French magazine fined €10,000 for writing about piracy

[jos]

 

French magazine Download (Telechargement in French) has been fined 10,000 for releasing an issue showing readers how and where to access pirated film, television, and music online, TorrentFreak reports.

The magazine released a special issue last summer advertising the "the best software and websites to download for free" on its front cover. Inside, it gave an overview of torrent clients such as iTorrent and BitComent, and also explained to readers that you can often find pirated downloads through Google Search.

In France, it is forbidden to "knowingly encourage" the use of software primarily used to share copyrighted content. This is the first time a news outlet has been found guilty of encouraging piracy under this section of French law, the TorrentFreak report added.

 

 

The question is does it voilates freedom of speech

Source:https://torrentfreak.com/french-magazine-fined-e10000-for-encouraging-piracy-150630/

[Bsmith]

so far freedom of press

[ZetZet]

so far freedom of press

yes. you get fined. no censoring happens though.

[Trik'Stari]

yes. you get fined. no censoring happens though.

That's still a form of censorship for firms that can't afford to absorb a loss like that.

[Lethal Seraph]

Freedom to do anything doesn't mean you're not responsible of the consequences. 

[ZetZet]

That's still a form of censorship for firms that can't afford to absorb a loss like that.

 

Freedom to do anything doesn't mean you're not responsible of the consequences. 

this

[VioDuskar]

free as in free speech, not as in free from fines

[Bsmith]

yes. you get fined. no censoring happens though.

It's not censorship no, but this is still a way of, "you can't say that" which basically comes down to censorship.

[Bsmith]

Freedom to do anything doesn't mean you're not responsible of the consequences. 

 

showing a way and telling to do something are 2 things, so imo the magazine isn't responsible if they mentioned it's forbidden by law

[FakezZ]

Freedom to do anything doesn't mean you're not responsible of the consequences. 

Consequences if what you do is illegal. Do you think listing a bunch of websites is illegal!?

[Trik'Stari]

this

See below

 

It's not censorship no, but this is still a way of, "you can't say that" which basically comes down to censorship.

showing a way and telling to do something are 2 things, so imo the magazine isn't responsible if they mentioned it's forbidden by law

Displaying information is not necessarily "encouraging" people to use that information.

[Guest Generallee]

Consequences if what you do is illegal. Do you think listing a bunch of websites is illegal!?

 

Yes.

[bogus]

That's still a form of censorship for firms that can't afford to absorb a loss like that.

Yes, but still the question remains - is that censorship?

For example, imagine if a magazine would teach you how to build a bomb or a small scale nuclear reactor? Or teach you how to search to find such information?

[Trik'Stari]

Yes, but still the question remains - is that censorship?

For example, imagine if a magazine would teach you how to build a bomb or a small scale nuclear reactor? Or teach you how to search to find such information?

Technically yes, that's still censorship (although you can find schematics and designs for reactors on Wikipedia. Good luck getting materials for it though lol) Whether or not it's justifiable censorship is another question.

[Bsmith]

Yes, but still the question remains - is that censorship?

For example, imagine if a magazine would teach you how to build a bomb or a small scale nuclear reactor? Or teach you how to search to find such information?

 

we had a magazine that did the bomb thingy once, under the idea of it being a "experiment" and with warning labels all over the place, but still the government/other people, didn't even bother with it, not only because of press freedom, but also because it teached about chemistry.

This would be a good example of how things spread over the internet without reaching the official channels.

Although once again it comes down on the wording used, if they didn't warn/mention it being illegal then it's partly their fault for not properly educating about the subject, although that doesn't seem as a reason to fine them since it's common practice for media to leave out details.

 

 

side jump/offtopic.

.... (although you can find schematics and designs for reactors on Wikipedia. Good luck getting materials for it though lol) ...

 

there are sites that sell raw elements in small and safe amounts, so that people can see them of their own and/or make a periodic table.

[bogus]

Technically yes, that's still censorship (although you can find schematics and designs for reactors on Wikipedia. Good luck getting materials for it though lol) Whether or not it's justifiable censorship is another question.

Good point

[bogus]

we had a magazine that did the bomb thingy once, under the idea of it being a "experiment" and with warning labels all over the place, but still the government/other people, didn't even bother with it, not only because of press freedom, but also because it teached about chemistry.

This would be a good example of how things spread over the internet without reaching the official channels.

Although once again it comes down on the wording used, if they didn't warn/mention it being illegal then it's partly their fault for not properly educating about the subject, although that doesn't seem as a reason to fine them since it's common practice for media to leave out details.

 

 

side jump/offtopic.

 

there are sites that sell raw elements in small and safe amounts, so that people can see them of their own and/or make a periodic table.

Well there are bombs and bombs. I said is as a tool that can harm people and property.

[Bsmith]

Well there are bombs and bombs. I said is as a tool that can harm people and property.

 

the idea remains the same, a home made bomb for whatever practice isn't legal in most countries i know(think/guess) at least here it is.

[qwertywarrior]

well they "knowingly encourage" this is very different than "for educational purposes" 

they should be fined

[juretrn]

While I personally don't care if they write about it or not, If something is illegal, you shouldn't give instructions on how to do it in press. What the hell were they thinking?! 

[Murdoch]

Well thank fuck this magazine has told me, cause I looked and looked and could never find this piracy thing people speak of.

[dragosudeki]

Displaying information is not necessarily "encouraging" people to use that information.

Displaying information does encourage other people though. The reason why biased news networks exist is because they encourage people to follow their point of view and bias. Or how watching a sports game will encourage you to play the sport or get better in it. If your statement was true, then we should be allowed to post links that lead to pirating software (which shouldn't be allowed simply because it encourages pirating). 

[FakezZ]

Yes.

Not sure if troll so I won't respond on this...

[samuel]

I think we should be more quiet about pirating, the use of adblock and even "free windows 10 for insiders". We are a special kind of people, we should only teach our children "how to get a free movie" so that everything will remain unchaged.

Just like lockpicking before Google was a thing.

[Trik'Stari]

Displaying information does encourage other people though. The reason why biased news networks exist is because they encourage people to follow their point of view and bias. Or how watching a sports game will encourage you to play the sport or get better in it. If your statement was true, then we should be allowed to post links that lead to pirating software (which shouldn't be allowed simply because it encourages pirating). 

From a legal standpoint, displaying information is not necessarily encouraging the use of it. News networks influence people because they include opinions and arguments. That's not just "displaying information"