0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has certainly made it clear over the years that he favors increased regulation of the Internet, seemingly always despite the well placed concern of his critics.It was he who was among the first French politicians to endorse plans to establish a “three-strikes” regime for disconnecting suspected file-sharers from the Internet. This would later take the form of the controversial “Creation and Internet Law” that was passed late last year, but not after revisions mandating that only a judge could order disconnection.He’s also looked into the possibility of taxing Google, Yahoo, Facebook, MSN, and other Internet portals as a way to help finance artists in the country, though ignoring the fact that consumers are the ones who’ll wind up paying in the end.Now in a speech made recently to the Embassy of France to the Holy See, Pres Sarkozy made it clear that more needs to be done, that the govt needs to further tighten its grip on the Internet.“Regulating internet to correct the excesses and abuses that arise from the total absence of rules is a moral imperative,” he said, adding that without rules there is “no economy,” “no life in society,” and “no freedom.”But, what exactly does this mean? To what length does he think the govt must go to control so-called “excesses” and “abuses” and who gets to define them?Earlier last week he compared illegal file-sharing to stealing produce from a supermarket, failing to realize that there is an infinite supply of product available of which many likely would not have otherwise purchased. Worse still is the fact that “stealing produce” can’t accurately depict what happens afterwards when illegal file-sharers attend an artist’s concert or buy his t-shirts and other merchandise.Considering what he also said, that he will not let file-sharers “destroy copyright protection for artists” and their supposed efforts that he thinks could somehow destroy books, records, and film, it’s safe to say that any plans he comes up with for controlling the “abuses” and “excesses” of the Internet will likely be as ill-conceived as the notion of disconnecting entire households from the Internet.