France: Copyright Is More Important Than Human Rights
from the liberty,-equality,-fraternity,-monopoly dept
It's no secret that Nicolas Sarkozy is a strong supporter of more draconian copyright laws, and has also been talking about the need to clamp down on free expression online. Even so, it's still a bit shocking to see him outright declare that copyright is more important than human rights online:The Foreign Ministry said that France does not wish to sign a UN declaration favorable to the defense of human rights on the Internet until there is no consensus on the fact that freedom expression and communication does not take precedence over other rights, including intellectual property.That's from a Google translation of the French which is a little awkward. Using a different translator, it translates the "until there is no consensus" to be "as long as there will be no consensus." French speakers, feel free to confirm. But it appears the French government is saying that it refuses to sign a declaration concerning human rights online unless those who sign on agree to admit that freedom of expression and communication is less important than copyright. That's insane.
As Glyn Moody writes in the link above, this very much goes counter to France's actual interests. The country, which is well known for promoting French culture above foreign cultures, doesn't seem to realize that locking up its culture will do the exact opposite of what its officials seem to expect:
The worst thing the French government can do would be to make it *harder* to access French culture in the form of literature, music, films, etc through increasingly punitive enforcement of outdated copyright laws. Instead, it should be encouraging all the relevant industries to make their wares available as widely as possible - if necessary through subsidies.Or, as Moody puts it more succinctly in his post's title: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity... Monopoly.
And yet Sarkozy seems to regard supporting his fat-cat chums in the copyright industries as more important that truly helping the broader culture French culture, or even - heaven forfend - supporting universal ideals like freedom.
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: copyright, france, human rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The ministry of external affairs said that France does not wish to sign a declaration from the UN favorable to the defense of Human rights on the Internet as long as there's no consensus on the fact that liberty of expression and communication is not superior to other rights, in particular intellectual property.
That being said, he's an ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No surprises here, Sarkozy is the worst rotten crap humanity has to offer. It is unfortunate he managed to reproduce although there is the chance the kid will be different from the parents...
Hopefully the French are reading that. And hopefully they are as outraged (but not surprised) as most of us (except MAFIAA) and will be inclined to take action against this French Hitler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, self-entitled Americans should not call the kettle black. We roll over, not for foreign aggressors, but for domestic abrogation of our rights. Patriot Act, Protect IP, warrantless wiretaps, retroactive immunity, etc, etc. Hardly a peep from us patriots. We'd much rather watch reality TV and get lathered up about abortion or gay marriage.
The French could teach us something about standing up for our rights. If the gov't there pushes too far, there will be a protest in the Champs Elysees faster than you can say "Jean Valjean". Striking and demonstration has reached the level of national pastime! And that's a good thing.
You can disagree all you want with the things they protest, but you shouldn't argue with their zeal to get involved with their governance. Around here, the only group I see that is as politically engaged is a wacky splinter group that believes Paul Revere rode around to warn the British that "were a comin".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are not enough "insightful" votes in the world for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not ALL of us roll over. The ones aware of the problems of copyright infringement, the FISA Act, the current fiscal policies of "corporatism trumps all" hasn't gone unnoticed. But unless we file a report that will be ignored, a law that will take away freedoms, wiretaps that we aren't allowed to know about, and immunities not discussed by the people, aren't shown to us unless we look for it. It's difficult to tell others about these things.
Ask a Senator? Form letter
Ask a Congressman? Form letter.
Grievance against your government? Form letter.
Face it, the American process is just one form letter after another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you declare that:
Then don't be surprised if nobody takes you seriously anymore and ignores your clearly biased "laws" and "rights".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The end is particularly butched in the translators
The Foreign Ministry said that France does not wish to sign a UN declaration favorable to the defense of human rights on the Internet as long as there will be no consensus on the fact that freedom expression and communication does not take precedence over other rights, especially intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, duh. How many checks have Human Rights lobbyists given to politicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's setting "intellectual property" as the most important right, and that's just disgusting. He's saying that denting culture and knowledge for the benefit of "some" takes precedence of freedom of expression and communication, which benefit everyone and are the very foundations of any democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Should read:
"He's saying that denying culture..."
*grumble* auto-correction *grumble*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How a movie studio making more money on something is more important than people being slaughtered or treated in such a way as would be seen cruel is a vile comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
that means EVERYTHING, including speech, IP, privacy,
Freaking everything, and no one form of "human rights" can take precidence over others.
Mike as usual has completely missed the entire point, but that is normal and expected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Human rights" are based on the philosophy of Natural rights, and can be traced back in legal documents to such things as the Magna Carta (which stated that the sovereigns will could be bound by law), Bill of Rights (UK, 1600cc), Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (France 1789) up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN in 1948.
Philosophers like Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Hobbes have theorised and expanded on these 'rights' for centuries giving us what we currently know as "Human rights"
The right to IP (Copyright, trademark,Patents) though is definitely not a Natural Right, in fact it only comes from the British "Statute of Anne (1709)" and is still to this day a Legal (Statutory) exclusive right only. Becasue of this the "right of exclusive copyright/IP" can be taken away at the behest of the government/people. whereas a natural/Human right can not be taken away from anyone because they are inalienable (unable to be alienated, surrendered, or transferred).
In fact Thomas Jefferson himself in the US when creating the United States Declaration of Independence removed the word "property" from the original draft (due to the philosophy of Locke) and replaced it with "pursuit of happiness" instead, showing that ownership of Property was then as it is today not an inalienable human right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Note to self: Next time check, and log in before posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
that means EVERYTHING, including speech, IP, privacy,
No, plenty of people "get it", they just reject it.
There used to be segment of the US population who thought that the "right to own slaves" was a form of "human rights", too. A war was fought over that one. Still, some people never got the message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Glad to know exactly where you stand - do you agree with the RIAA on this point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think the Anon seems to have this quite correct, and your comment in comparison, is quite inflammatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Eh???
I re-quote exactly what the anon said and you say thatI am being inflammatory?
That makes no sense to me.
I then ask him whether he disagrees with the reported RIAA stance on DRM vs safety concerns - he can come back and say "No I don't agree with that" if he likes - just trying to find out where his stance actually is. In this sub-thread the French position is not the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Questioning is inflammatory, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
France?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troubling
Very troubling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
translation from my french coworker - not at all interpreted right from translate
First paragraph says that liberty, respect of "private life" and private property are all fundamental rights of the same level.
Check with people who speak french first before posting so off on this. I mean really, did you expect google translate to work well for *french*?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
addition/correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
last addition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: last addition
No, what he said and tried to weasel his way through was that imaginary property is a right above all other rights hence the "in particular the Intellectual Property".
At best he tried to lump everything on the same level and tried to say that imaginary property is a right which is not, it is a privilege conceded by society represented by their elected officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: last addition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: translation from my french coworker - not at all interpreted right from translate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: translation from my french coworker - not at all interpreted right from translate
I'll add that copyright doesn't remove our natural/human right to copy, it only annuls its recognition in law - an 18th century privilege that supersedes our primordial cultural liberty.
It's time the people stopped recognising copyright altogether, and just enjoyed their natural liberty to share and build upon their own culture.
France should be Questioning Copyright, not questioning human rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: translation from my french coworker - not at all interpreted right from translate
We are already doing it my friend, we're already doing it :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a surprise
Read it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your take MAY be correct, but the words are nuanced:
Can be read as not wanting to set one right above another, that all are essential.
Nor do I agree that all copyright laws are "outdated". Has to be some, or the industry disappears. Besides, you object that they're being adjusted right now to cover the new ease of reproduction and distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your take MAY be correct, but the words are nuanced:
I would definitely argue that the idea of IP, especially when applied to corporations, is nowhere near as important as individual freedom of speech. For example, how can you truly express said freedom if the IP of others is as important as whatever you have to say?
"all copyright laws are "outdated". Has to be some, or the industry disappears"
It's certainly possible to criticise the laws as outdated without calling for them to be revoked. A subtle difference that many pro-IP people here seem to miss.
"Besides, you object that they're being adjusted right now to cover the new ease of reproduction and distribution."
They're being adjusted to protect the old gatekeepers, who are no longer necessary, at the expense of both artists and the public. That's certainly worthy of objection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your take MAY be correct, but the words are nuanced:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You freetards are pathetic not even grasping at strawmen just the straws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was attempting to be a troll.
I'll go back to quietly sipping my Koolaid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is a human right
It's rather depressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright is a human right
If you need the power of the state to threaten anyone who sings your songs, tells your stories, or copies your photos, then this is a big clue it's not a human right. Human rights arise through the nature of the individual, not arbitrary laws the crown or state think might be lucrative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright is a human right
Answer - because copyright is not a natural moral thing that people instinctively recognise - but rather an invented and imposed concept which the have to keep trying to drum into the masses - mostly unsuccessfully!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright is a human right
The 1709 Act was actually about protecting authors and making sure they got a reasonable financial return, rather than the Stationers' Guild stuff (from the 1550s onwards) which involved monopolies over publishing, censorship and control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright is a human right
If the Stationers' Company wanted Queen Anne to reinstate their monopolies (if not restore to them their exclusive control over all printing) they would have the cunning to portray their granting as not at all in their own interests, but in the interests of the laity, or perhaps the poor starving authors...
That every original work has an author, and to be practical, reproduction monopolies must be granted per original work, conveniently entails that monopolies appear to be granted to each author (instead of to each work). It is thus easy to portray the monopoly as intended for the author and their beenfit, not the publisher destined to exploit it (having the potency the author lacks).
Why do you think most artists signed to record labels never recoup their advances? The monopoly isn't intended for the artist, but the publisher geared up to exploit it.
If copyright was intended for the author it wouldn't be transferable, and it would be policed by the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now the funny part of that is that it also have some of the biggest contributions to online sharing.
Jamendo is French, Sarcoidosis try really hard and his own people undermine his efforts LoL
VLC:
"Originally the VideoLAN project started as an academic project in 1996. It was intended to consist of a client and server to stream videos across a campus network. VLC was the client for the VideoLAN project, with VLC standing for VideoLan Client. Originally developed by students at the École Centrale Paris, it is now developed by contributors worldwide and is coordinated by the VideoLAN non-profit organization."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is an attack on Fair Use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
France & copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems to me as a desperate mercantile approach.
(Well, actually we won't buy anything from you, we will prefer other civilizations. No, not because we prefer to steal -or download- instead, but because we are humans even before being just stupid "customers" as you would like us to be. So, thanks, but no thanks.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]