, 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:17pm

Re: Re: Re:
What a tool
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JAy., 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:21pm

Re: Re:
Wow, Mike, that is a downright logical, well thought-out, well written response.

Perhaps you should use more caution when writing your posts as well, because this is not at all what your posts discusses. Your post sounds as though you do not support the rights of artists, or "professionals" at all.

Your commentors also do not seem to follow your comment. (As TPBer said, "Sorry AC but in this NWO it does not matter what you or any of the other industry shills believe, the one and only fact is that when it is digital and makes it's way to the net it is up for grabs.") Some of these comments certainly do not support the rights of artists, and perhaps you should mention that occassionally, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CleverName, 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:23pm

Re: Who Actually Comments Here?
And you would not mind being punished based upon the accusations of others, without due proces or any other rights you thought you had ..... I didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Jun 2009 @ 5:32pm

Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps you should use more caution when writing your posts as well, because this is not at all what your posts discusses. Your post sounds as though you do not support the rights of artists, or "professionals" at all.

I have made that clear many, many, many times over. How long have you been reading?

The point I make is from the perspective of the content creator (you ask what "skin" I have in the game -- perhaps you haven't noticed, but I'm a content creator) and how to get the most out of your content by understanding technology trends and innovation.

So, yes, while I believe there are certain legal rights granted to content creators, I think they're actually a bad thing for most content creators, because it acts as a crutch. Rather than using better, more innovative business models, they think they can just use this gov't granted backstop. And the end result is bad -- because it pisses off fans and real customers alike.

So I think that trying to go against the will of what people want to do is about the biggest mistake you can make. So, sure, I agree that content creators have legal rights. But I also think customers/fans have rights too that are often taken away by content creators, and that's dangerous. I think that rather than seeing it as an antagonistic situation, it's time for content creators to realize they're better off coming up with business models where they don't have to "enforce their rights" because everyone's better off when they don't.

I've said that before. Many times. I'm sorry if you haven't seen it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lux (profile), 23 Jun 2009 @ 6:21pm

Question
Q: How do you put a price tag on an infinite good?
A: Very carefully

Only when this question is answered by time/economists/philosophers, rather than forced upon us by a bureaucracy veiled in self-interest, will the masses accept it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2009 @ 6:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike, Jay nailed it right on the head.

If your blog here was about drugs, and you said "I am against drugs, and oh yeah, here is a great way to market crack", people might think that your first statement is a "wink wink" sort of a comment.

For the most part, your posts here are venomous towards anyone who suggests music shouldn't be free, that people shouldn't be allowed to take whatever they want. You have made mosts which are clearly in support of file traders (including some glowing comments about places like TPB and their ilk).

It is extremely hard to believe that you don't support file trading, because you support all the workings of it, all the trappings, all the methods, and all the sites around it.

"it's time for content creators to realize they're better off coming up with business models where they don't have to "enforce their rights" because everyone's better off when they don't."

For me, this is the killer. Translated: Because they can steal it, rather than protecting it, just give up and let them all steal it. Let 10 billion plus a year of music sales go out the window, because it's good for you.

The reality is that if people respected copyright, there wouldn't be any need to "enforce their rights" - just like a cop can't write speeding tickets if everyone is driving the right speed.

A suggestion from someone who has done online postings in one form or another for more than 30 years: People can't tell venom from humor unless you couch it right. Never assume everyone in the world has read everything you have written before. Oh yeah, before you click "submit" or "post", think twice. Your blog would be much more enjoyable with a little balance and a more level headed approach.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DTS, 23 Jun 2009 @ 7:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A couple of problems with the above.

"It is extremely hard to believe that you don't support file trading, because you support all the workings of it, all the trappings, all the methods, and all the sites around it."

People for filesharing have, likewise, argued that anyone supporting existing copyright laws must therefore support unconstitutional and ruinous penalties, amongst association with other crimes. Simply because a person is not standing on the "heads" side of the coin does not mean he's standing on the "tails" side of the coin. Or put another way, simply because something is not black doesn't mean it has to be white. A pastel shade is a lot closer to white than black but you can't call it white either.

"A suggestion from someone who has done online postings in one form or another for more than 30 years: People can't tell venom from humor unless you couch it right. Never assume everyone in the world has read everything you have written before. Oh yeah, before you click "submit" or "post", think twice. Your blog would be much more enjoyable with a little balance and a more level headed approach."

He doesn't. That's why he asks the rest of the people who haven't read them to -- well, guess what, read them. And it's not necessary to read everything he's written to get the gist of what he wants to say.

And what sort of "little balance" do you want in comparison to whom? There's enough blindly pro-copyright material floating in and out of the Internet (mostly out), and for every Pirate Party there're several alphabet organisation clones, ready and willing to double-dip laws and payments and eliminate anyone else who dares to challenge or say otherwise. People have been equally venomous to people vouching for less copyright. There's your balance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2009 @ 7:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where do I start? First off, thank you for a level headed and non-attacking reply. It's good to find someone who is looking for discourse rather than just pouring out a bunch of four letter words.

"And what sort of "little balance" do you want in comparison to whom? "

I could post long and wide on the subject, just safe to say that generic terms like "Recording Industry" and "record execs" are sort of annoying, especially when used in headlines "Recording Industry Sues Dead Mother of 7". Actually, it might have been the RIAA, or it might have been a group in India for all we know. It is an attempt to globally vilify all that is the recording industry, sometimes fairly, but often as not a broad brush.

"People for filesharing have, likewise, argued that anyone supporting existing copyright laws must therefore support unconstitutional and ruinous penalties, amongst association with other crimes. Simply because a person is not standing on the "heads" side of the coin does not mean he's standing on the "tails" side of the coin."

This I would disagree on. You support it or you don't, period. Saying "I don't support it", but supporting all the systems and trappings, the sites and cheering the results is more indicative than the words to the contrary. Mike supports file sharing because they are collectively thumbing their noses at the very copyright laws that he seemingly wants abolished or repealed back to a point that isn't relevant to our times.

Honestly, TPB, The Pirate Party, and all the other sites and groups supporting file trading / infringing get a very, very sweet ride on the valvet carpet here. It's clear where Mike's support is, even if he cannot bring himself to say it.

"hat's why he asks the rest of the people who haven't read them to -- well, guess what, read them. "

It isn't just about reading back posts. As Jay noted. Mike often leaves an impression of X to many people, even when he intended Y. I think that happens sometimes because he is trying so hard to get a jab in to the "recording industry", that he forgets to separate his thoughts so we can see them clearly. He knows what he wants to say, but he is in too much of a rush to say it all.

Following 5 links in every story to 5 more stories that link to 5 more stories makes it pretty darn difficult to actually follow anything. It is the other place where I think here is a lack of balance. Mike often uses his previous "opinion" posts as facts for later posts. He will often say "we have already established that..." and link to another post he made that is often a mix of his opinion plus a link to a story by someone else with a similar opinion. Most often, it is used again to slam certain groups (ISPs, Recording Industry, etc). Mike has a sort of magical ability to turn opinion into fact. If he could turn lead to gold, he would have something!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 23 Jun 2009 @ 8:35pm

Oh...so just like....
"I could post long and wide on the subject, just safe to say that generic terms like "Recording Industry" and "record execs" are sort of annoying, especially when used in headlines "Recording Industry Sues Dead Mother of 7". Actually, it might have been the RIAA, or it might have been a group in India for all we know. It is an attempt to globally vilify all that is the recording industry, sometimes fairly, but often as not a broad brush."

You mean in the same manner as how the music industry paints all file sharers as thieves, regardless of what they share, how, when, or and legal or fair use exceptions? The same ones who are trying to get file sharers kicked off the internet for ONLY accusations of ONLY sharing ONE type of file, regardless of any other activity they might use their connection for, or if they even have ANY proof? The same ones who sue people into indentured servitude for life for sharing a few songs, not because that represents "justice", but because they are rich and powerful and know they can harm people with impunity?

Your industry heroes are just as guilty of this sort of thing in the same manner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2009 @ 8:36pm

Oh my fucking almighty god, do we really have to go through the fucking trolling every god damned time? This is asinine. If you don't like what he has to say, go somewhere and start your own fucking blog about how stupid it is. Watching this is starting to fucking get to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luci, 23 Jun 2009 @ 9:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
So, basically what you are saying is that rights holders should have all rights, even the right to not only accuse someone of infringement, but of punishing them without any sort of proof or due process, is that right? Because that is precisely what Mike was talking about. Not about people having the right to infringe. Take your FUD and hike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luci, 23 Jun 2009 @ 10:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would suggest that you read about what the Pirate Party is about before you include them in your posts in such a manner. This is a human rights political group.

As to file sharing, WHY must you support illegal file sharing just because you support legal file sharing? I support file sharing, yes. Does this mean I download the last movie or CD rip? Of course not. On the other hand, I've obtained a lot of open source programs and legal material (music, videos, even books) in this manner. From sites like TPB. You continue to call it all black and white, and that just is not the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 24 Jun 2009 @ 1:40am

Singer?
Did I read somewhere about Sarkozy's wife being an ex-model and currently singer/recording artiste with an album out recently? Nothing to so with "three strikes", of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 24 Jun 2009 @ 6:01am

Re: name calling aside
Well Said!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2009 @ 6:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't a question of black or white.

If you used a system that didn't promote copyright infringement (say a clear tracker system that only had valid copyrighted material) then you would be doing okay. Getting it off TPB is just supporting the violators. You may think you hands are clean, but in the end, they are not.

Pretty much everything that is legal is available for direct download somewhere, and will download signficantly faster.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2009 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Pretty much everything that is legal is available for direct download somewhere, and will download signficantly faster."

This is a retarded comment. When downloading various Linux flavors, especially near release time, torrents download much faster. This is true of many things. Torrents usually saturate the connection, while direct downloads from FTPs can fucking crawl. There's only so much bandwidth from the FTP servers, while the bandwidth from hundreds (or thousands) of users is much, much more.

And how exactly do torrent site "promote copyright infringement"? All the sites do is provide a framework for sharing... whatever.

But that's all been done to death.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2009 @ 12:54pm

Yay Sarkozy! Push something already declared unconstitutional! How awesome of you!

And yes he's married to Carla Bruni, a singer who had an album out last year. A gigantic, and very transparent, conflict of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy#Carla_Bruni

Sarkozy is a complete buffoon though, it's not like this is the first time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy#Controversies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
d, 24 Jun 2009 @ 3:17pm

he is not around
what is the problem only when we see something like that
we can realize how stupid people can run the whole government and if we have inside followers of leader as must be, well we come around to see what free society they mean, and what capitalist system is also about, and i do not defend other ones, but it comes to same bad or negative selection govern by the rule of who is most capable he wins, but we need to have in mind about population that elect this individuals that can push they idiotic ideas around the globe, France is not only one, and i wander for long time how is came to that or it was just the transition from Kings powers with some restrictions...but still about what kind of society we are talking about, while we have such individuals not just on pure power positions but as well in all sides of society, any society on this planet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bert, 25 Jun 2009 @ 3:05pm

Speeding Ticket
Got an ugly ticket that I want to get out of. My friend turned me on to a free site, (no email needed, they make money on advertisements) on how to get out of a speeding ticket. It has a pretty funny video and I downloaded the pdf, and it looks pretty cool. I am going to try it out. It is www.ticket-gone.com Let me know what you think... Bert
[ link to this | view in thread ]
illunatic, 27 Jun 2009 @ 3:18am

3 Strikes? That is an American sport!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daz, 27 Jun 2009 @ 7:19pm

Re:
You are so right yet so wrong - if I see a painting do I have to pay the artist? If I hear a song am I stealing as you claim? No, no I'm not, no one is stealing even when they copy a song - as a musician I copy songs in my head all the time, then jump on a guitar and learn them - is that stealing or is that the way of a musician? Do you pay the artist when you hear a song on the radio - my god you got it for free! You must think you have stolen it and feel guilty for listening to the radio - what about free to air tv - your stealing that too when you watch it -by your own arument. Do you/did you dob people in to the police for stealing when they tried to give you a tape of music they taped from radio 20 years ago? Thought not, you are hippocrit due to your incomplete and erroneous understanding. You are defending a way of living that only worked pre-internet, pre-open distribution channel. Now that distribution is so easy, that is now the worst place to try to extract the money for the artist - its just technological - now the artist must find a stronger point in the chain to extract payment. Just like horse and cart operators had to face facts and come to terms with new technology that would wipe out their business. Your respect for the rights of others, AC, does it include not driving cars and paying fees to horse and cart owners because their rights were trampled by technological advance?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daz, 27 Jun 2009 @ 8:13pm

Re: name calling aside
Well put, thankyou.
@AC remember rights holders are trying to steal more of the public domains property - have you respect for what belongs to us all (the public domain) for the benefit of society and progress?
and btw a copy is not stealing but locking up public domain material behind an artificial monopoly is stealing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daz, 27 Jun 2009 @ 8:16pm

Re:
he he, I feel your pain! They have not thought it through obviously
[ link to this | view in thread ]