3 ms·
The Wall Street Journal is definitely toeing the Big "IP" line in this article. No mention of the difficulty of tieing IP address to a human, no mention of the
by bediger 15y ago
The Wall Street Journal is definitely toeing the Big "IP" line in this article. No mention of the difficulty of tieing IP address to a human, no mention of the percentage of false positives, or indeed, the possibility of false positives. 470,000 warning must include some false positives, and the consequences aren't mentioned. There's also no mention of how many people have filed appeals.
But most telling is that "Some copyright holders" are wondering if they're getting bang for the buck. Who pays for Hadopi? The French MPAF and RIAF? Doubt it. It's taxpayer money, probably. Nice of the "copyright holders" to make it their own money.
- pluies_public 15y agoIndeed, taxpayer's money. To be precise, 12 million euros for 2011 (source, in French: http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/59639-hadopi-budget-2011-zelnik.htm http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/59639-hadopi-budget-2011-z...)
- johncoltrane 15y agoIncluding 3+ millions and counting for communication alone. (source on the same site: http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/64492-hadopi-label-pur-marche-public.htm http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/64492-hadopi-label-pur-mar...)
- bediger 15y agoSo, 12 Million for about half-a-million strikes, and 10 potential IP addresses locked out of net. That essentially 24 euros a strike. That cannot be worth it to taxpayers. Really, it can't be worth it to government. This "Hadopi" is a textbook example of something runaway, maybe legislative capture or something.