Music pirating legalized in france

After a 2 day political fight with corruptions attempt from everywhere, like virgin distributing tickets for free music to politicians, and a very tight vote, you can now for 7$ per month legally download and distribute music over the internet with peer 2 peer or other software.

Movie pirating status is still unsure, but it is likely to be legal for movies that are more than 4 years old.

Ironically the original law project was 3 years in jail and a fine of 300 000 € for every “pirate”.

the law still has to pass trough senate, but that will be easy :slight_smile:

I think it is great, and i would like to see such laws applied in more countries, but there are valid arguments again such a law, what do you think ?

I think it is great, and i would like to see such laws applied in more countries, but there are valid arguments again such a law, what do you think ?

Well, for one, piracy it’s STEALING and that’s WRONG.

Oh, who am I kidding? Yargh!! Mp3s off the starboard bow!

[note: we need an emoticon with an eyepatch.]

lol I live in Paris and I didn’t heard about that law. I’m not sure it is really true and that this law will be easily accepted by the politician. I think that artist need money to live and that 7$ per month for unlimited download is a bit “unreal”. I will look is some newspaper what they say.

But if that law is accepted I’m sure I will be very happy :smiley: :smiley:

it has just been voted. You should watch this if you want to know what happens :

Now that the amendment legalizing p2p has been voted, they are making a pause to let the UMP, and minister of culture realize what happend.

but the law still has some bad point like making illegal to make free/Libre viewers for DRMed media. (making VLC and deCSS illegal)

wo I will watch that. Thanks.

So who gets the $7 a month?

artists. It’s the exactly same system as when you must pay a small tax when you play recorded music in public. an institute must then find wich artists are the most played /downloaded for a fair repartition.

So if something I make is ‘pirated’ in France, how do i collect my share of the re-imbursement? Or is it just the artists represented by huge media conglomerates and agencies that stand to benefit from this?

I get a lot of music off of, but ironically, I almost never pirate video media, with the exception of anime that’s not available on DVD. And I usually buy it when legal DVD versions become available. I have far less of a problem paying £15 for a DVD than I do paying £10 for a CD because the music industry’s line on how much it costs to produce a CD is quite frankly bullshit.

I know how much movies cost to make, and no matter what the music industry try to claim, I know for a fact that music doesn’t cost 2/3rds as much to produce as movies do. If they did then the soundtrack would account for 2/3rds of the total production costs of a movie, and it’s blatently obvious that isn’t the case.

I think £15 is a fair price for a decent movie on DVD, but I don’t think £10 is a fair price for a CD, given the relitive costs of producing one compared to the other. The vast majority of the cost of a CD is simply profiteering.

I think that every artist has the right to register himself to the system. If your records are buyable in france you are automatically registered. If you aren’t, you shouldn’t loose any money since people won’t be able to buy your stuff.

this law doesn’t make selling your records without your authorisation legal.

But, if you are a small artist, you won’t be pirated a lot, and you will get very small revenue with this system. This sucks, but it’s still better than Itunes, etc… where as a small artists you don’t stand a chance to have your album listed, or still better than putting a guy who downloaded your song in jail for 3 years, even if he become a fan and planned to go to your concert.

I learned the hard way that as a small artist, you’re fucked anyway. :S

Still, most studies shows that the users that pirate the most, buy the most. and that for small artists, p2p is benefic as it provides huge advertisement at small cost.

i would love to see that study, it sounds interesting.


Yet another bloated government agency with a $6 overhead…

Well, for one, piracy it’s STEALING and that’s WRONG.

You are correct in saying it’s wrong, as it isnt stealing. It is copyright infringement, and there is a difference.


IMO, I think one reason that big business doesn’t take over completely is this reason. They steal from us. Although I agree Rocketman, the musicians that actually make the stuff, well most of them, want you to listen to thier music. And a lot of em try to put thier music on thier site.

That’s called a user fee, unlike taxes, it’s directly connected %|

I prefer no money, cause I came up with the phase “That’s hot” “your fire” and discover 1+1=2 and I don’t get paid a cent for it %|

i think that it should only be legal for musicians who have sold that song platimun, because cuming from a family and community with succecfull musicians its not easy to make a living out of music until you break a certain barrier

Yet another bloated government agency with a $6 overhead…[/quote]
It’s optional. If you don’t want to use p2p, you don’t pay, and you will never hear of that “governement agency”.

Like a socialist said, it’s the same debate as with photocopy. Those enable you to copy without limit any printed artwork at a very small cost. Yet we aren’t called pirates when we use such devices, and it is now admitted that those doesn’t influence revenue of artists.

when photocopy was invented, many artists claimed it was the end of the world, still books sells very nicely.

Taxing p2p is just stupid, something that you paying for that you may or may not use. People already pay for there privet ISP, why should they be force to shove out taxes when most p2p is free. It’s just another excuse to control communication and censor everything else with it.

After a bunch of corruption I’m surprise they are even supporting pantient. It’s just as corrupt if you ask me.

Sorry, but WHAT!? I may be reading this the wrong way. But to me it seems that you’re saying putting a fee on legalizing p2p is wrong, only because you CAN get it for free?

That’s like saying it’s wrong to actually PAY for stuff, since you can take it anyways. (well, with some skills/luck :wink: )

You also say that people already pay for their ISPs. So having customers pay for online-games is wrong too then?

And from what I understood it wasn’t much of a tax either (well I bet the government will snap a bunch of those 7$, but they always do ) since you could actually choose to pay for it, or not.

Just maybe the way we deal with music distribution should be rethought?

This sounds like a very good way of dealing with the current problems. If you have music freely avaliable for a fixed charge there are not only no issues with piracy, but also the distribution costs for music disappear. The masters are cut, encoded and uploaded for consumption.

The only problem is the method of distributing the money to the artists and (shudder), record companies. Simple demand is going to adversely impact the quality and diversity of the music produced (although possibly no more than the current system), yet artists need to be rewarded for producing often listened to music.

Of course the record companies profits will probably be less ludicrous (we have lost profits of XXXX! Yeah, what % of your profits is that very large amount?), so they won’t like this - but bleah, in a few years they may not have a choice…

Imagine a world where, for a reasonable subscription fee, you have access to every piece of music ever produced, on demand! Personally I think that would be a method of sharing entertainment more beneficial to humanity.