On Tuesday 20 January 2009 11:27, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: > > They are just disconnect > > you before bring to court. > > Blocking of Internet connection is in addition to prosecution, but > legal proceedings is not systematic. The purpose of Hadopi is to > alleviate the courts. Before, there were very few prosecutions for > downloading copyrighted files, because the courts were overburdened. > Hadopi was created at the request of the majors. > The European Parliament is against this law because it does not allow > people to defend themselves (or with their lawyer), and because the > sanctions must be imposed by the courts. (This is not the case for > Hadopi: sanctions will be imposed by the government and majors.)
Yeah, the European Parliament would prefer to give prison sentences to peer to peer developers and a small representative number of major filesharers... (they passed IPRED2 on first reading, see my last mail). > > On 1/20/09, Daniel Cheng <j16sdiz+freenet at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Ancoron Luciferis > > <ancoron at chaoslayer.de> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> Hi there, > >> > >> I knew that the french law goes further than any other country in europe > >> nowadays regarding anti-piracy and stuff like that but I didn't knew > >> that you can be held guilty for something you didn't do (neighbor hacked > >> in WLAN). That's like being held guilty for the damage someone makes > >> that stole your car. I can't really believe that, because that would > >> negate the base assumption: everyone is innocent as long as his/her > >> guilt has not been proven. > > > > This is not "held guilty" in the legal sense. They are just disconnect > > you before bring to court. This is a proactive measurement to prevent > > further "harm" -- just like what have been doing for, for example, > > child abuse and violent to spouse. > > > > Yes, piracy issue is as serious as (if not more important then) trying > > to kill your wife or child. > > > >> Well, it doesn't matter much how strict the law is. As long as the use > >> of freenet is not explicitly prohibited in France you are free to use > >> it. If you are concerned about your privacy using the darknet is your > >> best bet nowadays. If your internet connection is being blocked for > >> nothing then I would sue the authority. And as a last option you are > >> still free to leave your country. > >> > >> At the 25C3 in berlin, germany, there was some proposal that first > >> sounds funny but after thinking about it it just makes sense: all new > >> laws should be tested at the government itself before establishment. > >> > >> It's not the people that need to be controlled, it is the government! It > >> is those people that happen to decide based on money instead of > >> knowledge that makes our world go mad. There is no terrorism as long as > >> you don't blame someone for it. > >> > >> Just in case you want to know what all those new laws are meant for you > >> should consider watching this movie: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ > >> > >> It explains why the world is as it is and why it is that mad nowadays. > >> > >> > >> To summarize this it is not a freenet issue (although I enjoy such > >> political discussions). If internet connections can be blocked arbitrary > >> it is even not safe to have one. All the french people with an internet > >> access should make as much noise as they can to prove that law ad > >> absurdum. > > > > This is a freenet issue. > > Read http://freenetproject.org/philosophy.html item 5: > > : The only way to ensure that a democracy will remain effective is to > > : ensure that the government cannot control its population's ability to > > : share information, to communicate. So long as everything we see > > : and hear is filtered, we are not truly free. Freenet's aim is to allow > > : two or more people who wish to share information, to do so. > > > > Note the second line. I would read it as: > > "...ensure that the government cannot (do what it want to do)..." > > > >> Thanks for reading, > >> > >> AncoL > >> > >> 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: > >>> The blocking is arbitrary, upon request of the majors. Majors give IP > >>> addresses to a high authority, and high authority blocks the Internet > >>> connection, without legal proceedings. People can not defend > >>> themselves. It is even impossible to denounce a neighbor who uses our > >>> wireless connection: the French state provides software to protect > >>> connections, and it consider that the owner of the connection is > >>> protected and responsibly. The European Parliament is against French > >>> law, but no European law has been passed yet. The French minister of > >>> culture want several hundred million of sanctions per year without > >>> legal proceedings. > >>> > >>> On 1/19/09, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > >>>> On Monday 19 January 2009 22:15, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: > >>>>> I understand your logical position. But using Freenet, we can be > >>>>> accused of participating in a network facilitating piracy, even if we > >>>>> do not download copyrighted files ourselves. In this case, our > >>>>> Internet connection would be blocked wrongly. And it is possible that > >>>>> the French state to use this law as a pretext to censor its citizens > >>>>> annoying. So we are worried. > >>>> Does the law allow for people to be blocked arbitrarily? Who decides? > >>>>> On 1/19/09, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > >>>>>> On Monday 19 January 2009 18:11, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: > >>>>>>> Yes and I use Freenet for legal use only. Like a lot of users! But we > >>>>>>> can not know what is in the datastores and in the freenet traffic. > >>>>>>> So, > >>>>>>> you think the French state does not attack Freenet or its users? I > >>>>>>> hope. We'll see... > >>>>>> I didn't say that. All I said was if you are worried about having your > >>>>>> internet connection blocked it is presumably because you are > >>>>>> downloading > >>>>>> illegal copyrighted files, and therefore that we don't want to have > >>>> anything > >>>>>> to do with you. > >>>>>>> On 1/19/09, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Monday 19 January 2009 15:28, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: > >>>>>>>>> There is a break in the sanctions of french law Hadopi. Hadopi > >>>>>>>>> allow > >>>>>>>>> censured users to use television, telephone and maybe anothers > >>>>>>>>> payables services. So, victims will have a lot of censured ports, > >>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>> not all. Some ports will continue to run. Can we found a method to > >>>>>>>>> override this censorship (with freenet)? e.g. encapsulate traffic > >>>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>> VoIP. This is very difficult: ISP can limit traffic only from/to > >>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>> servers. What do you think? It's very important for french users. > >>>>>>>>> French users risk to left freenet soon... like Batosai. For > >>>>>>>>> example, > >>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>> do not want to risk losing my Internet connection. The french > >>>>>>>>> community is afraid by this law. Some users have requested TCP > >>>>>>>>> support > >>>>>>>>> for hide freenet traffic in https, http etc. ISP will spy their > >>>>>>>>> users, > >>>>>>>>> so Darknet will not be sufficient. > >>>>>>>> I assume this is some sort of law whereby those who download > >>>> copyrighted > >>>>>>>> files > >>>>>>>> get their internet access cut? Please do not use Freenet to > >>>>>>>> illegally > >>>>>>>> copy > >>>>>>>> copyrighted files. The Freenet Project cannot have anything to do > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> piracy, as per Grokster vs MGM. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Tech mailing list > >>>>>>> Tech at freenetproject.org > >>>>>>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Tech mailing list > >>>>> Tech at freenetproject.org > >>>>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Tech mailing list > >>> Tech at freenetproject.org > >>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > >>> > >>> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > >> > >> iEYEARECAAYFAkl1iGcACgkQHwxOsqv2bG2QDwCeOnSTLJqj6oGLNvCmDkoENcJI > >> XlcAoIGjgVFv9/Z6KFIfh7GAZ2afZ6Dh > >> =JLhh > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Tech mailing list > >> Tech at freenetproject.org > >> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Tech mailing list > > Tech at freenetproject.org > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > > > > > -- > 3buib3s50i at gmail.com | dimonqmfcb at gmx.com > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20090120/b8cc1179/attachment.pgp>
