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 454582
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not just anti-P2P
by vodoomoth on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not just anti-P2P"
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

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 www.linformaticien.com) 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

RE[5]: Not just anti-P2P
by dvhh on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 14:04 in reply to "RE[4]: Not just anti-P2P"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

I would say as a former france resident that, the government is sending mixed messages to french people since years.
First the "private copy" tax, which is nonsense as it also cover media that could be used for something more personal like personal backup, or Even information storage. And I would say following from afar that the tax "upgrade" to personal media player shouldn't be targeted by this tax as it is not a mean of doing private copy. As the money the distribution scheme is so obscure that I still think that most of it is going into lobbying rather than to the artists.

And culturally speaking, there sure is a 2 sided attack on culture consumption:
1- the decline of content offered by the media, as it is the entry point for artist discover ability. Radio and television (even globally), offers fews novelty in artists and variety, plus they are more focused in selling ads than actual content (I think I can see more and more reality show on MTV than video clips). Movie theater offers a less satisfying experience than it was 5 years ago ( ok I'm not currently in France but my guess would be that it hasn't improved ), compared to say watching DVD at home on your home theater. And music really feels like rehashing the same stuff.
2-Failure to adapt to current most consumed media: internet. Most of the artists who are complaining about the P2P have little or not presence on internet and therefore are feeling a decline compared to rising artist which have a decent presence (I hear more about Justin Bieber than Bono for example, even if I don't listen to Bieber yet, his coverage seems greater to me than U2 or Metallica ).

And most of all we are currently feeling a sensory overload, between advertising, news (TV, radio, net), games, movies, art, music. Where content producer are overwhelming us with more and more expecting they would earn more, the result being less than satisfactory experience ( cramming mediocre tracks into an album to fill it, and selling it at an outrageous price ) and a large amount of unconsumed media (which cost money I guess).

Of course ITunes offers a very compelling change to all of this, with a preview experience similar to what we could have in store, and price that are also reasonnable, Amazon is catching on but lack the Apple mind share. But in these digital distribution methods artist got to make themselves more noticeable by driving a stronger digital image.

Fortunately, I was already out of France when the loppsi law was introduced, but I believe that they are removing the "innocent until proven guilty" stance on this activity by cutting connections and censoring
websites.
What's next, forcing people to buy a quota of music per year or Making an altogether tax for people having at least one functioning ear ?

On Another hand people lack education about digital prices, as they do not perceive the price of any digital medias at all, People think that website consumption is free for everybody (they ignore hosting cost ), or that an image/video seen on the internet can be used at no cost at all, because they don't know the price it cost people to produce it, so how would people understand that music they downloaded have any cost ?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Not just anti-P2P
by Neolander on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 17:36 in reply to "RE[4]: Not just anti-P2P"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

From a link (on www.linformaticien.com) 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?

Well, my mother works at my town's municipal council, and she could have given me the explanation of this mystery... To some extent.

At the first municipal council after the municipal elections, one of the member of the electoral majority stood and claimed that she couldn't stay there and had to leave. She explained that after the elections, her political party (which happened to be the UMP) briefed her, telling her that she had to approve anything the mayor proposes. She said that doing this was against her vision of democracy, and that she was afraid she had to leave because of that.

Obviously, we don't know the whole story, because if it was only that, she could have stayed, do what she thinks is right, and ignore this anti-democratic order. After all, they have trusted her enough to give her this place, so they have to face the consequences. Either she was particularly obedient by nature or there are some things happening behind the scene which we don't know, to make sure that people in a party follow their leader or leave.

This might explain why people like this deputy let laws which they know will be ineffective pass : they just blindly follow their leader, as they have been told to.

Edited 2010-12-23 17:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3