Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

French govt: "privacy is overrated"

by Alex in Toulouse Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 02:37:50 PM EST

For 3 days, and starting tonight, the infamous DADVSI law, version 2.0,
will be (re)discussed in the Assemblée Nationale.
Last December, version 1.0 of the DADVSI law was scrapped after contradictions appeared in the text.

This law:

  • proposes to implement anti-copy mechanisms in the digital world that will help control and watch the internet (thus trampling privacy rights)
  • threatens open source software
  • threatens free internet radios
  • will complicate library and research issues regarding access to protected knowledge content
  • introduces strange concepts of "guilty until proven innocent" in French law
  • plays very favourably into the hands of the major distribution companies
  • etc etc

Promoted by Colman


It is a scandal, and everything must be done to make it collapse a second time.

It is also totally absurd, as it is based on the assumption that whatever we pass as law today will still be valid tomorrow, when technologies will have completely changed. It is in the same line as the past reactions to the first libraries (book printers then felt threatened and thus lobbied to shut them down), to the first radios (gramophone publishers then felt threatened and lobbied to shut them down) ... it is archaic.

Good information on the law can be found here in English:
http://eucd.info/index.php?English-readers

And, in particular, a summary of some of its implications here:
http://eucd.info/index.php?2005/12/04/202-dadvsi-what-s-the-trouble

The debate can be watched, live (in French), here (in PROPRIETARY FORMATS, which shows how little the government understands about open source software) :

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/seance/seancedirect.asp

Display:
I will try to post excerpts from interactions in parliament, focusing on the most funny ones, or the most ridiculous ones.

For starters, the Minister of Culture, the man behind this abomination of a law, started the debate by saying: "ce gouvernement auquel je suis fier d'appartenuire", which is a monumental Freudian slip!! Instead of saying "this goverment which I am proud to belong to", he said "this government which I am proud to damage".

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 02:34:29 PM EST
An exchange between a Socialist against this law, and the President of Parliament (pro-government but supposed to be neutral):

Christian Paul (the Socialist, also a computer expert and one of the few people in the hemicycle who really knows what he's talking about): "Mr President, you have suggested that you disregard our position"

President: "No, I haven't, don't let your fantasies-"

CP: "Yes you have, in a subtle way, inside a gap".

President: "I don't like gaps, I like bumps"

CP: "Oh don't worry, there will be a lot more bumps in this law when I'm done with it".

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 02:40:41 PM EST
Insider joke:

A Green member of parliament (naturally also opposed to this law) explains something simple to the government's majority:

Green woman: "the download of something on the internet, sorry download is the English word, the déchargement-"

(ok "déchargement" means "to offload", which is also used to say "to take a crap" ... she meant "téléchargement")

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 02:44:14 PM EST
Ok the debate has now stopped, it will re-start at 22:00 European time ... I guess that the recess means that members of parliament have gone to stuff themselves silly with expensive gourmet food paid by French taxpayers.
by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 02:49:13 PM EST
Good and timely work, Alex.

The French Ministry of Culture has let a Trojan Horse into its gates. Under cover of protecting creators' rights, the "culture" and entertainment majors and the software majors, Micro$oft to the fore, are advancing their agenda. This law would compartmentalize the internet in the way they wish: there would be only proprietary formats read by proprietary software. Interoperable open-source software without DRMs would be outlawed.

In spite of the bashing they took in December, the government don't seem to have backed off much on this. If you're a resident in France and you haven't yet signed the petition, it's here:

EUCD.info Petition

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 02:55:20 PM EST
Good and timely work, Alex.

Well certainly timely, but not particularly good (I hurried to write a diary, leaving out a lot of necessary explanations ... but then again there is so much to say on this topic).

So to account for my lack of preparation on this issue tonight (diary-wise), I'll be monitoring the debates and rewriting the most interesting exchanges here.

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 03:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems the lobbyists are in full flow. Is there any hope of a rebellion, or will the government be able to force this through?
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 03:19:10 PM EST
From sheer numbers, they will force this through the way they want (the government's party has a majoriy at parliament). Also, some of the "rebels" in the governemnt's party, who opposed this law in December, now seem docile and go on about how "this new version of the law is ok" for them.
by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 03:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Side note: if this law comes to forbid private copies (of legally purchased stuff), then a currently existing tax on digital mediums (blank CDs etc), which exists solely to protect artists against some of the money they may lose due to private copies, will have to be scrapped. The problem is that some 20-30% of this tax is paid back to local/regional cultural festivals who rely on this money to exist. Kill culture while trying to protect it, nice irony.

Also, the governement intends to supposedly tone down the war rhetoric (3 years imprisonment and 300 000 euros in fines for downloaders) and introduce a simple fine for each download (38 euros). But what will this lead to? After paying a few fines, will you buy any more legal music disks? You'll hate music disks and all they represent, being so pissed off at all the fines you will have paid, particularly if at times you were unaware you were downloading something illegal. So you'll stop buying disks, and P2P technology will evolve and take one more step ahead of the authorities, and the cycle will go on, and nothing will be solved.

I think the government really has no idea what kind of Trojan Horse it is about to let in, and doesn't know what the hell to do about the internet or the digital age.

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 03:20:09 PM EST
I mean, do (car) parking fines actually prevent people from parking in the wrong place? Everyone keeps on doing it, and when they do it they just walk out of their car thinking "bah, it's only 35 euros, and maybe I won't get caught". Does it make them appreciate paying parking spots more? No, it only makes them go round in their car for 20 additional minutes (hello pollution), looking for a free spot ... or it just makes them park illegally even more but in more subtle ways (on handicapped places etc),  ... or it may also make them take their bicycle even more. All in all, I doubt it really helps the "paying parking" industry.

This analogy was provided to you free of any copyright.

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 03:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's really not a good example, Alex.
Limiting parking spaces, and that includes making people pay for street parking (ecxcept for residential parking) is the SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE way to reduce car traffic. If people knos they can't park, they don't tkae their cars. Residential parking is smart, especially in Paris, as it freezes a large number of parking spaces.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 06:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, I may not have properly written my comment (it was hard to follow the debate and simultaneously type comments here and on another online forum debating this issue) ... my analogy was not about reducing car traffic or anything like that, but about the argument that "fining people for parking in the wrong place will lead them to choose paying parking spots".

(ie. by fining people for downloading stuff on the internet, the Minister claims that he will make millions of people shift towards paying solutions)

This is the nature of the analogy I chose, actually.

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 06:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, well, at least it's what I would have wanted to say :)
by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 06:34:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmmm, come to think of it, I have no excuses as I typed that comment during their break.

Must be the mandatory Digital Rights Management device implanted in my brain which prevents me from making sound analogies against the government's proposals.

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 06:37:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the argument that "fining people for parking in the wrong place will lead them to choose paying parking spots" is actually a sound one, IF (and that's a big if in France) traffic rules - and parking rules - were consistently enforced.

I live not far form the fourriere, so poorly parked cars around here are very often picked up, because it means they can go back to the lot and back for more faster... And yet they seem to pick up cars parked on delivery spots much more systematically than cars parked on pedestrian crossings, which annoys me to no end...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 07:02:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure about that, as purely anecdotal evidence I know a lot of people who'll just drive around for a (long) time rather than stop at a paying spot (on general principle and not because they are penny-pickers). But it does indeed discourage them from parking in the wrong spots, that's true (save perhaps people I know in Marseille, where no one seems to give a damn and cars are parked in horrible places).

So using this analogy on the DADVSI issue, it's not because you start fining illegal downloaders that they will suddenly start paying for their downloads. In my opinion they'll just go and find other places to download the same stuff for free (like in Russia for example), or going back to the analgoy with car owners shifting to bicycles, will shift to some other method of getting their digital stuff.

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 07:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As part of its entry into the WTO, Russia is cracking down viciously on copyright infringement.  Small businesses (i.e. less than 20 people) that previously used pirated copies of Windows are now being forced to pay up to Microsoft.

Downloads are probably not that far behind.

by slaboymni on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 07:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When they introduced that tax on blank media in Spain, people argues that that was a reason to actually make illegal copies... That was also when the SGAE (society of Authors and Editors) lost any sympathy the public may have had for them.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 03:48:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great diary Alex, well done ! Happy to see you too are  tracking the inconsistencies of our government.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 03:47:56 PM EST
Ok, they're back. The Minister is explaining who will benefit from exceptions in the area of private copies, making it sound as if this was really wonderful and modern:

  • handicapped people will have the possibility to get copies created for them when it'll facilitate their access to content (but they won't be allowed to keep these copies)
  • libraries will be allowed to do backups (pffff)
  • certain temporary copies will be allowed (caches on hard disks of servers for example ... again, pfffff)

Anyone or any act that does not fall in one of these categories, will not be allowed to make private copies. If you buy an MP3 for your iPod, you won't be allowed to copy it into a format usable on your Philips MP3 player. You'll just have to buy another MP3 for your other player.

Progress is unstoppable!

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 04:09:10 PM EST
The Green woman (Billard) just asked the government "What will people do with their blank CDs if they aren't allowed to make private copies? Why sell blank CDs then? And how can we keep a tax on these if we want to restrain copies anyhow? This all seems a bit Don Quichottesque."

The government's reply: "blablabla nonsense".

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 04:43:15 PM EST
The government's argument against a "global tax" (ie you pay a few euros each month and can download anything) is:

"it will make internet access rates more expensive and thus make it harder for poor people to get an internet access"

(so wait a minute, poor people will now only be able to buy music online, but they won't be able to pay a few euros a month on a tax?)

These people are monumental idiots.

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 04:47:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh god, one of the UMP rebels, Christine Boutin, was reading her notes against the government, and was saying some really good things ... but at some point she starts mumbling, frowns, and reads "summary: insert notes".

Ohhh nooooo!

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 04:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They're nuts. The right to private copy has existed for decades. They say their law doesn't change that, but in fact it outlaws it.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 04:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If they fine me for "private copying" of stuff downloaded on the internet, I'll pay a detective to prove that the judge has a grand-child who's already photocopied a few pages from a book.
by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 04:57:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's a global copy agreement on books, covering private and academic non-commercial photocopy...
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 05:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what I don't understand. Why would a book have that, and a PDF book not have that? It doesn't make any sense.
by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 05:13:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
9/11 changed everything.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 05:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exchange between a socialist and a UMP:

The socialist is speaking ...
An UMP interrupts him by saying "I'm not listening to you!!"
Socialist: "of course, to hear me you have to turn your hearing aid on"
The UMP bench is all offended!

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 05:08:10 PM EST
Heh. Sounds like fun.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 05:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The president of parliament is such a manipulative prick:

  1. The Socialist group points out that the Minister has talked of an agreement in the Education field, concerning private copies for teachers etc, but has failed to show them evidence of it being signed.

  2. They therefore ask for a suspension of talks on the current article they are discussing, just as the law permits them to do when documents are missing, asking that talks start again only once the Minister shows them this signed agreement. Now, the socialists are smart here, because they know that the minister is lying as that agreement is only more or less verbal, not yet finalised, and anyhow is far from being signed.

  3. But, the president of parliament being a total government-assigned prick, asks for a vote on the currently discussed article before the suspension of talks, knowing that this way it will pass and that this will screw the socialists.

Democracy at its finest.
by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 05:27:31 PM EST
The Socialists were so shocked by this that they didn't even vote.

Tens of thousands of people watching the webcast like me are so shocked too that they are now announcing that they won't put any vaseline in 2007.

Democracy schmemocracy.

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 05:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A Socialist points out that nothing will prevent French people from downloading stuff in Russia, and asks what the government plans on doing about that, as downloading non-purchased stuff outside the borders of France is not covered by this law.

The government evades and replies with insipid words.

Ok, Russia is about to become the average French internet user's best friend, until 2007 at least.

by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 05:38:42 PM EST
Ok, that's it for tonight. All the votes which should have passed didn't, and all the votes which shouldn't have passed did. A basic rule of democracy: the majority always wins.
by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 06:05:06 PM EST
Some New Jersey lawmakers think that privacy is dangerous: there is a proposal to ban anonymous posting on internet forums.
by das monde on Tue Mar 7th, 2006 at 09:10:15 PM EST
I completely forgot to mention that when the debates on version 2.0 started, the government removed article I from the law (this was the article that had caused the government so much trouble in December, condemning version 1.0 to an early exit).

Apparently, under article 84 of our constitution, this is an illegal move, but some hidden, obscure clause, last used about 45 years ago, enables them to do so under special provisions of sorts. Normally you can remove a law under discussion, but not an article. You can vote on modifications of an article, but you don't vote on an article per se and certainly can't remove one as you please.

A few days ago the government stopped all discussions on the new work contract, using a similar type of procedure, but this type or more practiced one ... though in that case the Prime Minister took responsability of this maneuver, saying it was in the interest of all or some crap like that. Here, no one takes responsability, democracy is dead, freedom dies to thundering applause like Padmé would say, and the Vichy days are back!

To all those who were wondering, France was once the country of human rights, but today it is yet another banana republic sold off to commercial lobbies.

The presidential elections of 2007 are 13 months away.

by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 05:45:06 AM EST
Are we all just paranoid around here, or is there really something sinister going on? And I don't mean that there is a conspiracy of men in smoke-filled rooms: a coincidence of powerful interests is enough and does not make a conspiracy necessary.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 05:47:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In this case, seeing any coincidences would be purely coincidental, if you see what I mean.

First of all, this entire law is dealt with under a special urgency clause which enables it to pass only once in parliament (instead of twice, ie. once again after the senate discusses it). Argument of the govt: it's because we are behind schedule on a European Union directive on this matter.

Next, this law has not been passed in front of a mixed commission, nor in front of a law commission. Which means that even to us non-specialists it reads as being childish and filled with errors, though to use such special commissions is standard procedure. Argument of the govt: none.

Then, we learn that Vivendi Universal and BSA had representatives sitting as advisors to the "rapporteur" on this law (ie. the project leader, so to speak, who btw is a horrible homophobe). Here come the lobbies. Govt says: what lobbies? We are talking to actors in the culture industry.

Finally: in comes all the stuff I said about the actual procedure which is way more anti-democratic than we are used to ... (removing article I, adding a surprise article 8, 20mn before talks started in December, the president of parliament bending the rules to accomodate the government, when he is supposed to be neutral)

Bah, to me it's not a conspiracy, it's just the way right-wing people are. Culture must become an industry to them, and if possible in the hands of a few companies monopolising it. This is just right-wing dogma ... that everything has a value, that nothing can be free ... open source software or artists freely putting their music online are things that make the average right-wing person sweat profusely.

by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:14:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wrote my comment in response to this
Here, no one takes responsability, democracy is dead, freedom dies to thundering applause like Padmé would say, and the Vichy days are back!

To all those who were wondering, France was once the country of human rights, but today it is yet another banana republic sold off to commercial lobbies.

The presidential elections of 2007 are 13 months away.



A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:18:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok sorry, I'm just all worked up by this damn law!
But I think that in a way, the last part of my answer about the nature of right-wing people still works here.
by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:25:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're right, who needs a conspiracy theory when there's a convergence of powerful interests?

Here, I think we're seeing a convergence of powerful interests with the incompetence and conceit of some politicians and ministry apparachiks. How dangerous is it?

Well, mass-market Internet is clearly emerging, and the software and cultural-content majors want the mass market pinned down, segmented, locked into pay-choices they will run like medieval bridge-tolls. A law that is extremely favourable to their agenda, in one of the world's top half-dozen economies and a political European leader, would be an immense step forward for them and a damaging precedent. I think it's the judicial precedent and the principle of the thing that interests the corporate players here.

As to how ridiculous the whole thing is, given that there will always be technical means to side-step their restrictions, I can't judge: seems to me it's the mass market of Jane and Joe Family they're out for, and that's not a market that will go for scary illegal stuff and "piracy". Some people will do that, but probably not the majority.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:30:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would call a ruling party with 60% of the Parliament seats "a powerful interest", not just incompetent and conceited pawns.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:36:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm referring to Donnedieu de Vabres, Culture Minister, and those of his ministry who worked with the "technical commission" where majors like Vivendi-Universal and Micro$oft were given comfortable seats.

As for the government, it has a parliamentary majority that it will make use of like any other government. Alex is correct in pointing out the tricks they are pulling on this one (with the pretext of being late in following the EUCD directive), but I see that in a more disabused way. I've been watching French politics for over thirty-five years now, and this behaviour is nothing new. From the "Gaullist" right, it's standard. The 5th Republic is their playground.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:45:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Culture Minister, and those of his ministry who worked with the "technical commission" where majors like Vivendi-Universal and Micro$oft were given comfortable seats.
Another meaning of "Public-Private Partnership".

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:48:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And the president of the Assemblée, Debré, is there to ensure the anti-constituationality of the proceedings.

"anticonstitutionnellement" is the longest word in the French language, but it's not the least instantiated.

by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:53:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's hope they do in fact do something anticonstitutional. Then the law can be challenged before the Conseil Constitutionel.

But you're right, they put Debré on this because there was a top decision with Villepin to push this though and no more messing about. More because it was bad for the government's image to be defied in parliament and not marshal its legislation through efficiently, (imho), than because they're sold out to some cabal. They don't want any more of the spectacle of their own backbenchers fighting them, and surprise amendments getting voted in by a cross-party majority.

If the minister was halfway competent, things wouldn't be at this pass.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 07:25:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Debré, is there to ensure the anti-constituationality of the proceedings

That's ironic considering that it's his father that wrote said Constitution...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 08:10:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see France also boasts a hereditary democracy.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 08:12:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the case of the Debrés, it's a well-known case of hereditary madness.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 08:26:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This law cannot be seriously considered as being long-lived anyhow, as technologies evolve at a speed which will make even the machines and software with which the law is typed and printed, quickly obsolete.
by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:36:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Someone needs to teach law students how to write and interpret laws that are generic enough to be relevant in a rapidly changing technological environment. And also teach them to regulate what is important instead of everything.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:39:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes I think you've summed it up really well. They indeed seem to be trying to "catch" everything, account for all possibilities, which makes me think that they can only fail if they persist.
by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 06:41:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For those of you who can read French, the Minister of Culture very recently put up a disinformation website on this law, a wesite which is going to cost French taxpayers 180 000 euros (made by a famous comm' agency). Initially it was supposed to be a "great forum" where people would talk with artists and exchange ideas etc, but when they realized that 99% of the people visiting it were against this law and were explaining things to artists about this law that artists weren't even aware of, the "add comment" possibility was removed.
Website: lestelechargements.com

Now I'm only linking to it because there is a quite funny parody of it here: http://www.momentomori.net/lestelechargements/

(sorry to all non-French speakers)

by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 10:17:41 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]