Sarkozy Wants To Use Anti-Censorship Conference To Promote Censorship By Copyright

from the that-takes-gall dept

We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship. Now, you can argue that it's necessary or useful censorship (though, I doubt I would agree), but it cannot be denied that the basic purpose of copyright law is to stifle a form of speech. That's why I'm always amazed at the disconnect of politicians, who support anti-censorship efforts online at the same time that they promote plans to censor-via-copyright law. Of course, most haven't actually thought about it, or they insist that copyright is not censorship at all, and they can't fathom how the two are connected.

Having said all that, though, it appears that not only does French President Nicolas Sarkozy recognize that copyright law is about censorship, he actually seems proud of the fact that he's using copyright law to stifle speech. As a bunch of folks have sent in, there's a conference being held in France about freedom of expression and against internet censorship. Sarkozy has apparently decided to try to use the conference, instead, to promote his Hadopi "three strikes" copyright concept. This is pretty stunning. It's as if he's openly admitting that copyright is censorship, and he's perfectly happy with that, and wants to expand it further.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 4:42pm

    Sarkozy slogans

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
    COPYRIGHT IS ANTI-CENSORSHIP

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 4:59pm

    Promoting how?

    Shouldn't Sarkozy be barred from the internet by now?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:02pm

    Re: Promoting how?

    "Four legs good, two legs bad!" - Mark Twain

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:21pm

    Are you saying merely that copyright law acts as a form of censorship, or that you are not in favor of any laws that act as a form of censorship?

    Your position sound like that of a First Amendment absolutist, but it is not clear if your absolutism is truly absolute.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:29pm

    Re:

    I sure would like to worship Superman. That's cool, right? I can print up some copies of religious tracts showing how Superman will save us all.

    Time Warner wouldn't sue me, would they? Because they hold a government-enforced monopoly on Superman, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:45pm

    Why is that is always the small people in France that do the big mess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 6:05pm

    super man never made any money

    just sat at home smokin dope with his honey....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 6:41pm

    Re:

    Damn those First Amendment absolutists and their First Amendment tyranny...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Nina Paley (profile), Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 6:42pm

    Re: Re: Promoting how?

    Reports of Mark Twain being George Orwell are exaggerated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 8:35pm

    Re:

    Copyright is more than that, it is a form of control not only censorship and like all forms of control it will be abused and it will come to bite those people who defend it in the ass sooner or later just like economic leverage will bring America to bankruptcy.

    The rest of the world doesn't care about what Americans business need and that is because American business doesn't care about what they need, sooner or later those other countries will join up and start trading among themselves and produce their own world economy, because economies are imaginary constructs that are constructed to foment one thing and that is work, wealth doesn't exist without work done, the climate doesn't stop because of people, the body doesn't stop consuming energy because of politics or the law, for all those things there needs to be maintenance work done, people eat, people construct shelters against the weather, people build roads to go somewhere, that is the real important things that today policies and laws are impeding, the reason America is declining is because of the rise of powerful companies that are destroying the ability of the people to make something better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    darryl, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 8:55pm

    We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship. NO MIKE its not..

    We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship. Now, you can argue that it's necessary or useful censorship (though, I doubt I would agree), but it cannot be denied that the basic purpose of copyright law is to stifle a form of speech

    We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship.

    NO it is not Mike, either you do not understand copyright law, or you do not understand censorship laws, OR you DO NOT understand EITHER.. Which is it ?

    NO, censorship laws are for an entirely different purpose and function to copyright laws.

    Censor laws, determine the 'fitness' or acceptability of a works, and classifies it accordingly. That has NOTHING to do with copyright.

    There would never to be case where the copyright holder would be required to classify a works, that is done independently by a censor group.

    So you make a movie, you own the copyright to that movie, but the censor committee has a right to classify that movie according to pre-set guidelines. They cannot just make arbitary decision about its classisifaction, they have set guides to work by.

    Censorship can be as bad as rating a movie G, or PG, or XXX or unclassified.

    ALL that copyright law does is not permit anyone (not the copyright holder) making copies of a work when they have no right to do so

    Yes, Mike it is just that easy, its got nothing to do with censorship, that is a different issue alltogether.

    And you should know that, but based on your level of knowledge in these areas it is understandable that you would be confused.

    Now, you can argue that it's necessary or useful censorship (though, I doubt I would agree),

    You DOUBT you would agree ?? what are you not sure ??

    So you would let anything at all through, real murders and wars during kids hour on TV ?

    What about rape senes on TV during prime time or again kids hour. Is that ok ? (I guess so asyou DOUBT censorship is necessary !!!).

    or are you upset that you cannot copy, and distribute that content as you wish ?
    Thats all I can think of, you are upset because censorship laws are getting in the way of your illegal copyright breaching activities.

    So you cannot make copies of those snuff movies, and rape scenes for your friends and family ?

    Why else would you try to tie copyright and censorship laws like that.

    You are also looking at censorship through a very limited and biased perspective, like anything the is censored is 'book burning', when most things that are censored are simply classified as appropriate for certain people or for viewing at certain times.. (when the kids have gone to bed).

    its a simple fact, the copyright holder is the only person who hold the rights to copy the work he owns the rights too.

    I know you hate that, but if you are not the copyright holder, you DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT to copy that works.

    That is the basis of copyright law, like it or not, it's what we got, and its working well enough that there is no real incentive for major changes, except mabey tighting up the laws, and closing loopholes.

    Mike, you say you have been pushing this barrow for years, so far how is it working for you ? you eek out a living ? but you are certainly not anyone that shows expertise, or exceptional skills in this area.

    As shown by the fact you spend most of your time quoting others, dropping a few lines of cheap comment. and thats it.

    You never seem to do original research, you just troll the web, /., ars, BN, and pick juicy stories, that you think you can spin into something that shows you are right.. (even when you are clearly wrong)..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    IronM@sk, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 9:43pm

    Re: We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship. NO MIKE its not..

    Oh we all know how copyright is supposed to work. But that isn't the issue here is it. It is however, in reality, indeed being used as a club to beat down speech.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 9:52pm

    Re: We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship. NO MIKE its not..

    Censor laws, determine the 'fitness' or acceptability of a works, and classifies it accordingly. That has NOTHING to do with copyright.

    There are several kinds of censorship. Censorship based on moral fitness or acceptability is known as moral censorship. Some other types are military censorship, political censorship, corporate censorship, religious censorship, and copyright censorship. Censorship, generally, is the suppression of speech or other communication by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. Now, if the government is prohibiting me from writing or communicating something via copyright laws, then that is indeed censorship.

    What about rape senes on TV during prime time or again kids hour. Is that ok ? (I guess so asyou DOUBT censorship is necessary !!!)or are you upset that you cannot copy, and distribute that content as you wish ? Thats all I can think of, you are upset because censorship laws are getting in the way of your illegal copyright breaching activities. So you cannot make copies of those snuff movies, and rape scenes for your friends and family ?

    Huh, what? Since Mike was talking about doubting the value of copyright, darryl is claiming that without copyright we'd have rape shows on kids channels? And without copyright Mike would be distributing snuff and rape movies? Wow. Just wow. Does he really expect people to believe that? Is nothing too low a stoop for a copyright lover?

    Copyright supporters such as darryl are not only slimy but delusional as well. If this is the kind of person the copyright industry breeds, then the sooner we get rid of it, the better.

    Abolish copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 11:27pm

    Re: We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship. NO MIKE its not..

    Hi Darryl. Please go read Dictionary.com.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Oct 23rd, 2010 @ 10:08pm

    Re: We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship. NO MIKE its not..

    > real murders and wars during kids hour on TV ?

    There's no such thing as "kid's hour" on TV.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2010 @ 12:33am

    Re: We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship. NO MIKE its not..

    Well, you don't understand ANYTHING but keep flodding this blog with your drivel. So what?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Jason, Oct 24th, 2010 @ 4:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Promoting how?

    Yes, but reports of Sarkozy being a descendant of Napoleon* are quite accurate.

    Time magazine quote of the week: "Troublemakers will not have the last word in a democracy, a republic."

    Hmmmm..some free speech are more equal than others?

    *The big Berkshire, not the little Corsican.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 25th, 2010 @ 2:30am

    Re: We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship. NO MIKE its not..Oh yes it is... Oh no it's not... Oh yes it is! (Hmmm is panto season here yet?)

    I'm assuming it *is* panto season because Wow! That has to tbe the biggest non-sequitur I've seen in some time.
    Doing a direct side-by-side comparison of the intent of censorship versus the intent of a portion of copyright law. Just... WOW! I'm staggered by the brazen-ness of even trying to make out that's what the article was about... Impressive! And then to bring in the old it's the same as muder... rape... snuff movies... kicking puppies.. (insert your favorite emotive crime here).... Masterly! True panto villain stuff... just brilliant! Now the next step is to encourage the audience to shout "Booooo!" each time Mike steps onto the stage

    The bit you carefully left out is that copyright also covers "derivative" works (which all works are to a greater or lesser extent) and by choosing on a case-by-case basis whether something is "derivative" enough to be infringing (THESE ears are a generic mouse, but THOSE ears look just a little bit too much like Mickey), then you are censoring other people's creativity.

    And by the way...
    You DOUBT you would agree ?? what are you not sure ??

    How's he supposed to know if he agrees or not until he's heard the argument? Oh, yes I forgot in panto-land all arguments are absolute (OH, no they're not! Oh, yes they are!), and are just for the sake of panto rather than a debate of facts to inform and persuade people to your opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    darryl, Oct 25th, 2010 @ 7:39am

    Mies strawman walk again !!!

    As a bunch of folks have sent in, there's a conference being held in France about freedom of expression and against internet censorship.

    Is that NOT A LIE Mike ??

    its a conference, sure

    its also a conference about freedom of expression, but the rest is just a lie, must be because you needed to include the word censorship in it, but fan the flames.

    But Its a flat out lie,

    France, through its minister of Foreign Affairs, Bernard Kouchner, is about to host an international conference on online freedom of expression on October 29th.



    Nothing about censorship ofcourse, that is a lie, to 'help' mikes cause.

    Copying someone elses work, and making it available for others to copy is not any form of 'freedom of expression', its more about taking away the freedoms of others to express their works knowing that their work will not be illegally copies or stolen.

    So its appropriate to talk about illegal file sharing, at a conference about internet freedom of expression..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    dave, Oct 25th, 2010 @ 9:03am

    "international conference on online freedom of expression"

    i'm sorry, but doesn't that imply the need to discuss censorship? otherwise what would you need freedom from?

    are you really that stupid, or does someone pay you to be that stupid?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Oct 25th, 2010 @ 9:17am

    Re:

    Are you saying merely that copyright law acts as a form of censorship, or that you are not in favor of any laws that act as a form of censorship?

    copyright can be used to censor the speech of critics because copyright law has its basis in censorship:
    The first copyright law was a censorship law. It had nothing to do with protecting the rights of authors, or encouraging them to produce new works. Authors' rights were in no danger in sixteenth-century England, and the recent arrival of the printing press (the world's first copying machine) was if anything energizing to writers. So energizing, in fact, that the English government grew concerned about too many works being produced, not too few. The new technology was making seditious reading material widely available for the first time, and the government urgently needed to control the flood of printed matter, censorship being as legitimate an administrative function then as building roads.

    The method the government chose was to establish a guild of private-sector censors, the London Company of Stationers, whose profits would depend on how well they performed their function. The Stationers were granted a royal monopoly over all printing in England, old works as well as new, in return for keeping a strict eye on what was printed. Their charter gave them not only exclusive right to print, but also the right to search out and confiscate unauthorized presses and books, and even to burn illegally printed books. No book could be printed until it was entered in the company's Register, and no work could be added to the Register until it had passed the crown's censor, or had been self-censored by the Stationers. The Company of Stationers became, in effect, the government's private, for-profit information police force.

    The system was quite openly designed to serve booksellers and the government, not authors. New books were entered in the Company's Register under a Company member's name, not the author's name. By convention, the member who registered the entry held the "copyright", the exclusive right to publish that book, over other members of the Company, and the Company's Court of Assistants resolved infringement disputes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Oct 25th, 2010 @ 1:47pm

    Re: We've pointed out many times how copyright is, by its nature, a law for censorship. NO MIKE its not..

    darryl is like the anti-NAMELESS.ONE.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This