TSA Withdrew Subpoenas On Travel Bloggers... But Serious Questions Linger

Will France's Three Strikes Law Matter?

from the we-shall-see... dept

Mon, Jan 4th 2010 11:53am — Mike Masnick

While some are saying that France's "three strikes" law has been delayed until April due to data protection issues, others are reporting that the law is in effect as of January 1st, and people should start getting "warning" messages soon. That same article quotes a French senator who believes that 95% of people will "finish with that bad usage" after the second warning message they receive, but others figure what's more likely is that people will just move on to other ways of accessing files -- ways that can't easily be tracked. My guess is that like when Napster was shut down or with Sweden's IPRED law, there may be a temporary bounceback in sales, but as more people learn of ways to go back to accessing music for free in ways that are less likely to be caught, they will do so. Quickly. As much as the entertainment industry and some politicians have trouble comprehending this, you can't stop what technology allows.

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, hadopi, three strikes

49 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Steve, 4 Jan 2010 @ 12:11pm

Will The French Government or the music/movie industry be compensating ISP's for each subscriber lost to a three strikes ban? If not, then expect this law to come to a swift demise as ISP's bottom lines begin to take a hit. The mere thought that you can effectively keep someone off the internet is fucking laughable to begin with. Maybe if you strand them on an island with no computer but certainly not anywhere NEAR a major city. A few token bans will have about the same effect as the RIAA's lawsuits against file sharers. ZERO. You think they'd have figured out that it might be just easier now to embrace the digital age and begin to reap it's ample rewards instead of trying in vain to stop a tsunami with a sieve and some choice words.
They hedged their bets on a very different future and lost. That's business, that's life. You don't declare war and then try to have war outlawed because you find that you are losing. They've squandered a decade of nothing but opportunities and continue to do so at a breakneck pace like this whole internet thing is just going to fizzle eventually like every other fad. I think things have reached the point now where even governments can't help short of cutting off the internet entirely. They have only themselves to blame for this situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 12:20pm

When are they finally going to pass that three strikes law for jaywalking? When you're caught three times jaywalking then you are forbidden from using sidewalks and roads and such.

Jaywalking is a formidable scourge in this century. What can one expect from Generation Diss?

Trent Reznor says that jaywalking is stealing so it must be true!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sammy moshe, 4 Jan 2010 @ 12:28pm

Mostly true
Seems like technology causes all kinds of problems. We've talked about this before. Just because a technology makes something possible, doesn't mean that government should just step into line and say, "well, it's possible now, sucks to be you."

What I'm not clear on, regarding the whole situation is their numbers. Their numbers don't make sense, because if you run them, it doesn't look like they're being quite honest either about the number of downloaded tunes (which seems lower than it should be) or their "losses" which seem much higher than they should be.

So I guess the thing I'm not getting is, if they're really hurting over this whole thing, and it's related to piracy rather than a shaky economy... then why can't they be honest about their actual losses? Lying isn't really a way to gain sympathy.

The problem is... if their numbers are as obviously incorrect as they seem... then why bother in the first place? If they're not actually losing money, then why go to the extent that they do in order to make their stuff unavailable online? The mind boggles.

If they wanted to win the sympathies of people, and change their behavior, it seems to me that something along the lines of the smoking education campaigns would be necessary. Those have worked marvelously, or they did until 2008, anyway. Why not something like that for music? If you want to end piracy... why not just make it socially unacceptable? Surely, such things are within the entertainment industry's grasp, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re: Mostly true
  "You wouldn't steal a car!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 1:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Mostly true
    "You wouldn't steal a car!"
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ryan, 4 Jan 2010 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re: Mostly true
  Seems like technology causes all kinds of problems. We've talked about this before. Just because a technology makes something possible, doesn't mean that government should just step into line and say, "well, it's possible now, sucks to be you."
  
  Yeah it does. How exactly is the internet and file sharing "causing problems" by removing the time and cost associated with producing and distributing media storage devices? This is awesome -- technology has come along to reduce a scarcity that was previously leveraged by entertainment companies to make a profit off the public. There's nothing wrong with that as a fair trade, but there is no need for it anymore and much of their previous business model has been rendered obsolete.
  
  Why should the government step in when we don't need them anymore? Why not step in for the candlemakers when electricity is invented, or the carriage-drivers when cars came along, or the train companies when airplanes got into the market? Because its a complete waste of resources at the direct expense of the public.
  
  If they wanted to win the sympathies of people, and change their behavior, it seems to me that something along the lines of the smoking education campaigns would be necessary. Those have worked marvelously, or they did until 2008, anyway. Why not something like that for music? If you want to end piracy... why not just make it socially unacceptable? Surely, such things are within the entertainment industry's grasp, right?
  
  Well, there's at least a good reason why smoking has become more unacceptable--because it is harmful to your health without any real tangible benefit. Gonna be a lot harder to make it "socially unacceptable" for the common people to not make a needless donation to wealthy entertainment companies everytime they want to listen to a song.
  
  Even if they did, file sharing isn't really something people often do in public so much as in their home on their own pc. What do they care if its unacceptable if nobody sees them or knows about it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - senshikaze (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 12:56pm
    
    Re: Re: Mostly true
    "Even if they did, file sharing isn't really something people often do in public so much as in their home on their own pc. What do they care if its unacceptable if nobody sees them or knows about it?"
    
    like porn!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Henry Emrich (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 7:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Mostly true
    "Literacy" causes a lot of problems, too. When was the last time you used the "services" of a professional scribe? Widespread literacy kicked the *crap* out of that particular "business-model". "The spread of the automobile" kicked the crap out of buggy-related industries (except for a few "niche" markets such as the Amish, etc.)
    
    The next problem with your "technology causes problem" nonsense, is that "technology" doesn't *do* stuff on it's own. PEOPLE have to do stuff WITH technology. So what you're advocating is that cronyism become ubiquitous -- if you're having problems "monetizing" or "monopolizing" something, get the State to step in and forcibly preserve the status quo. (VCR = Boston Strangler, "Home Taping is killing music", Ubiquitous literacy is a threat to the "professional" scribe.....)
    
    Big-media apologist fails, yet again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 1:08pm

Calling a tortoise a tortoise
"Three Strikes" or as they formally call it, won't do much to motivate commerce. In fact, "Three Strikes" will probably be a stop-gap until more bands and musicians adopt creative-commons, or other types of licensing. It's recognized that when a song is no longer on the top 40 chart, a label's marketing and distribution is suspended. However, for the following 70 years, record companies will still merely pay 75% of the statutory rate (if they pay at all).

But in this day and age, when a label ceases these activities when a song goes out of date, and is no longer actively involved in marketing, the exclusivity should be nullified, copyright should have the option of being returned, and a band should be free (should they desire) to continue both distribution and marketing of their works via peer-to-peer on the internet, social networking, and whatever other methods technology brings forward.

The painful 15 year transition from the physical media era to today has shown the industry too sedate towards uptake of any innovative transformation which customers have come to desire. Continuation may not be the optimal modus operandi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 1:18pm

"Just because a technology makes something possible, doesn't mean that government should just step into line and say, "well, it's possible now, sucks to be you."

Well, if that was the proper line of thinking then we'd still be using horse drawn buggies because THAT industry was decimated almost overnight by the advent of the automobile. That right there is a case of "well it's possible now, sucks to be you..." It's called adapt or die and it's the number 1 rule of business as it is in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Winterpegger, 4 Jan 2010 @ 1:59pm

Three Strikes Law solves nothing
Real life situation which I heard from my kid babysitter (student)
1. Bunch of kids cheap in 2-3 bucks each
2. They buy 2 cds
3. One reaps them to mp3
4. Next day all mp3s are shared from one laptop to another between those kids on the lunch brake right in the library

The price per song is ~.30c considering all kids who shared
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drewmo (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 2:10pm

Mike, I've seen you say countless times that a decrease in file-sharing does not imply an increase in music/movie sales. I think it's an astute and clear argument that not every song downloaded would have been a song purchased...

However, doesn't saying "like when Napster was shut down or with Sweden's IPRED law, there may be a temporary bounceback in sales" admit that a decrease in file-sharing causes an increase in sales?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 2:53pm
  
  Re:
  However, doesn't saying "like when Napster was shut down or with Sweden's IPRED law, there may be a temporary bounceback in sales" admit that a decrease in file-sharing causes an increase in sales?
  
  Temporarily, which is pretty meaningless in the long run. It just means that people haven't figured out what other, easier to use, sources there are. Also, it's worth noting that the bounceback tends to be pretty small, and doesn't last very long at all.
  
  I don't doubt that some people, if cut off from other alternatives, would end up buying, but the real question is whether or not that's sustainable and how many of the people cut off actually buy -- vs. how many would buy something (and how much they would pay in aggregate) in a smarter, more inclusive business model.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 2:44pm

you can't stop what technology allows.

I will use this answer the next time I get a speeding ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 3:03pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, we all know that speeding has stopped thanks to mass ticketing.
  
  Oh, wait. Way to go and prove Mike's point. You can stop one individual from speeding at a specific time and place, but you can't stop speeding.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Anti-Mike (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 3:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    haha.
    
    Mass ticketing has stopped speeding. Without any speed limits or any enforcement, people would all drive well over 100MPH on the interstate, doing what they please.
    
    You have to think what would be without it, what it is with it, and you can then see the effects.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 3:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      People DO drive 100MPH on the interstate, doing what they please.
      
      By the way, all you've described is that speeding has been curbed. You've still said nothing that contradicts "you can't stop what technology allows".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Anti-Mike (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, I know you are just being a troll, but...
        
        No, the idea is that the vast majority of people don't drive at 100. That's the point. You cannot fix EVERYTHING.
        
        troll on. Does your mommy know you are on the internet instead of doing your school work?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BearGriz72 (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Does Yours?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seriously, how does acting like an ass advance your "anti-mike" causes?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ryan, 4 Jan 2010 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The vast majority of people would not drive 100 mph in the absence of limits and ticketing. In countries without speed limits, road signs, etc. there is often no significant difference in road safety because the population will adapt their behavior. Have you ever noticed that when it rains hard or gets cold out, traffic slows down considerably despite there being no actual change in the law? Sure, the occasional car speeds along until it gets stuck behind the rest of traffic because the population adjusts to the changing road conditions. Furthermore, the flow of traffic is often significantly higher than the actual limit - up to 20mph sometimes in my experience, because drivers realize that the limits are set below the de facto safety threshold. Cops will rarely ticket anybody going the speed of traffic because it fails miserably unless you specifically target the outliers.
        
        And anyway, driving out in the open(with obvious safety implications) is a poor comparison to the private, victimless practice of file sharing. A better one would be Prohibition, and I'm guessing that even you knows how that turned out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Commenter number 5, 4 Jan 2010 @ 6:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lets not let facts get in the way of irrational arguments
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 3:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        THEM SPEEDERS ARE DESTROYING OUR SLOW-MOVING INDUSTRY!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 4:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Without any speed limits or any enforcement, people would all drive well over 100MPH on the interstate, doing what they please."
      
      And once again, your baseless claim is proven wrong by...those pesky fact things.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 5:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mass ticketing has stopped speeding. Without any speed limits or any enforcement, people would all drive well over 100MPH on the interstate, doing what they please.
      
      Avg speed on the Autobahn? 80MPH.
      
      You're really becoming a parody of yourself, you know?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Anti-Mike (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 7:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, your answer is a nice pat answer, but it is a typical attempt to misrepresent reality. Select a single type of unexplained data, and hang your hat on it.
        
        "In fact, according to Mark Rask, author of 1999’s American Autobahn, the average speed for cars is 130 km/h (81 mph); at any given moment, 15 percent are traveling 155 km/h (96 mph) or faster."
        
        Add to that:
        
        "About one quarter of the total length of the German autobahn network has no speed limit, about one quarter has a permanent limit, and the remaining parts have a temporary limit for a number of reasons."
        
        The speed limit? 130km/h
        
        So, now only 25% of the road has a limit over 130km/h, and 15% of all of the traffic is going 155km/h or faster. Assuming compliance with the speed limits, that would mean in the unlimited section, 15/25 of the cars are going over 155, or 60%!
        
        See, when you don't look at the numbers, your pat answer looks good. Dig a little deeper, and suddenly your pat answer looks both smug and uninformed.
        
        Carry on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 8:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL - wat ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 9:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But you're wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Assuming compliance
        
        Heh. You continue to make me laugh.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Anti-Mike (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 1:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Come on Mike, do what you keep telling me to do, man up and admit you are wrong on this.
        
        You got it wrong, I showed you the numbers, and yet, well, there you go. Rather than going "maybe I over did it" you are just trying to put me down.
        
        Nothing new in 2010?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 3:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You got it wrong, I showed you the numbers, and yet, well, there you go. Rather than going "maybe I over did it" you are just trying to put me down.
        
        Your numbers confirmed my point: I got it right. You claimed that everyone would automatically go to 100 MPH. That is incorrect as the very numbers you presented showed. A few people surpassed 100, but the average was much lower.
        
        Your exact quote was: "people would all drive well over 100MPH." And yet, the average speed is well below that.
        
        Amazing then, that you now claim the numbers that prove you wrong actually prove me wrong.
        
        Again, you never cease to amuse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Anti-Mike (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 6:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry Mike, I made a typo in my original comment, using "would" instead of "could".
        
        How ever can you forgive me?
        
        Again, in the sections absent speed limits, 60% of the people are doing more than 155... that fact isn't changing.
        
        You love to play games with datasets, I caught you, and only an error in my phrasing gives you a victory.
        
        Perhaps you can get a few of the duhheads to beat me down now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, in the sections absent speed limits, 60% of the people are doing more than 155... that fact isn't changing.
        
        Again, you are falsely assuming that people obey the speedlimits everywhere else, and all speeding only happens in that one section.
        
        You are wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Anti-Mike (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I am not assuming everyone is respecting the speed limits everywhere else, because the average speed is only the AVERAGE speed.
        
        The potential is that in the high speed sections, everyone is running over 80MPH, and on average people are running slower than 80MPH in the speed controlled sections.
        
        Keep on going Mike, you are just looking bad because you can't accept that you are wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 5 Jan 2010 @ 4:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Montana is a great example.
        
        http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/home/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/
        
        I don't think it is a direct causal relationship here, but at the times when they removed the speed limits, the accidents were REDUCED in Montana (on a side note, I wonder what the telecom companies introducing bandwidth caps would think of this?)
        
        You may have an argument at the beginning of this thread, but you are way off with the ticketing and speed limits stuff. Re-focus and come up with a new metaphor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dementia (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 7:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is this not a copy of what you quoted in your post?
        
        "In fact, according to Mark Rask, author of 1999’s American Autobahn, the average speed for cars is 130 km/h (81 mph); at any given moment, 15 percent are traveling 155 km/h (96 mph) or faster."
        
        I believe the information YOU quoted agrees with Mike. It states (I'll repeat it for you again)"the average speed for cars is 130 km/h (81 mph)". Mike said the average speed is 80 MPH. Seems Mike's statement is close enough for the difference (1 MPH just in case you didn't notice) to be irrelevant to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Anti-Mike (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dementia, Mike is right only when you do a widescale average, and the numbers only look right when you think that the Autobahn has no speed limits.
        
        As stated, 75% of the autobahn at any time has a speed limit of 130km/h or less. There is only 25% of the roadway that is open to whatever speed people like. 15% of all road users go exceptionally fast (over 155). Speed limits in Germany are aggressively enforced on the restricted sections. So most of the 15% going significantly over what would be the speed limit are likely doing it in the open areas.
        
        So net, 25% of the roadways, 15% of the drivers. 15/25 = 60% of the drivers in the unrestricted areas go 155km/h or over (100MPH).
        
        It's why I often object to the way Mike presents numbers, because he is very selective in how he treats them. In this case, he is giving only the 30,000 foot view, whereas when you get a little closer, you see there are two seperate sets of data. Looking only at the unrestricted parts of the roadway, he is very solidly wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2010 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So are you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ryan, 5 Jan 2010 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So I searched for your quote to see the source and the only hit was an article on aol, the full paragraph being:
        
        More than half of the 11,000-kilometer (6,835-mile) German Autobahn system has no speed limit. It is perfectly legal there, for example, to pass a police car at 200 km/h (124 mph). In fact, according to Mark Rask, author of 1999’s American Autobahn, the average speed for cars is 130 km/h (81 mph); at any given moment, 15 percent are traveling 155 km/h (96 mph) or faster. Surprisingly, the Autobahn is safer than U.S. highways. In 2001, the death rate there was 27 percent lower (0.59 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled versus 0.81 per million for the U.S. interstates), according to Rask.
        
        Then you decided to assume from your second quote that only 25% of the road has no limit, that all the other limits are "aggressively enforced", that thus the entire 15% of commuters over 155 km/h are on that imaginary stretch, and that this means 60% of those drivers are going over 155 km/h. You most certainly failed your logic classes in school, and probably your math classes as well.
        
        And, oddly enough, even if we were to grant every premise you just pulled out of your ass, it still shows that not every driver on a road without a limit drives "over 100 mph"; yet, you sit there in your cloud cuckoo land and see this contradiction as an affirmation of your previous statement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Anti-Mike (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 11:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As I mentioned before, I unfortunately used the word "would" when I really mean "could".
        
        As for pulling the numbers out of my ass, sorry, but the numbers are very logically supported.
        
        Overall system average is 131. 15% of all drivers go faster thsn 155. If you remove the speedy drivers from the deal, the average speed drops to 126. In that lower average speed, you have to consider trucks (which don't run much over 100), etc. You also have to consider that some sections have speed limits lower than 130, including areas in the 100-120 range, and construction zones as low as 60.
        
        So while the system average speed is 131, the actual speed of cars is higher (to make up for slower trucks, this is an average after all), and still 15% of drivers go even faster, beyond 155.
        
        Since speed limits and other passing safety issues are agressively enforced (including radar, cameras, etc), it is doubtful that significant numbers of people would greatly exceed the speed limits on a regular basis, so it is a fairly logical conclusion that the speeds in the unregulated sections would be higher than in other, controlled sections.
        
        It is suggested on some sites that the average speed on unrelated sections approaches 150km/h.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Vincent Clement, 5 Jan 2010 @ 6:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ugh.
      
      A few people may drive over 100 mph on the interstate. The majority will drive around the 85th percentile (aka the speed that most people are comfortable driving at).
      
      When Montana introduced the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit during the daytime, the overall average speed did not significantly change. The majority of people drove between 65 to 80 mph on a rural interstate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Anti-Anti-Mike, 5 Jan 2010 @ 1:10am
  
  FTA: "you can't stop what technology allows."
  
  The Anti-Mike: "I will use this answer the next time I get a speeding ticket."
  
  Once again you have failed to notice the painfully obvious. While the officer is writing out your ticket, twenty-some motorists pass you who I guarantee are all speeding as well. If law enforcement was able to catch every single violator, there would be no crime. If you truly want to prove Mike wrong, you'll need to put in much more effort.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Astrid Girardeau, 4 Jan 2010 @ 10:32pm

These last days, the Hadopi (the autority in charge of the the three-strikes) has been created.

But the law has been delayed to may, june or later. The "enforcement decrees" haven't been published yet. So the law can't be applied. And according to the ministry of culture, they will be published in the next six months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2010 @ 11:36pm

Fun Fact: Mike is not a music pirate; therefore, Anti-Mike is a music pirate and should immediately be kicked off the internet (after two more people accuse him).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Anti-Mike (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 7:48pm
  
  Re:
  fun fact: You failed basic logic. Please return to grade 3 where you belong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - J, 17 Jun 2010 @ 2:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You dishonest/dumb whichever applies.
    
    15% of all traffic is above some value now where it states that all 15% are inside the limiting area at any given moment?
    
    Logic fail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - J, 17 Jun 2010 @ 2:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    15/25=0.6
    
    If all the 15% that are above the limit are inside an area that have limits, which is not what the guy said, he said all traffic and that means the entire way that includes limited and unlimited areas, there is no way of knowing if people reduce speed to comply or not unless you go there to measure and take samples which I doubt you have done.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dementia (profile), 5 Jan 2010 @ 7:09am

I'll do it, since the accusation doesn't require any proof, who cares whether he is or not. I accuse him of being a music pirate. There, one more accusation should do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 5 Jan 2010 @ 9:11pm

wow this anti-mike guy is soooo full of fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]