French Assembly Rejects Three Strikes Bill 129
An anonymous reader writes "The French Assembly has rejected the Three Strikes bill (in French!) which would allow ISPs to cut off users found to have been downloading protected content after two warnings.
Summary: the Sarkozy administration can go back with a new draft for approval by both chambers or try to get upper house approval of a softer version without the cutoff passed by the lower house."
Re:!commonsenseprevails (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't speak french, I haven't read the legislation, I am not a lawyer... but the talk on this site is that the problem with what they are trying to pass is that three strikes = three accusations. Court of law? Innocent until proven guilty (if that applies in France)? Proof that IP = Identity (and not some kind of spoof, tampered logs, etc)? All of that is gone by accusations.
If your guilty of something, fine... but 3 accusations and your out? Fuck that noise. And you can say that in any language (not just french)
Spelling, Bad French, please (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I don't like him, it's "Sarkozy" with a "k", not a "c". And please trolls, stop the French sentences with a mistake in every one of them.
Nicolas who...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, but how would the Sarkozy administration react?
Pedantic? Well okay, but is it too much to ask that they get the President's name right? Sheesh...
This will change nothing in the long run (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't fool yourself, this (temporary) rejection was only possible because some of the left wing party sneaked at the last minute to vote AGAINST the proposal. There were not enough right wing (government) politicians in the assembly to vote for it and the text was rejected.
This, however, changes NOTHING in the long run: despite being a stupid, non-applicable, lobbied-by-the-SACEM*-to-maintain-the-outdated-cash-machine, this law *will* be accepted in the end, since the government has enough of its own members of the Assemblee Nationale to vote for it, regardless of what the other "deputes" do.
When this stupid law is effective everybody loses, except maybe for recoding companies which will be able to seat for 20 more years on their obsolete business plan.
Re:!commonsenseprevails (Score:1, Insightful)
Indeed, many people said there were a lot of issues with that law : it's technically ridiculous, the law would anyway be unconstitutional, there are huge problems with privacy. But the government hoped that people would be scared of that law and stop using p2p. It's definitely not a good reason for such a law, but as usually Sarkozy's (beware the spellingâ¦) government is out of touch with reality.
Pony is "Poney" in French (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hooray (Score:4, Insightful)
Before you get too excited, be aware that the rejection was primarily due to the absence of several government-party members of parliament. The government intends to re-present the bill after the easter recess, and presumably will make sure that all its members of parliament show up. At that point, the law will presumably be approved.
If that was the case, then why try to sneak it through, which is what got it rejected in the first place. If it was a formality that it would pass, then they would have followed the usual procedure and it would have already been passed.