Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 00:10 UTC, submitted by SReilly
In the News "Spain last night killed a controversial anti-P2P bill that would have made it easier to shut down websites that link to infringing content. The move was a blow to the ruling Socialist government, but it may be of even bigger concern to the US, which pushed, threatened, and cajoled Spain to clamp down on downloading. And Wikileaks can take a share of the credit for the defeat."
Thread beginning with comment 454574
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not just anti-P2P
by vodoomoth on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Not just anti-P2P"
Member since:

The new law was to allow the government to act without trials! To avoid that people have legal defenses!

The weird thing is that just the day before yesterday, a security-oriented law has been voted in France. That law covers of bunch of security-related things but it also proposed setting up an administrative body that will mandate (I hesitated in using "foist") that ISPs block certain websites. In the name of what? you ask and I answer "in the name of child protection". No legal system involved, no judges involved, no discussions or warnings sent to the website, they would just decide that a site should be banned and, which is brilliant of them, additions to the list remain undisclosed for years (yes, years!). For those who read French, google "loi loppsi filtrage".

Essentially, the law is about filtering the web... Some MPs with a brain contended that despite them being with the current ruling party. When I heard about this on the radio, I wondered how the same government that wants to impose a "taxe Google" upon bandwith-heavy sites can even consider monitoring the web traffic for child porn. I mean, they're wailing because of the cost overhead of sites such as Youtube and now they want to filter/monitor/whatever-other-stupid-action the web traffic in France based on child protection? What is the probable proportion of child porn in the total web traffic? I wouldn't be surprised if it was below 0.0001%, which makes it obvious to me that there's a hidden agenda.

I'm dismayed by politicians. Are they ever going to do something good for the people?

Anyway, kudos to Wikileaks. As long as they don't mess with admitted-as-confidential things and don't jeopardize people's lives, I'll be fine with what they do.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Not just anti-P2P
by Neolander on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 11:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Not just anti-P2P"
Neolander Member since:

I'm dismayed by politicians. Are they ever going to do something good for the people?

Well, if we consider the case of France, they have proven that they can if there's or has been recently...
-> A large part of the population taking arms and going for the head of the power in place (1789, 1830)
-> A massive, well-organized, state-wide strike, paralyzing the whole economy (1936)
-> A traumatizing world-wide war (It'd be hard to enumerate the number of nice things which were voted after WWII)

In short, it sounds like we need chaos and destruction on a large scale before something good (or bad) rises from the ashes. I like the irony behind this.

The problem is that current governments and big companies have a "divide and conquer" strategy to avoid massive riots which has proven to work pretty well.

Edited 2010-12-23 11:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Not just anti-P2P
by vodoomoth on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 12:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Not just anti-P2P"
vodoomoth Member since:

Yes. True. I should have been more articulate and made my thoughts clearer: when writing that sentence you quoted, I was thinking of their decisions, with respect to pressures from companies (and specifically "big content providers" as Thom calls them) and with respect to what is the best in this digital age for consumers.

Putting things differently, I am astonished as to how ineffective the recent "digital laws" seem to me.

From a link (on after googling the keywords I gave earlier:

Mais la loi divise même dans les rangs de la majorité, même si « Il n'y a pas de clivage droite-gauche sur ce sujet », explique Laure de La Raudière, députée UMP d'Eure-et-Loir. Si elle est fermement opposée au filtrage du web, qu’elle juge « inefficace », elle a néanmoins voté pour l’article en question.

Do these people have some reasoning capacity? Why vote for a law if you are opposed to its contents and deem it ineffective?

Reply Parent Score: 2