France doing this!? Bit extreme for them...

But it does bring up a good debate, should there be laws implemented to start dealing with people who use the net to commit Internet crimes of this nature and others? Or should the net remain open and free access for all regardless?

In a way I like the idea behind it, but how on earth do you enforce some thing like this? And on the same respect, what of companies that provide such information for free like Google Img.

how many people are actually convicted of internet related crimes three times? It seems to me that it could take years to get your three strikes, and then when your internet gets "banned", you simply get it under someone else's name. This seems ridiculously unenforceable to a determined person.

1. This article sounds like something a Brit would write about us.
2. Sounds like something our dear president would do (wife or not wife)
3. What will too much be?

I had enough trouble trying to ban recalcitrant teenage offenders from school internet use, I don't see how you can effectively ban someone from using the internet on every computer!

yeah, even if they banned a specific IP address, what stops someone from merely using their buddy's computer? This just seems incredibly unenforceable.

Plus it seems these type of tactics (or lack thereof) tend to do heck of a lot more harm than good. Isn't that right, Sony McXCP-Pants?

So who's going to submit this to the Stupid Laws Hall of Fame?

You can ban someone from the internet via their IP but they can always buy a new computer or just scramble their IP. It seems like a waste of resource and manpower to try and implement this law. Also, I'm a firm believer that the majority of people who download music, movies, games, etc... online have no intention of buying it regardless.

Wow! I started reading this thread thinking it was going to be about France banning people who download bad porn from the Internet. Silly me! We are talking about France, after all.

Got one for the reverse simsample, and this is out of Canada, and begs some interesting considerations for you as a teacher, and for parents.




Here you have a Canadian court saying you can't take the net away from any one for basically any reason, even a parent grounding their child and telling them no Internet. WTH

So now what, as a parent, we cant keep our misbehaving kids off the net? Are we giving up our rights to parent our children now?

There's clearly more going on there than the article reveals. Twelve year old girls don't get their own court-appointed attorneys to sue their parents over such things unless there is a lot more going on. The tip-off is the last paragraph:


First, a ten-year custody dispute? That means there's probably a mother involved. It also seems likely the mother petitioned to get her twelve-year old her own attorney, thus setting the stage for this. It's not that some 12-year olds aren't clever enough to do something like this on their own -- it's just unlikely, and even less likely they would succeed with a judge unless there were lengthy extenuating circumstances, which the ten-year custody case suggests.

seriously?
like for real?
wth?
honestly, who dosent download music "illegally"? so the way i see it is they can attempt this until they see three piggies flying around there head... but how many people are they really going to catch? they have entire sites dedicated to hackers... and some of them will let you PAY for them to hack in to other peoples accounts[bank, credit card myspace facebook ext. my boy is friends with a lot of people who go on them] but are cracking down on those sites? no. so why us inicont music/movie down loaders? hm?

Does the Canadian Constitution provide a Constitutional right for internet usage? NO? Then the Court totally stepped over its bounds by ruling at all about the severity of being held from a school trip. The girl has no "right" to be on the internet at all...

Doc nailed it exactly on the head, by observing that this is just part of a ten year custody battle...

I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people who don't download illegally. Some people feel it's morally wrong. Honestly, my answer for this is make less crap cds/movies. There's nothing I hate more than buying a cd to find that I only like two or three songs, or worse still, that I don't like the cd at all. Listening to a single on the radio is completely worthless as the first single/singles released don't always represent the albulm. What's released to the radio are the songs that are going to hook people in to buy the cd so they can be bombarded with "the real artist" on 13 other tracks.

I do agree, though, that if any government was going to try to curb illegal downloading, then they're better off going for the source: those who make the programs, host the websites, hackers for hire and whatnot. The limitation to this would be country. I'm pretty sure the French government can't prosecute someone in southern Mexico for hosting an illegal music downloading site (or can they?). This probably all started because customers felt they couldn't trust companies anymore: they can't trust the company to give a (decent) preview of a movie, couldn't trust the artist to make non-crap.

I largely blame Metallica. If they weren't on their high horse, this wouldn't be such a big issue. A lot of people have said that they'll download to preview and if they like it enough, they'll buy the physical copy and delete the downloaded copy. Some people download out of spite. Was Metallica really being hurt *that much* by illegal downloads? And what about all those up and coming, self published artists who used places like MP3.com and Napster to get their music heard? For them, it was a cheap, easy way to get fans. Darn you, Metallica!

I suspect there is more to this, but all my attempts to find more fail with only finding this article. And I will concede to that there has to be some thing else going on.

But that still circles back to the bases, from what is available, the father looks to have custody rights in this case. As that, wouldn't he have the right to ground her? And if that's the case, the court still shouldn't step in regardless unless it was to protect the child from harm. As what we have to read, the child is not in danger of harm from the grounding.

I'll agree with you that there has to be more to it. But still, the ruling just seems over the fence.

and how are they going to find out this? it's easy to change the IP and use proxies;

I've never been to France (nor do I have any intentions of going) so I'm not sure if they have internet cafe's like us but if these people use a cafe three times, its that cafe that gets hurt the most. Three visits from someone using a loop hole and your buisness is down the tubes.

And for the record, I have never illegally downloaded (though I do alot of work on one public computer that has alot of files from sites of... less than reputable sorces and I do play/copy those files to my iPod) more so because I have most of the stuff I want to listen to already from reputable sources (and then there are the 30 dollar gift cards from Birthdays and Christmases to iTunes that I have in a pile in my drawers, why bother getting my comp banned from the Uni's server for free music.).

^EVERY decent country has internet cafes... and i don't know how internet cafes are at you... but at the only cafe i've been frequenting, you payed x money for y minutes; after those y minutes were wasted, the computer changed the ip, and reseted to the point where you first opened it, together with the uninstalling of new programs

also, by converting music videos into mp3s(well, dunno if it works, but some video converters can convert into mp3) it's hard for a program to find out what you did

^ I tend to go to places where there is free WiFi and bring my laptop. Many places are free but a few have "hotspots" which is paying the web provider for use at any sights that are using said provider for Internet.

I'm not sure how anyone would be able to fully 100% enforce it, yes one can enforce it to an extent and really only with their citizens, but since the net is international it would take longer and waste a lot more money than is worth. Say someone downloads a song for free that would cost them a dollar on say itunes, which is more plausible just let that person be or spend tens of thousands of dollars to take them to court over a dollar? Now obviously they wouldn't do it for just 1 song but say the person downloaded 200 songs all a dollar each, that's still a lot less than the tens of thousands they'd spend on a court case.