Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'

from the of-course-that's-the-plan... dept

Tue, Feb 12th 2013 7:45am — Mike Masnick

We were just talking about how three strikes hasn't done anything to actually increase sales. Instead, as many, many people predicted, sales have continued to decline. Of course, perhaps treating your biggest fans as criminals is not a particularly wise strategy. But, then again, the big entertainment legacy players aren't exactly known for wise or thoughtful strategies.

With France, the biggest supporters of a "three strikes (accusations) and we kick you off the internet" plan facing pushback from the government, it appears that the industry folks have hit on their latest ridiculous strategy. Rather than kick people off the internet, why not take a page from copyright trolls, and force them to cough up money. Yes, indeed, it appears that the entertainment industry is looking to turn "piracy" into a "business model" by forcing people they accuse (not convict) of infringement to pay up in large masses. Except, rather than using shady dealings via questionable court procedures, they're just hoping to roll it into existing three strikes plans:

UPFI, (Union of Independent Phonographic Producers), said that it agreed with the opinion of French music rights group SACEM that a disconnection regime should be replaced with warnings along with fines of 140 euros.

PCInpact contacted Jerome Roger, Director General of UPFI, who confirmed the group is indeed in favor of such fines.

This leaning towards cash penalties is also endorsed by Warner Music President Thierry Chassagne. In recent comments Chassange suggested that not enough punishments have been handed out under Hadopi and that a deterrent is necessary.

In other words, if kicking people off the internet isn't getting them to give us more money... how about we skip that middle step and just force them to give us money. It is, clearly, taking a page straight out of the copyright trolling handbook.

According to French publication Numerama, this new direction is basically a done deal in France. And, of course, once it shows up there, expect the same sort of things to start popping up around the globe quickly. The industry doesn't spring stuff like this in just one place alone. There's a global strategy behind it.

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, copyright trolls, education, fines, france, hadopi, three strikes

122 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 6:48am

The question is...

How many people are even going to bother paying these fines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ltlw0lf (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 7:16am
  
  Re:
  How many people are even going to bother paying these fines?
  
  How many people pay and don't contest fines from red light or speed cameras? Essentially the same thing...though some would argue that the cameras are a safety issue while there is no safety involved with stopping copyright infringement. They are both using technology to stop some transgression, usually employed by a commercial interest that is more interested in making money off of "transgressions" then stopping the problem. And more often then not, just with the cameras, there is an attitude of "this technology is flawless, you can't contest it, just pay up and move along with your life."
  
  Though I'd agree, the French government is pretty much taking the teeth out of this, especially if the only stick involved is removal from the internet, which they cannot do. But if they make this a criminal fine, where you go to jail if you don't pay it, they might get more compliance which is what I fear (not from the standpoint of doing anything wrong, but the standpoint of due process as you are bound to get a lot of innocent people forced to pay.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Interesting that you compare it to running red lights.
    
    Some 30+ years ago when I lived in Buenos Aires the police would just stand on corners and write down license plate numbers of people that ran the lights. The municipality would then send out a notice of fine to the registered owner of the vehicle. Since the notices usually appeared months after the alleged incident no one knew who was driving or even if the number was written down correctly. Consequently these notices went largely ignored. If a vehicle owner had enough ignored notices that someone decide to try to collect them all they would simply register the vehicle in a different municipality, or in extreme cases go to one of many places that would alter the vehicle ID number, then re-register the vehicle.
    
    The license plate number on a vehicle is no more linked to an operator than an IP address is linked to a user.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Interesting that you compare it to running red lights.
      
      Ah, but I didn't. I compared it to red light cameras.
      
      If the police were there, pulling folks over for running red lights, I'd have no issue with it. The police officer saw the totality of the event (they saw the conditions of the road at the time the infraction occurred, and the circumstances of the crime.) And based on their training and experience, they saw that the crime broke the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law. In other words, they put other people's lives at stake running a light. It also provides due process; the police officer can validate the person who is driving the vehicle is the one they are accusing of the crime, and the accused can mount an adequate defense (unlike waiting a number of days before figuring out what they were doing on the day and time in question.)
      
      But I agree with you, the Buenos Aires way is just as bad as a red light camera. With red light cameras, it is your word against some faceless corporation with an interest in you being guilty, whether or not you actually are. Not much different than someone writing down your license plate and sending you a ticket later.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The Libyans had solves this problem when I lived ther, earlyn1970s, by simply putting the car in jail.
      
      If you do not think that is bad eat some raw olives and you will understand.
      
      What do raw olives have to do with the car? Nothing but I can assure you that you will not eat raw olives but once. Pr-processed olives are one of the most bitter taste you will ever taste and just as unpleasant as walking in the desert.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I rather like walking in the desert.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Milton Freewater, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    "How many people pay and don't contest fines from red light or speed cameras? Essentially the same thing."
    
    People who run red lights or speed have been photographed breaking the law. A strikes program photographs an address committing an infringement against a private party. That isn't a philosophical difference, it's a legal difference.
    
    In the U.S. the strikes program is an agreement between two provate companies, so the ISP would be responsible for assessing and enforcing any "fines" ... the result would be a lot of angry calls and an enormous push toward finding an alternative. In short, it would create new, committed, diehard "pirates."
    
    "And more often then not, just with the cameras, there is an attitude of "this technology is flawless, you can't contest it, just pay up and move along with your life.""
    
    Google "speeding camera Arizona" to find out why Arizona stopped using speeding-ticket cameras. Because they were technology, not flesh-and-blood cops, citizens quickly found a way to subvert them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      People who run red lights or speed have been photographed breaking the law.
      
      Have they though? Is it possible that the company who photographed them doctored the pictures to make it look like they were breaking the law in order to profit from the fines? In California, if you enter the intersection before the light turns red, you have entered the intersection legally and may continue through the intersection even with the red light. The companies that have run the cameras have put verbiage into their contracts that outlawed the cities from changing the duration of the yellow light, or even worse, worked with the cities to shorten the yellow light to durations that weren't safe, in order to yield more convictions. And there have been issues where lights were not in time with the cameras and took pictures well before an infraction occurred. And that isn't counting things like physics, the speed of light, and reaction times of human beings. And in many cases, these cameras are run and administered by private corporations.
      
      In the U.S. the strikes program is an agreement between two provate companies, so the ISP would be responsible for assessing and enforcing any "fines" ... the result would be a lot of angry calls and an enormous push toward finding an alternative.
      
      I agree...and hope this will ultimately be the outcome. Just wish we didn't have to lose personal liberties to get there.
      
      Google "speeding camera Arizona" to find out why Arizona stopped using speeding-ticket cameras.
      
      Many cities in California have discontinued red-light cameras for the same reason. Ultimately, it came down to a judge deciding that the best interests of the public weren't being served when a private company, with interest in the outcome of the prosecution (since most of the companies were paid on the fines they collected.) Yet California courts still were sending out "you've been caught on camera, pay the bill and move on with your life, don't fight it or you'll end up paying far more for it," letters to those who were caught by the cameras. For the most part, those cities that didn't follow this private enforcement model got to keep their cameras.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  The fine may get attached to your service bill. That way if you don't pay your fine, you will be disconnected for nonpayment, not infringement.
  
  Bwahahaha.......
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    I actually look at my bill and if I see something that doesn't add up, I make a point to refute it with my ISP.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh, the ISP doesn't need or want to sneak it by. You can refute it all you like, but if it was imposed and you don't prevail and don't pay you're cut off.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well then, I hope that my ISP likes spending time in court, because that's where I'm taking them over it if they do that.
        
        Small claims too, they can't use lawyers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Small claims too, they can't use lawyers.
        
        Oh yes they can. Be sure to pack a nice lunch, it's going to get eaten.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What will happen is they will do it enough to get a large group so pissed off that a class action suit gets filed and then their lunch gets eaten.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 12:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        yeah, right. Let us know when that happens, mkay, Freetardo?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You mean like how the RIAA pissed off so many people by suing children, they stopped publicising the number of settlement letters they were sending out and have largely abandoned lawsuits?
        
        Yeah, that was a freetard failure wasn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, a quick wikipedia search reveals that small claims court does NOT have lawyers involved.
        
        Try again, AJ.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 2:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You sue a corporation, who the fuck do you think they'll send- the janitor?
        
        From nolo.com:
        
        "Can I bring a lawyer to small claims court?
        
        In a handful of states, including California, Michigan, and Nebraska, you must appear in small claims court on your own. In most states, however, you can be represented by a lawyer if you like. But even where it's allowed, hiring a lawyer is rarely cost efficient. Most lawyers charge too much compared to the relatively modest amounts of money involved in small claims disputes. Happily, several studies show that people who represent themselves in small claims cases usually do just as well as those who have a lawyer."
        
        Hope you don't start crying like last week.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 5:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You sue a corporation, who the fuck do you think they'll send"
        
        Probably no one, which case it's an auto-win for you.
        
        If they do send someone, like you say, it's not cost-efficient to send a lawyer, so why would they send one?
        
        So, really, AJ, what's your point?
        
        "Hope you don't start crying like last week."
        
        You mean when you were being a total asshat and pissed EVERYONE off and you acted like a stereotypical jock in high school holding up your hands and going "woah, calm down" to try and play off others as being in the wrong when you were?
        
        Nice try, AJ, really.
        
        All you did was show that you're an immature troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You sue a corporation, who the fuck do you think they'll send-the janitor?"
        
        Probably no one, which case it's an auto-win for you.
        
        Let us know how that works out for you.
        
        If they do send someone, like you say, it's not cost-efficient to send a lawyer, so why would they send one?
        
        Because they'd get a kick out of defending your idiotic claim with your own money. And they'd want to rub your face in shit to discourage other "Judge Judy" fans
        
        "Hope you don't start crying like last week."
        
        You mean when you were being a total asshat and pissed EVERYONE off and you acted like a stereotypical jock in high school holding up your hands and going "woah, calm down" to try and play off others as being in the wrong when you were?
        
        You're the only one who lost his composure and broke into tears. I can already see your lip quivering again. Funny, just the other day on Insider Chat you were talking about how reasoned I was.
        
        What happened to your contention that a lawyer couldn't appear in small claims court?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 6:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I didn't break into tears, AJ, I got pissed.
        
        I don't cry when I get pissed.
        
        You're such an insufferable idiot.
        
        And, no, I wasn't the only one. EVERYONE that replied to you told you to shut the hell up over how freaking annoying you were.
        
        I took a second look, and I realized that I didn't read far enough, so I made a mistake, big deal.
        
        Still, here's a little something for you, AJ...
        
        If you're accused of something and go to municipal or small claims court and the other party doesn't show up, you get out scott free...
        
        I've known people to get out of traffic tickets that way simply because the police officer didn't show up.
        
        Hell, I've had family members get out of paying tickets that way.
        
        "I can already see your lip quivering again."
        
        Oh look, AJ's being an immature troll again and trying to act like the cool kids.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 7:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's hardly news to anyone that if the opposing party no-shows you win.
        
        Don't count on Comcast or other ISP's doing that. More likely you'll get your hole stretched by a junior staff attorney two weeks out of law school.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 7:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Okay, AJ, wow...
        
        Just...
        
        Wow...
        
        Seriously, what the hell is your problem?
        
        You seem to have a real problem, and I can't figure it out, but whatever it is, it's annoying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You seem to have a real problem, and I can't figure it out, but whatever it is, it's annoying.
        
        Here we go again....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2015 @ 9:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 7:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seems like you've got some traumatic memories of your high school career. I guess years of being stuffed in lockers and having your lunch money stolen really left a mark.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 7:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was one of the biggest people in the school, AJ. Played football AND was on the wrestling team.
        
        Such an idiot, aren't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was one of the biggest people in the school, AJ. Played football AND was on the wrestling team.
        
        Making the team and riding the pine is a bit different than playing. No way someone as soft as you ever anything more than a bencher. Great you lived in a district where the special ed kids get included.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, going back to the argumentative tactic of "I don't believe you, neener neener neener." Righteous and convincing; no wonder Masnick simply cowers at the feet of your argumentative prowess. Does your wife know you're posting naughty things on Techdirt again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 12 Feb 2013 @ 7:52am

Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
Don't you complain that shutting off the connection is too harsh? So a fine seems more humane, right?

Yet you slam them and call them trolls?

Is there any appropriate punishment? Or should the Content industry send a check for a free back massage to everyone who downloads something from a Torrent network? Is that the only thing you'll ever accept, Mr. Friend of Copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zos (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:08am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  there's so much stupid there i'm not sure where to start.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    thought it was just me but he doesn't make any sense whatsoever does he?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      He's just phoneying it in anymore, where's the bob I used to know?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Blatant Coward (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:09am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  Being punished when actually guilty of something, rather than just being accused would be swell.
  
  I am not saying however back massages are not good, they are.
  
  IP Spoofing, visitors, wifi hacking, scumbag relatives on the network, poor ISP record keeping, MAC spoofing & other technical doowhippies (Yes, that is a accepted term) can all make IP's less than valid proof of GUILT.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:13am
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    technical doowhippies (Yes, that is a accepted term)
    
    Just added it to my dictionary. Thanks good sir.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:50am
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    We're past that at this point. Judge Otis Wright has rightly pointed out that not only is an IP not proof of guilt it's not even enough evidence on its own to warrant further discovery.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      Judge Otis Wright has rightly pointed out that not only is an IP not proof of guilt it's not even enough evidence on its own to warrant further discovery.
      
      Now all we need is a French judge like Judge Otis Wright to weigh in on the matter and we are golden.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RonKaminsky (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        > _a_ French judge [emphasis mine]
        
        You seem to be missing an important difference between legal systems
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ltlw0lf (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        You seem to be missing an important difference between legal systems
        
        Oh, I am aware of the difference (just pointing out that Judge Wright isn't going to be much help to the French.) Eventually the French will come around. I'm happy they went as far as they did the last time...before that, it was the will of a King that determined whether you were guilty or not of a crime and he didn't have to be impartial. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 5:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        Let's not forget that when it comes to copyright there are often heated arguments by the lobbyists to keep everything synchronised internationally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ltlw0lf (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:09am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  Don't you complain that shutting off the connection is too harsh? So a fine seems more humane, right?
  
  Bob, how about due process? How about giving the person a chance to defend themselves? How about basing the enforcement on something other than a trivial IP address, which may or may not be linked to the person committing the crime? How about making the punishment fit the crime?
  
  I don't want either of these things, fine or disconnection...I want them to recognize the basic rights of innocence until proven guilty, due process, equal protection under the law, and proper identification of the person committing the crime.
  
  If I am committing copyright infringement, I deserve attention. But if I am just using the same IP address as someone else who is committing copyright infringement, or in the same room as someone who is committing copyright infringement (without knowledge) or just not liked by the person accusing me of copyright infringement, why should I be forced to pay or be disconnected just because you think, based on a wisp of evidence, that I am guilty.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:09am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  Yet again bob, you display the ability to read and even understand some parts of the English language, but are incapable of actually understanding what anyone is actually saying. I'll give you this - at least you're not trying to redefine the language to fit your delusions this time.
  
  The objections have never been about the shutting off of connections. They've been about the lack of due process, flimsy evidence, lack of proportion compared to the supposed damage caused, lack of appeal and the fact that the business models are ultimately at fault for the entertainment industry's problems. It's about the fact that the whole thing is being attempted as a legalised protection racket with no recourse for the accused.
  
  Yes, reducing the punishment for a mere accusation (not conviction) of wrongdoing is a good start. But, it's one hell of a long way from an acceptable solution. Let's continue this discussion, but do try to read what people actually say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:09am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  Is there any appropriate punishment? Or should the Content industry send a check for a free back massage to everyone who downloads something from a Torrent network? Is that the only thing you'll ever accept, Mr. Friend of Copyright?
  
  Do you even read any of the articles here on Techdirt, bob?
  
  Just yesterday Mike posted this:
  
  "Fighting" piracy is not the same as making more money. The focus should be on figuring out ways to make money. Even if we believe that copyright infringement is a bad thing, if efforts to stop it are both expensive and ineffective, why continue? It makes absolutely no sense. Instead, let's focus on the areas of the industry that have shown that they are expanding and where there's lots of money to be made for those who embrace them. Source
  If punishment of piracy doesn't lead to increased sales, then why continue to waste resources on it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 12:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    Who cares what lies Masnick posts? The evidence is in, and that evidence is that piracy hurts sales.
    
    Only an idiot like you would be shocked by such common sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 1:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      Who cares what lies Masnick posts?
      
      What lies? Care to elaborate on that, Sparky?
      
      The evidence is in, and that evidence is that piracy hurts sales.
      
      What evidence? Got a citation for that, Sparky?
      
      Only an idiot like you would be shocked by such common sense.
      
      Heh. Calling me an idiot while clinging to faith-based assumptions and calling that common sense. Funny stuff.
      
      Common sense is not wasting valuable resources fighting piracy when there is pretty firm evidence that such actions do not increase sales.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 3:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        Go get this tattooed on your forehead, greedtardo:
        
        http://www.mediabistro.com/appnewser/how-to-stop-piracy-carnegie-mellon-professor-mic hael-smith-at-dbw_b31162
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        This article confirms what I've always said: Enforcement coupled with expanded digital distribution is the best solution. Thanks for the post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        *looks at link*
        
        You know, since Megaupload went down, my digital purchases didn't go up at all. In fact, i spent LESS on digital purchases since Megaupload went down.
        
        I'm pretty sure their data is flawed there.
        
        I do agree with the whole "make it legal and easy to buy" part, look at Russia with Steam's services.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 13 Feb 2013 @ 1:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        Wow an opinion piece reported on by someone at a blog. It's that the sort of thing you usually reject outright when that's one on this blog? Primary source or GTFO.
        
        By the way, you drooling moron, that piece doesn't even say what you think it says. It says that increased availability to legal digital solutions has led to greater sales. That not restricting customers from what they wish to access is a major part of the solution. For example:
        
        "But when ABC partnered with Hulu they saw a 37 percent decrease in piracy, and no change in DVD sales, illustrating that making content available can lead to a decrease in piracy."
        
        You know, like what's been said right here for years, something you're understand if your impotent childish attacks allowed you to read and understand what people were really saying? Carry on with your name calling and whining, the adults will continue to point out what reality looks like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 13 Feb 2013 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        Go get this tattooed on your forehead, greedtardo:
        
        Just out of curiosity, what the fuck is a greedtardo?
        
        If you are going to insult me, the least you could do is make a decent attempt at something intelligent, instead of having to resort to made-up baby-words without meaning.
        
        As to your link, um... do you have any links to sources that the author relied upon for his conclusions. I couldn't find any. That piece is simply an opinion without substance. I also could write one like that if I wanted too. Not having to worry about things like, you know, facts would make it really easy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:15am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  Sure...if the fine is 29 eurocents.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:16am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  If I download a copy of a freely distributed movie (read: a movie someone created and wanted it distributed for frea - their choice - not some Hollywood remake of a remake that they want to window lock for a month), and because I happen to be torrenting and because a large number of people happen to torrent movies copyright owners don't want torrented... Yes I do want a back massage!
  
  Especially when I legally buy movies and have to sit through unskippable ads and warnings! Especially when those in France torrenting a file, that they are legally able to, and are accused of copyright infringement/stealing and fined 140Euros without any proof whatsoever.
  
  Yes, they too deserve a back massage after all that stress because of being falsely accused.
  
  The good part about murder trials or parking fines, they require proof. You can't randomly assign a fine to someone, you need to have proof. You can't randomly accuse someone of murder either, you need proof.
  
  So yes, accusing without proof, like DMCA's, are abuse and yes, back massages are required!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:23am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  "Don't you complain that shutting off the connection is too harsh?"
  
  Yes, it is too harsh, when it is being done on a mere ALLEGATION of infringement. The "proof" of which is an IP address, which, as has been pointed out specifically to you numerous times, can be easily spoofed or changed or any number of other things.
  
  "So a fine seems more humane, right?"
  
  Not at all. Especially not when it's a fine for an allegation. That'd be the equivalent of the cops issuing tickets at random and you having to pay, because they think you may have sped or ran a stop sign.
  
  It might be "more human", but it is in no way right or even remotely fair.
  
  "Yet you slam them and call them trolls?"
  
  Forcing people to pay up for ALLEGATIONS without actual proof or evidence of wrongdoing is exactly what copyright trolls do. So yes, calling them "trolls" is justified and fitting given what they're doing.
  
  "Is there any appropriate punishment?"
  
  Yes, the ones they're trying, but with penalties and punishments in accordance with the crime. As well as clear and understood methods of detection of the crime, as well as evidence gathering. Then some of us might not have as much issue with the "solutions".
  
  But overall, no, there is no appropriate punishment. Piracy is a service problem, Gabe Newell has been quoted on this. The same Gabe Newell who was told not to do business in Russia due to all the piracy. The same Gabe Newell who went into Russia (with Steam/Valve) anyway and turned a ridiculously huge profit, putting such "the sky is falling in Russia" claims to shame and definitively settling/setting the point that if you give people legal options at reasonable prices they'll choose them over piracy.
  
  "Or should the Content industry send a check for a free back massage to everyone who downloads something from a Torrent network?"
  
  Your hyperbole is duly noted and marked for what it is, the petulant statement of a child/adult who's had their arguments pointed out as being incorrect (and evidence has been provided to prove said arguments incorrect.)
  
  "Is that the only thing you'll ever accept, Mr. Friend of Copyright?"
  
  Mike has written numerous articles on how to beat piracy. Given that you don't read the articles it's easy to see how you probably missed them. But to summarize Mike's various methods to beat piracy (without having to resort to enforcement): easier access to digital goods (at reasonable prices, with no DRM/geographical restrictions, and available without delays), the creation and expansion of current digital offerings (overcharging Netflix/Pandora/Spotify license fees because they proved a streaming model can be successful is killing the proverbial golden goose), and a reform of copyright to bring it back in line with its original intent (not with what it has become) which will result in respect for copyright, as opposed to the disrespect currently held for it and rightfully so.
  
  When are you going to get a fucking clue, bob? Seriously. Your arguments are ripped apart so easily I don't know why you even bother.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- squall_seawave (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:24am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  well a reasonable fine would be well... fine
  2 usd per torrent is reasonable i think the problem is that i think the fines would be from $5000 usd up to insane amounts also the fact that false acusations wouldnt have penalties well you can undertstand why people dont think is a good idea
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Becker (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:28am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  Oh, how bout a little due process? These are fines levied on ACCUSATIONS. There is no due process here at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:47am
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    The news has made frequent reports that bob has absolutely no conception of the difference between accusations and convictions or judgments.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    Oh, how bout a little due process? These are fines levied on ACCUSATIONS. There is no due process here at all.
    
    Since the fines are levied by an administrative panel, not a court- applying judicial due process standards is not required. Likely that fines would simply be collected on your monthly bill. Of course, one could probably get a day in court by suing the administrative panel. Then you get your judicial-level due process.
    
    I don't know what's with the ceaseless chants of "due process" outside of a legal proceeding. It simply doesn't apply.... anywhere.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      I don't know what's with the ceaseless chants of "due process" outside of a legal proceeding. It simply doesn't apply.... anywhere.
      
      The fact that these punishments are levied "outside of a legal proceeding" IS the problem.
      
      While it may be legal in terms of contractual law, it's still a circumvention of what Joe Q. Public perceives as the fundamental rights of due process.
      
      You know, stuff like "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt","the right to face your accuser", "the right to mount a defense" and "the right to jury of your peers".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        "I don't know what's with the ceaseless chants of "due process" outside of a legal proceeding. It simply doesn't apply.... anywhere."
        
        The fact that these punishments are levied "outside of a legal proceeding" IS the problem.
        
        Maybe so, but that doesn't mean you get judicial due process.
        
        While it may be legal in terms of contractual law, it's still a circumvention of what Joe Q. Public perceives as the fundamental rights of due process.
        
        That's because Joe Q. Public (you) are wholly uninformed on how the legal system works.
        
        You know, stuff like "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt","the right to face your accuser", "the right to mount a defense" and "the right to jury of your peers".
        
        Those are all criminal law concepts. That has been said a million times. You want to mount a defense? Exhaust the administrative process, then sue them. But pray that you haven't been infringing because you also risk being put under a microscope and drawing infringement lawsuits of your own.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        Without proving the allegations, leveraging a fine against someone constitutes extortion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        That's because Joe Q. Public (you) are wholly uninformed on how the legal system works.
        
        Yes, I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe that I am "wholly uninformed on how the legal system works".
        
        You are advocating private parties doling out punishments based on accusations. That in and of itself goes against the entire basis of what our legal system is based on. It's an extremely slippery slope that if left unchecked will eventually encompass you also.
        
        Do you really want Ford automatically leveling fines against you every time your car goes over the posted speed limit?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      I don't know what's with the ceaseless chants of "due process" outside of a legal proceeding. It simply doesn't apply.... anywhere.
      
      Maybe it should.
      
      Likely that fines would simply be collected on your monthly bill.
      
      I'd be ok with this so long as any competitor would be allowed to enter the market to take on folks disconnected or fined for the accusation. I could see a great business opportunity in setting up an ISP that caters to those disenfranchised by the other vendors, but unfortunately due to the current cabal, at least in the US, if you are cut off you may or may not (likely may not) find another company able to provide you with the same service due to the monopoly stranglehold they currently have. And the fact that the current ISPs usually have a business reason (in that they are owned by or are heavily involved with the copyright industry,) this becomes worse. The only thing this will do is make it difficult for poor people to access the internet legally.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        I don't know why I have to keep pointing out that the ISP's are on board. They want to sell you the shit you're downloading, because they make big money. Good luck finding a company to invest billions and not seek to maximize its profits.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        "Good luck finding a company to invest billions and not seek to maximize its profits."
        
        by becoming a troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        I don't know why I have to keep pointing out that the ISP's are on board. They want to sell you the shit you're downloading, because they make big money.
        
        Nice history rewrite there. In the US, at least, the government put tremendous pressure on the ISPs to cave to the entertainment industry on six strikes and the ISP's have been dragging their feet the whole way. They are not on board with this as much as you imply.
        
        And personally, I pay my ISP for an unfettered connection to the internet. That's it. If they can no longer provide that to me, then I will take my business somewhere else. I'm sure a lot of others feel this way too. A company who provides that at a reasonable cost would do just fine, I would think.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        As an example, I would pay twice what I pay currently for my internet service if this guy's ISP came to my city:
        
        http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/may/04/isp-promises-stand-government/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      innocent until proven guilty. words mean things.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 6:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      In other words, shove it behind a backroom and you can do whatever the hell you want?
      
      Sure, you could do that, but don't be surprised when people start calling you out on your bullshit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drewdad (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:30am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  Your logic is bad, and you should feel bad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  So your choices are limited to death by bullet to the head or death by poison overdose?
  
  How about a third choice where the player says "eff this shit" and refuses to play?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:45am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  boB is a witch! Burn him at the stake! Burn him now!!!
  
  Unless of course, boB, you can prove you are not a witch.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr. Applegate, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    I believe the correct test for this is to bind them to a stone and throw them in a pond. If they sink and die they aren't a witch. If however, they live, they are a witch and must be burned at the stake.
    
    I have the pond to use for testing. No charge.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BeaverJuicer (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      I was told by a neighbor that someone at Bob's house practices witchcraft. They sent a snapshot of candles being burned. As it is statistically more probable that a female would be the witch, we investigated bob's household, but having not found a female presence, we assume it must be him practicing witchcraft.
      
      Your test for witchcraft, while accurate, amounts to due process giving him the opportunity to prove he is not a witch. If we are truly to follow the same tactics, we should simply burn him at the stake, and if he wants to appeal afterwards, he may pay a $50 administration fee.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mr. Applegate, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        You have a valid point, but I believe we are better than entertainment industry, so I believe in giving due process, even if bob doesn't.
        
        However, I think you may be onto something, though the administration fee seems low. Perhaps $500, and that should be paid before he is burned at the stake. Afterword we can consider if he was really guilty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      were you turned into a newt by mistake?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mr. Applegate, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
        No, but I can show my ass with the best of them, when I choose to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:43am
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    Throw him in the drink all tied up. If he floats he's a witch. If he drowns he's not. Problem solved.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:46am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  What's the difference if you can't afford the fines?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:02am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  Is not about the punishment lame bob, is about the procedures and protocols used.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:05am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  Also who cares, pirates have proven without a doubt that they will survive in any environment known to man.
  
  Normal people on the other hand will fall in that web of yours like flies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Monkey (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:29am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  I want IRREFUTABLE evidence of the accusations, determined in a COURT OF LAW, with PROPER DUE PROCESS that is required.
  
  Anything less is U N E N F O R C E A B L E
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:08am
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    Anything less is unconstitutional and unethical.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Milton freewater, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  "Or should the Content industry send a check for a free back massage to everyone who downloads something from a Torrent network? "
  
  They can't identify the users, only the IP addresses.
  
  But yes, we are calling for free back massages for IP addresses.
  
  A check requires a name on it, and IP addresses don't have names. But a coupon will work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ruben, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:46am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  The cowardice shown by copyright holders is unprecedented. Why don't they man up and take infringers to court? They're so spineless that they can't even enforce the laws they lobbied to get.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    LOL yeah right. We all saw how you losers demonized the RIAA when they did exactly that.
    
    It's 2013. Nobody's buying your bullshit anymore. Sorry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 12:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      Nobody = you.
      
      You = willing to lay down and let the RIAA sodomize you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 4:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      You mean how they took a massive number of two infringers and got named fines for it, alongside several hundred times more in children, grandmothers, dead people, etc.?
      
      It's been a decade of RIAA bullshit and nobody's buying that anymore. Sorry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 5:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
      Dead people, grandparents, little children, college students and printers say what now?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:06am
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  "Is there any appropriate punishment?"
  
  For non-commercial infringement? No. there isn't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 13 Feb 2013 @ 1:02am
    
    Re: Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
    Actually, I'd be OK with a fine of the retail value of the product downloaded, along with a maximum 200% punitive fine, with a fair, fully documented appeals process where the loser pays the the costs of appeal, plus heavy punitive fines for any copyright holder found to be abusing the process (i.e. high numbers of successful appeals that find the original accusations to be false).
    
    Of course, this would lead to a maximum of less than $5 for uncontested accusations of single downloaded tracks, the probability of costs defending said accusations and real comeback if they're found to be abusing the system. So the industry will never accept it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MikeW (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:34pm
  
  Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
  If accusations of being Hitler were treated the same as accusations of copyright infringement, no politician would make it to a position higher than state legislator before being promptly removed from office. And many wouldn't even make it that far.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:09am

when they have got control, the next thing to get is money. if they have people disconnected, they have lost both and as money means more than actually changing to give customers what they keep asking for, best to keep them connected and just keep fining them. whatever way they go, it's pure greed anyway!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:15am

Copyright is already like a tax, it's only a matter of time before it actually becomes a tax.

Instead of "selling" music and movies, we'll all have to pay a percentage of our income to the Copyright Bureau, regardless of whether we consume any copyright. Anyone not paying will be face jail time. Obviously the copyright industries will have no incentive at all to create, because they'll get paid regardless. And of course any work of art, music, theater, movie, etc, will automatically be "owned" by the Copyright Bureau in perpetuity. Because any attempt to sidestep the official Copyright Bureau would be considered theft and infringement.

It'd make great speculative fiction, but I'd hate to be the person to write their game plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:36am
  
  Re:
  A model that would never be accepted by the legacy players, but may be more palatable and creatively invigorating for all others would be a public art tax supplanting the current copyright system. That revenue stream would then be used to support the creation of books, of art, of music, of movies, etc. all of which would be publicly owned and accessible, and those that can be should be freely available online (re: all things not fundamentally tangible, like sculpture). Anyone would still be free to go their own way (direct sales, etc.), but none would be granted a (c) monopoly. Damn, but I miss living in a city with a public art program.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ima Fish (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    You don't get it. The legacy players would be the recipients of the Copyright Bureau.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  We already do pay entertainment tax on blank CDs and several other media in most european countries.
  
  Just a note: Whatever happens in France is relatively non-sequential in the rest of europe since saying anythin about HADOPI is worse than swearing. No politician with any kind of selfrespect would ever use France as a positive when it comes to copyright protection. Now, if they get independent support for such ideas elsewhere it might gain some support among european conservatives. You have to realise, though, that three strike laws have been discussed and in many places shot down because of the legal issues. Changing punishment doesn't change those issues. I am therefore sceptical that this will change much.
  
  The only thing I can see possibly changing is a more "hit them with fines"-approach to any future ways to deter piracy. I think ad-networks on the internet will be their upcoming primary target for those fines since they have a "secondary liability". That is where we have to force them to either forget it or at least set the boundaries for secondary liability so tight that the laws cannot be abused too severely. I have a feeling that the economic support for piracy is piracy is already resonating well among most politicians since the same basic principle is used in anti-terror legislation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:19am

Mike, you are a confusing guy
You talk all the time about how the industry should turn pirates into customers and now that they have found a way, you are upset by it???

/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:25am

Common sense
Kicking people off the Internet removes their ability to buy digital music and, with physical record shops closing all over the place, severely hampers their ability to buy music at all.

How can the industry not see this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:51am
  
  Re: Common sense
  Because, common sense is so rare it's a goddammed Super power.
  
  Just ask Deadpool.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:33am

Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  Anonymous Coward, or should I say John Steele, just hates it when due process is enforced.
  
  You're also an idiot if you think "three strikes", be it in the form of disconnections or fines, counts as enforcement. It's not enforcement when it takes two years and millions of dollars in taxpayers' money to catch the wrong person. It's a poor joke of the master kicking the retarded dog while asking it to fetch a stick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:47am
  
  Re:
  How much do you get paid to copy/paste this industry trope into every thread?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ruben, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:24am
  
  Re:
  How is this enforcement? It's certainly not legitimate enforcement and certainly is a perversion of justice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:42am

Can someone say "rent-seeking"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrWilson, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:51am

There is no Step 2
1. Fine them money.
2. Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:52am

French ISP's will be desperate to make more peering agreements since almost all their traffic will be going out now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:52am

Where does the money go?
One thing that's not clear in the article is where the money from the collected fines would go. Would it go to the government coffers? Would it be distributed to French movie studios? Would they be handing it over to some industry organization like GEMA?

It seems to me that there are pretty serious issues with giving the money back to the industry, either to an umbrella organization or directly to the studios. Doing that would give the studios direct incentives to encourage piracy, because they would make more money from fining a downloader than they would from selling a ticket. It would incentivize them even more to encourage piracy of foreign films, because they don't get any of the money when people pay for those films.

The whole concept seems deeply flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:56am

This thing will be sued into oblivion. It's DOA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim Griffiths (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:59am

They have a "piracy tax" on blank media
And they now have a "piracy tax" on the internet in all but name in France. No one would accept an flat out tax on the net in the way the industry so desperately wants but they can now skim money from any one they feel like with out any kind of due process. All while trying to look like the good guys for "scaling back" from disconnecting people from net.

All they care about is making money, they do no care where this money comes from. They thought that disconnecting people would stop the drop in sales, it didn't, so they've found a way to make up the short fall while not actually having to change any just but bleeding people who may never have given them money or do anything wrong in the first place. It's honestly obscene.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:00am

In other words, if kicking people off the internet isn't getting them to give us more money... how about we skip that middle step and just force them to give us money.

In facts they already have this possibility, as the "Hadopi" step is merely optional:
Rightsholder collect "evidence" of infringement and then give them to Hadopi, however they can also keep it to themselves and sue pirates instead (which they told they do).

If instead of directly suing pirates they issue settlement offers (e.g. 140� to forget this or that infringement), it would be de facto a fine, and since this process can be automated, it looks close to automatic fines.

However, if the government is issuing these fines, then rightsholders won't receive money from them. There is still a big problem with that: If the government gets money from these fines, it won't have any incentive to change the system, and it will probably even push for higher fines and higher sensitivity of the system (i.e. more fines). And that's something rightsholders are looking forward to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Michael, 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:47am

Translation: An imposed tax upon arbitrarily selected persons in order to "fund" the entertainment industries, holding people's internet access hostage in the process. No due process and no oversight, as usual.

Remind me again, who controls the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:23am

And how exactly is it determined who collects the fines they give?

And who pays the court fees if the person fined decides to fight back (likely costing far more money for whomever the prosecutor is then the 140 euro fine)?

Thinking this idea through they have not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  Well, there's the filing fee (you); cost to serve the defendant (you) and administrative cost (you). And there's the cost of retaining counsel, unless you've watched a lot of "Judge Judy". If you go pro se, let the judge see that you're competent. When making a point, make sure to say ipso fatso before making your conclusionary statement. Also it's helpful to cite precedent so just tell the judge that the defendant lacks authority under the Sears v. Roebuck decision of 1903. I'm sure you'll get your due process.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2015 @ 9:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Still jizzing on your wife's laptop, average_joe?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RyanNerd (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 10:31am

Bob. Are you for real?
Bob:

I'm trying to decide if you really believe the things you post, or if you are some up and coming lawyer wanting to play devil's advocate with a group of informed and intelligent people.

Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:08am
  
  Re: Bob. Are you for real?
  He clearly didn't learn a single thing from that 400+ post article a couple weeks back, where he went back and forth from saying no-one's accusing anyone of copyright infringement, to its the ISPs accusing their subscribers directly, by paying contractors to manufacture the evidence...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:27am
  
  Re: Bob. Are you for real?
  neither, just garden variety house elf
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew D. Todd, 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:43am

Say It With Me: "The Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, and Routes Around It"
Well, did you see this?

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/02/12/1650248/connecting-android-phones-without-carrier-n etworks
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/android-phones-are-connecting-without-carrier-ne tworks

People are doing the standards work necessary to make every Android cellphone behave like a node in a Roofnet-style wireless mesh network.

See my previous comment:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/14380521924/ip-address-snapshots-not-sufficien t-evidence-to-file-infringement-suit-prenda-lawyer-faces-sanctions.shtml#c699

All of these technological threads are coming together, with an irresistible force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re: Say It With Me: "The Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, and Routes Around It"
  And the government is the immovable object.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techflaws (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 12:56pm

I don't see what problem is. People forced to paying hefty fines (based on accusations no less) will spend all the money they don't have anymore (since they paid the fines) on buying content. Sounds completely logical to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
technomage (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 3:48pm

What's with all this hate against witches? We don't like trolls....in the dungeon....just thought you should know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 11:51pm

I think it is a perfectly fine system.
I think that it needs to be heard by an impartial court, adjudicated on the merits and when the cartel groups are unable to prove their case they award $140,000 to the person targeted.
They already held someone responsible for the actions of a 3rd party, and that isn't fair so the law should stop that sort of thing from happening.

Imagine how much better the DMCA process would be if they were forced to pay $500 for every single bogus takedown they sent out. No longer just assuming that a copyright holder is always correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]