|WikiProject France||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Apple Inc.||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|DADVSI received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
minor correction to the final paragraph, inserted commas in numbers and fixed euros to euro, it's proper plural.
- If you're so concerned with propriety, perhaps you should have 1) signed your post, and 2) not made the error of using it's as a possessive rather than solely as a contraction of it is. Finally, the natural plural, in English, of euro is euros, as discussed here. --LeoO3 20:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The following may need updates and clarifications:
Following content moved from article. Contains outdated and/or inexact information.
Downloading music is now punished of a 38 euro fine (150 euro if giving access to the downloaded copy on a peer-to-peer program). In the December version, they were punished even more harshly, with as much as 3 years of prison and a 300,000 euro fine - a sentence which now applies itself to someone editing or diffusing software allowing "illegal downloading of protected works" (this has been called by detractors the "Vivendi amendment", as a sign of the influence of the music industry lobbying). The Socialist Party and the Greens declared that this disposition endangered the possibility of free software. The minister of culture Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres said that "the record of infractions will be operated by the peer-to-peer programs which downloads the IP address of the criminal". Someone detaining software allowing to bypass technical protection measures (TPM) may have a 750 euro fine; a "hacker" who decrypts TPM data risks a 3,750 euro fine. People diffusing such software risks six months of prison and a 30,000 euro fine. Private copies are illegal. A college of mediators, at least partly composed of magistrates, will define the precise definition of this measure (the number of private copies permitted under fair use; if DVD copying will be permitted under certain conditions). However, the notion of "interoperability", excluded of the December 2005 text, has been finally voted. Editors of protected products are encouraged to allow various uses of the product (copying to CD MP3 legally downloaded, for example). However, it is unknown how this "principle" will be composed with the prohibition of private copies .
- It has been approved by the president. Here is the final text of the law
Coat of Arms
Is there any good reason why this article includes an image of the Coat of Arms of the French Republic? ThreeBlindMice 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- It makes the page more interesting. People love pictures.
- Because this is the symbol that we use on all articles about the French government. It will be probably replaced by a copy of the first page of the act when (and if) it is published in the JORF. David.Monniaux 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. ThreeBlindMice 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It occurs to me that this article contains extensive discussion of French author's rights. While important, this seems like a legitimate topic of its own with relevance in many other circumstances that probably has or should have its own article. I suggest such an article be located or created and this material be merged into it and linked. Deco 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is an article about a specific law, and about the way it was passed... so this is bound to be full of legalese, sorry. David.Monniaux 00:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then can we at least have an overview about what it is? One part of the article says that private copies could be illegal, while the main page says Apple calls it "state-sponsored piracy" --220.127.116.11 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Apple calls legal private copies piracy, exactly what you said about the article --KungFuMonkey 18:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be at least some discussion of what this "state-sponsored piracy" claim is. From what I understand, Apple's claim is that, by preventing inter-operability, it is harder for someone to pay 99 cents to download a song, transfer it over to mp3 format (or whatever) and then burn off a thousand copies of the song onto a CD that can then be resold. I think this article could also be improved with a discussion of the debate over anti-trust tying arrangements. There is a prominent theory in economics (and some U.S. jurisprudence) that anti-trust prohibitions on tying arrangements (which is what this iTunes thing is all about) are misguided because it is nonsensical to have a monopoly in two closely linked products (such as photocopiers and toner ink, or cameras and photographic developing). Unfortunately, this argument is not developed in the Wikipedia entry on tying, but it is covered extensively in Robert Bork's book The Antitrust Paradox, Richard Posner's writings on antitrust law, and in Antonin Scalia's dissent in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, et al. Epstein's Mother 19:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- One problem is that we do not know what Apple exactly meant by "state-sponsored piracy". I do not think that they gave a detailed rationale for such name-calling. I'm afraid that discussing economic theories for giving justifications to Apple may be "original research" or at least a personal point of view.
- Maybe people should try to contact Apple and ask them to give a detailed explanation for this claim of "state-sponsored piracy"; but until then, I do not think we should go into speculations as to what they meant. Perhaps they just intended to insult the members of the French Parliament, elected representatives of the French nation.
- On the other hand, what's factual is the content of the amendments that Apple disagreed with. These amendments are available in the official database of the French National Assembly, we know when they were passed. We also know which lobbies proposed them. Sounds like much firmer ground! David.Monniaux 21:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The economic theories regarding antitrust and tying arrangements, however, are not unique to Apple matter. They are, however, central to the French law (even if the French National Assembly doesn't realize it). Basically, the argument is that because music downloaded from iTunes can only be played on Apple hardware, this creates a monopolistic situation for Apple. What this portion of the French law is trying to accomplish is very anologous to a number of antitrust judicial decisions in other jurisdictions, such as Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (a 1912 U.S. Supreme Court case where mimeograph manufacturer (A.B. Dick) put in its purchase contracts that buyers of the machine must buy stencil paper and ink for the machine only from A.B. Dick.) There is a great deal of economic and legal scholarship on the topic, at least in Common Law jurisdictions. (Since most of this dates back many years, it is obviously not something Apple created as part of a lobbying campaign regarding a particular French law.) It is also, fundamentally, the same economic debate underlying the Microsoft-Netscape antitrust lawsuit. However, perhaps a hyperlink to "tying" (and an improvement of that article) might be the best solution. I'm not sure how that would fit, however, because this current article (DADVSI) doesn't really go into any of the theoretical reasons or economic justifications for the debate.
- Also, several financial newspapers and magazines have described Apple's arguments in more detail, particularly its argument that the law will encourage copyright infringement by making it easier to illicitly copy downloaded music. For example, in this article, Apple argues that: "If this happens, legal music sales will plummet just when legitimate alternatives to piracy are winning over customers." Epstein's Mother 05:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. The argument about tied sales (vente liée) was indeed used: it was argued that criminal law should not enforce tied sales, which are prohibited by commerce law. Thanks for researching Apple's claims. David.Monniaux 07:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to somewhat agree. Matt714 05:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to explain the matter in the introduction. However, please note that Apple's point of view is hyperbole meant for the media. The reality is much more complex, and I realize indeed that after a while it becomes difficult to understand, to say it bluntly, who screws up who with this or that clause in the law... David.Monniaux 08:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Within this article, we shall sometimes use felony as a translation of the French délit: roughly, a broad category of crimes, such as theft, punishable by prison sentences not exceeding 10 years, but not including petty crimes (contraventions), which we shall translate as misdemeanors.
- french "délit" is a complicate notion, since France has different laws than U.S.A and U.K:
in france there is 3 sort of actions out of laws: "contravention": for very little things (like take bus without ticket); we can't be send in jail for a contravention, damages are the only things possible. "délits": is an intermediate action between contraventions an crimes; it include things like a theet, or menace, drive a lot of with alcool in blood,... "crimes": is for important criminal things, like murder or rape.
I think that, the English Word "delict" does'nt include the idea of this nuance of the french law, so, I think "Felony" is not worst.
P.S: excuse my bad english :( Kerri
There seem to be far too many images in this article. Anyone care to clean it up a bit and remove a few ? I, myself, do not know much about the topic to choose which ones ought to remain. sikander 19:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Usually, when we have articles on abstract issues, people complain that there are no or too few images. I tried to spice up the article by putting in reproductions of satirical cartoons and photographs of the main protagonists of the Parliamentary drama, so as to make it seem less abstract and more like there were real people out there fighting this. David.Monniaux 19:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Self-referential section (Notice to Reader) removed
I've removed the "Notice to Reader" section. In general, self-referential sections (sections that talk about the article itself, rather than the subject matter) are frowned upon and this one felt truly awkward. If it is felt that the information is useful, my recommendation is to place the information in-line with the text. For example, a short parenthetical after the first use of the word 'felon'. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've made the relevant information a set of footnotes in the article, attached to the first occurance of each item that needed explaination. I've also changed the tone from "we will" and "we have" (who is 'we'?) to something more neutral. I've removed the definition of "misdemeanor" since it doesn't appear at all in the article. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Errors in article.
While I did not bother to fix it, someone should note that the top of the article says that the bill is not in effect till the "President of the Republic" signs it, it also states that the law is in effect near the middle.
- (French)"Téléchargement : la loi précisée". Le Monde. March 17, 2006.