The French government recently passed a law that will cut off internet users who use their account for illegal file sharing.
Sharing copyrighted files is illegal, and there is nothing strange about that. Artists have created something, and they should receive some compensation. Protecting their rights is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
However, what is strange is the proportions the issue has taken.
Governments do not usually spend huge amounts on artists and art. However, here, suddenly, the government is willing to sacrifice people's right to share information, something which is article 19 in the the United Nations declaration of Human Rights:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
In other words, the French government is willing to take the risk of breaking an internationally accepted law of human rights for the sake of artists.
They can do so of course. It is a matter of weighing one law against another. But I still wonder why they choose to do it? If artists are so powerful lobbyists, why do they not ask for more public subsidies?
There are other important things in the world. Global warming. Economic meltdown. Diseases. Wars. Why, pray why, do governments spend so much time on controlling file sharing, when they do not support the artists more economically?
1 comment:
I'm interested in the concept of _total freedom of information_. Even if you mention examples of the most controversial kind. I think our society would bear it. And we could let go of every information control mechanism. But I haven't seen anybody else making a point of that. I have googled.
Post a Comment