| Re: [proaudio] HADOPI stuff on Tuxfamily |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/proaudio Archives
]
- To: proaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [proaudio] HADOPI stuff on Tuxfamily
- From: Jean-Baptiste Mestelan <mestelan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:47:34 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FlNKqY1uRUqU/1XapV7U9x+R70QbAqyfRFIchhtIfLU=; b=pu99Wug4S4nYpApDVbspLky/1A/jGbXiNOtcl+YFwHtblGzSI6OpQYvZTT2ytsriV0 vn8zRA7RCdyzFXFd8dEXIBx4c8VGHIBQ/sJHpc0jFp6HCb7rq/13ZKBF1yu5uMNnPV59 ukRwRAEwqC3wza8b/iEm3O5LoNL6ktzS4o4QU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=urDI1ReID1ac99wPYTbKHpqaJPTBnGTiiWd7A3bHq7LF4Uo2uvtNVVwBPsfTUQdZsx gOal57DPy9h35pWq/ogmBtjSiQieuAkgh8ZvK6mQPlIZtsrVNsM84xJV0Y2Vy+DDJ3WT OKQWFi+4HeaPbO0GlotXlSVmGQgQ9Y3VV/8a0=
2009/4/9 sonofzev@xxxxxxxxxxxx <sonofzev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>At least it was a joke, but I agree with Dominique it
> definitely wasn't really a funny one.
In fact, my description of the planned regulation was slighltly
incomplete: cutting personal access to the Net is only one part of the
scheme; an other part aims at filtering the Net, by commanding ISPs to
bring down any site reported to infringe on copyright law.
This part more directly concerns tuxfamily as a content provider, and
this was probably the point they wanted to make.
Further reading here (in French, sorry):
http://www.ecrans.fr/Hadopi-Oui-au-filtrage,6845.html
Of course, you would argue that the law is targeted towards providers
of illegal content. Of course, tuxfamily does not violate any
copyright law which I know of ; but bear in mind that a conglomerate
of French record companies (SPPF) has recently sued SourceForge about
hosting some file-sharing applications ... Such preposterous actions
might then become commonplace ...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081114/1457012833.shtml