25 Comment (s)

1. Very well to think this.

   Why not to make work democracy, then?

   Why not to return you in the assembly and vote you against this bill?

   Why not to explain your position to other deputies?

   If to you summits it, then I will begin believing that I made a mistake, that our country is not a banani re republic, that sarkozy does not manipulate everybody, that the deputies are really impartials and incorruptible people, and that I am parano.

   Nevertheless, I do not think that you go to the assembly to vote against this plan. All are known that you would risk your place in UMP by making it.

   And of favour, avoid saying to us that it is by respect for Riester , the current government takes us already enough for fools, useless to top it up.

   Goldoark 10 mar 2009 Answer

2. To be against a bill and not to move to vote This serves in what to say everywhere about the net that they are against if NOTHING is made to prevent this law from passing?
   Surement a means to earn the sympathy of the internauts, while avoiding having the big boss badly seen! It is especially a bafouement of our institutions!

   mouloud jeans 10 mar 2009 Answer

3. The courage of common sense . Everything is said not? Then why not to get your courage from two hands and defend your position against Hadopi? You really think that without people as you, this bill liberticide will not pass? Of course that not, you owe, for your fellow citizens to go to defend your position AGAINST Hadopi to the National Assembly, even if it means making enemies Unless all that you assure to defend is only powder in the wind

   A little of courage Mr Le D put .

   By hoping that this comment will not be censored, as Hadopi tries to censor the internauts.

   10 mar 2009 Answer

4. @ All: he is added well in the article that Christian Vanneste will not vote for this bill.

   Equip CV 10 mar 2009 Answer

5. Mister deputy,

   Thank you for your stand about bill Hadopi.

   It is however damage, which it do not alloy to the end of your current conviction, about this bill.

   Your position, if I understood well, consisting in declaring that you are against, but that you will not vote doubles is, and that even you would not participate in debates in the semicircular auditorium.

   Excuse me, but in my opinion, it is about a position, too easy to take, and especially not very audacious.

   I expected in a little better on behalf of an ancient teacher of Philo as behaviour during debates and vote

   All that resembling in much ado about nothing.

   Accept Mister Deputy the expression of my respectful respectful salutations

   Nathalie

   N. Bleuette 10 mar 2009 Answer

6. Follower of the UMP, I am deeply shocked today of the way the deputies of the majority develop habit not to rise any more in session and by vote against the government, current drift of which deeply hits however my conscience of right.

   It is necessary to think that today, that only the audacious dissidents can again put their acts in adequacy with their ideas, let us greet for example Mr Nicolas Dupont-Aignan for his determination.

   Jb 10 mar 2009 Answer

7. That of noise for big step thing. I find interesting your opinion on law creation and Internet, but why not to go to the end of your reasoning and express your disagreement by your voice? Where would be this righteous man a try of recovery?

   Cyril 10 mar 2009 Answer

8. Cf our higher comment which undoubtedly does not seem to have been included.

   Equip CV 10 mar 2009 Answer

9. @ equipe CV:
   it is not rather clear for me, therefore I assume that the same is true for others; are you saying that Mr deputy will not participate in debates but will well in vote?

   lache unknown man 10 mar 2009 Answer

10. Good night,
    Your realisation is very in your honour.
    But why not to vote against this text?
    To refrain it is to agree with the text.

    Seb 10 mar 2009 Answer

11. Mister,
    I take note of your regrets and I read well the article. His purpose is clear: you are not going to vote for, the text but you are not going to vote against either; and you are member of the UMP who demands as successor to the RPR and to the previous gaullist parties. His members should find the mind of resistance, it would be by the way this time
    A deputy has to to be audacious especially in a state of right where he does not risk the head in the proper sense of least Be worthy of 80 audacious who could oppose to a law allocating full powers to the single man.
    I wish you courage.

    arsinee 10 mar 2009 Answer

12. @ The CV team.

    We have a medium intelligence, and we too well understood that Mr C. Vanneste declares high and strong that he is opposed to this bill. And that he will not vote for him.

    On the contrary some people here, ask him to go at the end of its conviction that is to assist debates parliamentarian concerning this bill, but also and especially to VOTE AGAINST.

    Otherwise, it is only about a simple effect of handle .

    Or else just make, much ado about nothing.

    Warmly.

    Nathalie

    N. Bleuette 10 mar 2009 Answer

13. You say that he will not vote for this plan. Not to vote for him it is to refrain and not to vote against.

    Boz 10 mar 2009 Answer

14. I approve completely the position taken by Mr Vanneste: alone the market can resolve this problem by the reduction of the price of these products, the implementation of this calibrated answer is completely chimerical and going to cost tr s expensive to the taxpayers and clients of providers, its principle is very safe fair, balanced and democratic.
    I add that over, a day will be well needed to see again completely, in fall, considerably in fall, system of remuneration of the "authors", completely shown, anachronistic and costing very much a lot. Why not to put on there right away?

    Steven Roch 11 mar 2009 Answer

15. I would have never believed I could read a day this: Vanneste reconnait a Vanneste error agrees has accept that he is not perfect, that he does not have inbred science on all subjects, notably on those who exceed it completely.

    Cap in hand, congratulations, welcome parmis the simple lethal, big deputy.

    OK, once again, he makes vote for a law (DADVSI) in which he does not believe: to vote for rotten knack, ca begins has become a habit, to Vanneste: DADVSI, constitutional reform which nice balance sheet.

    To me finally
    As for refraining ca makes little girl a bit, no? A couillu man would have voted against, just to mark his difference apparently, just to defend his conviction and his point of view.

    Ah, but to oppose to the king veiled it is risked, sorry

    I read a pretty comparison for Hadopi: the offence will reproach for which to you one, it's as if your bagnole was stolen from you or that your number plates were copied, that they make breaks it of a jewellery with: you would be assumed accomplice or even recelleur of this offence, because you would have been unable to prove that nobody copies your number plates. Your will therefore be punished for this lack of alertness, although there is no proof against you.

    Louis Cypher 11 mar 2009 Answer

16. Poor young people!
    They have no precariousness of safe future, Cd ifi s-smicardis s at best that they have receptacle +5 or-5 it is similar (work, please, on the school said their parents), impossible to find a place to live decently or then barely decently but to the detriment of their food budget, no hope of social lift therefore dangerous coach are relinquished not to work any more (lifelong MINIMUM BENEFIT it am better that guaranteed minimum wage when they are alone) or to break everything as in Greece except that in France this risks being bloody .ET there they forbid them the few whom they can get gratos! certainly, it is pillage but it was foreseeable for a long time with Interent, therefore they are not guilty, they use Internet bar. AND.. the alcohol before 18 for the maintenance of health is forbidden them (very well I agree) but since their future is calamitous, why to deprive them of psychotropic? that these last are lawful or not besides since a drug defines itself objectively from a not cultural and medical point of view (squabble of lobby between wine and banger by ex).

    That of hypocrisy still!
    And fliqu Internet or fliqu alcohol, they already know how to by-pass, I do not doubt it, it is possible to get to not everything from them nevertheless.

    L WORD 11 mar 2009 Answer

17. Very agreeably surprised at seeing that M Vanneste is capable of making honourable fine and of admitting its error about DADVSI. So much I had rotted well him he is it three years old, so there I say hat. I hope that this will make emulators.

    Jean Mi 11 mar 2009 Answer

18. Questions to mister Vanneste:

    1. What is difference between a "reporter" and a reporter for opinion ? The one is him missionn by the Government Quand other one is it by the Parliament (via the different committees?)

    2. The best means to prove to the deputies the noxiousness of plan is not it to make them victims of bill? In other words "to pirate" their IP addresses (a friend computer scientist offers to make it if it can serve reason) Including that of the current reporter (and this time that of the lobbyste Lefebvre!)?

    3. As others, I do not understand your position well. You tell you are against bill And want to refrain? (By attending no vote)

    And it by respect towards your colleague mister Riester? And The respect for your voters? (You know, those who moved (instead of refraining) to send you straight to the Assembly So that to you there si gez?)

    I know that it is hard to believe (obviously) but Frenchmen not only elected you to say " yes " to Nicolas Sarkozy. They elected you, probably to help mister Sarkozy Mais aussi for other reasons, which are rational (a deputy who defends the family, it is not common!!! A deputy who passes a little of time to the Assembly it is well) or more emotional (this deputy gets dressed well, he is very nice, his wife is really superb, he has nice children, etc.) and these "reasons" are not willy-nilly secondary. They are same often priority.

    The parliamentarians are still not aware of their force Where is defeatist. It deeply upsets me.

    Because see to you, mister Vanneste, if all your colleagues, show "respect" towards mister Riester Et if everybody in UMP "refrains" or votes " yes " with reluctance For law It, passes. And a law, it is not that a pretty document, which hires nobody.

    Your vote does not hire that to you It hires France. When you say " yes " It is 60 million Frenchmen that say " yes " When you say "not idem.

    That you vote " yes " with reluctance, or that you refrain In The final, it is the People who trusted in you, who honoured you by giving you the imminent role to him, and that to represent France Which you betray. That you deceive.

    Deputation is not a game. And those who delay on your hands their existence, their hopes, are not pawns But human beings. When you say " yes ", or "Not " it has consequences.

    That is why If you are indeed persuaded of the noxiousness of this text You will say it clearly And you will act in coherence with this conviction.

    First because you were reporter of bill DADVIS. Who is more legitimate than to you to go to see mister Riester, and to say him what you write on your blog: I made a mistake. If somebody had had, at that time the courage to come to be seen, I will have listened to it, and can be would have me spared to thousands of individuals to meet under the yoke of a villainous law.

    If you "respect" mister Riester Ne think of you no that it would be necessary that you are friend (arrived too late for you) who will prevent him from making an error which he will regret, otherwise, him even later?

    Will be you therefore not Joel de Rosnay de mister Riester Qui unquestionably try to make well ? Why not to help him in his step?

    Then, you give advice to your colleagues. You say that you find the bad text to your colleagues, you grow even ANTI Hadopi to call the Constitutional Council Mais you are not, to you even, against this text.

    How please you, in its conditions, that the Government goes out of its blindness? That made to you, in concrete terms, to open his eyes? That made to you, which actions, for the citizens whose legitimate representative you are?

    In another post you stigmatise LKP, and you report the fact that it does not have democratic legitimacy. It is precise. But LKP acts. Successful LKP where the legitimate deputies, they, do not succeed.

    I think that the Parliament would well make besides to think about situation. It is not enough to tell off LKP, South, or other associations or movements. It is urgent that the Parliament, forgiveness to say it, GETS OUT OF THE WAY!

    LKP is undoubtedly devoid of democratic legitimacy, and I do not approve its methods. The fact remains that obviously It walks! It was enough that a man makes a step, so that the Government moves back.

    No Frenchman waits from you who you launched a revolution in the Assembly, or whom you entered in opposition. What asks you only Frenchmen, it is to take your acts.

    - You are against a law? You vote against.
    - You are for a law? You vote for.
    - You are not frontalement hostile to all law? You participate in sessions in the Assembly (you are supposed to assemble in it.) and you propose amendments (your colleague Le Fur well makes it: why not you?)
    - You are afraid to lose your district? Trust in your voters. Believe you that Frenchmen are so stupid to be pronounced as on a tag of party? Have you so not much confidence in you even as you thought that the change of tag could make you lose the support of your voters?

    Personally, a friend was elected mayor six times. He has never had political tag And however, I can assure you that he was wooed! Many times, he wondered if it was necessary to accept. And he questioned his constituents. A great majority said that he did not need it Because what counted for them, it is feeling to be correctly represented.

    My friend even wondered if he had to come to the National Assembly. He finally abandoned it, for family reasons. But it is probable that he would have been elected Because people of the "district" knew him well. And that they knew that they worked well for his village.

    You should not be afraid Mister deputy. Trust in your voters. They always pr fereront to vote for a deputy who is worthy of the being That for a man or a woman after whom the only argument takes in three letters.

    Seb 11 mar 2009 Answer

19. Mr Vaneste, take your opinion and vote against.

    You tell you refrain from voting by respect for your successor. Or, and the respect for your stocks and for your voters.

    Your opinion honours you, express by a negative vote, perhaps it will encourage other deputies to vote for camp to follow you or Mrs Albanel to move back.

    11 mar 2009 Answer

20. Same Jacques Attali is against Hadopi! It is to say you that this text is unfortunate. Beyond of irony (because there is a bit), this stand is significant. Jacques Attali is a good barometre of what thinks our French "elite", coming from the heart of our primary schools.

    If they begin giving way, it is a rather decisive swing which fills still a little more Hadopi. The more this goes, the more I sense a shipwreck to the Government if it persists on its positions.

    I leave you, I am going to continue digging the tomb of Hadopi.

    http://blogs.lexpress.fr/attali/2009/03/une-loi-scandaleuse-et-ridicul.php

    Token Go mister Vanneste, to the work!!!! By ex That go to put in you a punch to mister Ollier (the husband of MAM or his companion: I do not know any more too much)?

    By "punch" I hears a good slap Via an amendment undoing vile "stupidity" introduced by this last.

    Here is accused amendment:

    This amendment, introduced by Patrick Ollier, was adopted by the committee of economic business.

    It smells in full nose the amendment carried but not written by his author. The type of amendment which arrives at you by mail, where there is not more than to put the name of the deputy above. Big question is therefore: where from does he come? What lobby is behind this amendment?

    Because this amendment, it is of the heavy, the very heavy. He makes, on FAI a threat of judicial proceedings, such weigh as they go, spontaneously, to launch into filtration. Neither more, or less!

    The promoters of this Hadopi bill reveal so that they are aware of the ineffectual character of this text, and that it is easier to impose filtration by FAI. But since it is politically delicate to impose him to them, they make weigh on them a responsibility which will make them filter if they do not want to be followed.

    Because you can count on the majors so that chases are hired. The message of Besson (the street acrobat, the minister) is explicit: the enemy, it is free.

    This amendment is, in my opinion, a trial balloon. They attract to see. If this passes, so much the better (and there, it is champagne), if this does not pass, oh well, they will have tried, what will have allowed to test the adversary, to adjust shooting better next time!

    The East it useful that I add that, as incidentally, mister Patrick Ollier has number of friends in music And what it is so amateur of l chage of simple, official, Mrs Bruni Sarkozy? (An artist, as everyone knows)

    Seb 11 mar 2009 Answer

21. Mister Vanneste, say to you that you are delegated at the time of vote on the "punishment" of the king Louis XVI.

    Sincerely, I am not on that Louis XVI would have been very grateful towards a deputy who would have said to him:
    Capet, I do not wish your death I am against your passage under guillotines it. But By respect, towards my colleague Robespierre, which is made responsible for defending your death sentence I would refrain from voting!

    Sometimes Mister deputy A single vote can be enough to tell difference. For Louis XVI, that of her "cousin " Philippe Egalit told difference (and it is necessary to greet, in passage, 360 deputies who voted "against " death While they risked their life by making it (if they went out of the Assembly, the deputies who can be "accepted by some without pants type hard (support of Robespierre) who would not have missed to make them to disparaitre ) You, Mister deputy, you risk only a thing: to make endure the pride of the President. And still.)

    It is still, in a voice near That the Republic was instituted Where more recently even, than the constitutional revision of 2008 was adopted (even if it is not applied: but it is another story)

    Thanks to your voice You can change France. You can destroy HADOPI plan. You can save 60 million Frenchmen of the new law of the suspects instituted by a Government blinded by lobbies.

    You did not think to have such power? It is however case. But power does not give that rights It also gives duties. Confidence that the voters put in your person Him needs you to deserve her.

    It is not enough to have queen's title of France as the being. Mary Antoinette is symbol.

    It is not enough to have the committal order As the being. Still needs him to be worthy of it, and to represent France.

    Mister Chirac did not earn his popular legitimacy in 2002. He accepted only a legal legitimacy. Mister Chirac got that ci by representing France, during his opposition to war in Iraq.

    Mister Chirac made one with France And it is not a surprise, so by representing it, all at once, it "not " had certain ringing. For the first time, mister Chirac can be, since his arrival in policy was on the wavelength of France.

    This incarnation is not reserved for the President. The first Assembly proclaimed itself legitimate legally But it is thanks to its popular legitimacy, acquired by bias notably of the writing of the Statement of 1789, and famous night of August 4th That the Assembly really represented France To the point where France was forever marked with it.

    When some deputy went to Supreme court of appeal, to confront lobbies It is the battle of France, and not only of deputy, who was made.

    Your victory is not only personal. It is national, she is a fact of weapon for France.

    Today, battle continues. Not in front of the judges, but your peers. He comes back to you to help France, which needs you, and that solicits you to defend her.

    Will leave you? Where how there isn't so for a long time Will Go you until the end With insurance to be in your right, and that of France?

    Seb 12 mar 2009 Answer

22. concerning Hadopi if they cut the Internet access to the dangerous, rapists and pirate paedophiles (to please in word of UMP hits), has it a bone: they will not be able to go any more to buy on flat paid forms!
    De facto, they are therefore forced in rabbatre on solutions of consumption of the crossed century: CD or DVD. The poor people to return to the age of stone while the majority do not have equipment anymore to read this not very reliable support.
    You go - a comtpe? they are going to be obliged to enrich the small stockists of keys usb it is bundle, sorry

    And afterwards, the majors are going to complain that not their platforms of downloading are used while they cut Internet accesses rhhaaaa, this accursed snake who bites the tail

    Louis Cypher 12 mar 2009 Answer

23. What is tremendous, I find, with this said bill Hadopi it is because this last has an ambition very made disconnected from realities and the opposite in its purposes!

    Indeed, this text should finally save cultural industries (French!) odious thieves of contents, from this "pirate" t l chargeurs of music and of films which operate, as it is said to us, by millions in France. That of incivisme however! It is not in UMP where they would go to download illegally French cultural writings! Hectare not!

    This law, constitutes a nice occasion to do again the demonstration of Mancur Olson on the role of the groups of interests in democracy and of their differential capacity to act.

    Let us remind that, to Olson, action (or inaction) to influence political decision is function of a calculation rather simple cost / benefit. A large economic actor who discounts for himself an important benefit and almost surely acquired of a political decision the upper at the cost of action to be hired to get him is going easily to invest in the action of influence on political decision and takes care of all costs of this one; conversely, individuals for whom action to influence political decision to be taken represents a cost mattering in comparison with a very benefit weak and unpredictable (or an unpredictable and weak non-loss in kind) are going to find it difficult to get involved and to co-ordinate for an action.

    The small number with big interests in game is systematically going to take it on the big number with small interests in game. (The reasoning of Mr Olson would not walk very for example for a re-establishment of a service ten-year-old serviceman, or more generally in case of a heavy tax of type poll tax).

    Mr Olson notes that the introduction of selective instigations by leaders can improve chances of mobilisation of the big number with small interests if these create an organisation which gives an individual certainty of (even weak) earnings to the persons mobilised about the exit of the action of influence is. It is possible to introduce refinement (role of the ethics for example), but this simple diagramme walks finally rather well when it is a matter of materialist stakes.

    In kind, law Hadopi parried me as a caricature of this type of situation: on the one hand, they well seem to have (almost) all the groups or the firms which discount new repressive legislation a substantial economic benefit (it is about their economic survival according to them); of other one, groups which try to represent the persons who will have to suffer the effects of this new legislation, to know potentially in the present state of the text every person having in its name an Internet subscription.

    Indeed, this law creates an offence if I dare to say about bad surveillance of manners by oneself and especially by other people of his address IP, one might as well say that, in "real" life, such law would return to penalise every possessor of vehicle with engine which would have been "borrowed" (or stolen) by other people to make bad manners, strange principle of safe legal point of view to consider that an IP address, it is de facto so dangerous as to let trainer without surveillance of the dynamite in the chemistry laboratory of a high school.

    He will have unfortunately avoided nobody that, at the moment, nobody federates all the internauts (which are from now on millions). There are certainly various regroupings, as the Quadrature of the net or of the protests of less specialised associations (as UFC-QUE Choose), but, at present, everything seems to point out that law Hadopi is going to pass, not without some debates certainly.

    They will point out certainly that the Internet tool allows the reduction of the cost of the organisation of influence and of protest, but it remains that these groups compared to law do not give selective instigations allowing to mobilise more widely.

    It is true that the persons subject to mobilisation belong to two categories: on one hand, the impenitent t l chargeurs. I am afraid that a part of those, most in the fact of various technical novelties, already know how to divert future regulation.

    On the other hand, others, the ordinary internauts: if they do not download illegally, they do not feel concerned, they have nothing to blame themselves.

    This impression of not being concerned is really sure fallacious: indeed, when I see the device set up by law Hadopi, I have a top the heart: the idea of the double warning by an informed administrative authority it seems exclusively by firms to be possessors of right on music or cinema (or their authorised agents) on addresses guilty IP of downloading, followed by a suspension of Internet access for the responsible subscriber of this faulty address (and for all those who live with him) during a length until one year, the whole without possibility of serious judicial appeal before this suspension comes into force parried me completely worrying.

    I have enough experience of Internet as end user to know that there are undoubtedly thousand ways of using your IP address in your insu. I want that they make the possessors of an access IP protect themselves from bad manners which it would be possible to make, but, in that case, I want that DGSE or DRM put in the disposition of Frenchmen their devices anti-piracy!

    Indeed, law Hadopi will open a new market to the protection of Internet accesses, but without certainty no that it serves for avoiding finding itself hanging this time really without knowing his full liking . I already imagine stories croquignolesques people having been spotted as downloading in great numbers while they were on holiday during six months in the other world's end because they had forgotten to put out their wifi modem.

    It will make nice subjects for reports with accent lived from the newspapers of TF1 or from France 2. It will be undoubtedly difficult to d barasser of this procedure, since there still, the persons victims of an error will have difficulties in forming a coalition, and try simply to take out of this shady goings-on.

    I do not resist to finish for the pleasure of commenting (in parentheses) on the justification appeared in Liberalisation by Franck Riester, delegated UMP reporter by law:

    Objective isn't to eradicate illegal downloading (OK? Since when do they make in France laws intended from the beginning not to reach their target? It is however necessary to "eradicate them well as the vermin that they are, these thieves of copyright!), but to find a frame better adapted to struggle against this phenomenon (A kind of reduction of risk all in all?). A decriminalized frame (OK? The previous laws on subject would therefore have been abolished? Unlikely in my opinion. Where it means that the device invents something that takes out so much all norms of criminal law in force, with sound I punish first, I judge then! , what it is about a decriminalization in this sense a bit to the North Korean all in all?) and who favours pedagogy and prevention rather than sanction, since the internaut will be twice informed (If he has however the chance to accept the first warning by mail and to read it really, I see from the head of some parents receiving the registered letter It is not going to diminish intra-family acts of violence) before a possible interim suspension (certainly one year at the farthest, it is not so long especially if they continue paying the subscription which they do not use any more!) of his connection (and of that of those who share his life: although a family of unkindly clever babies or a group of mates of the same type will have undoubtedly only to create so much Internet connections at different physical addresses as there are adults, and why not indeed to offer one in big aunt who lives not far?).Certes un an au maximum, ce n est pas si long surtout si on continue de payer l abonnement dont on ne profite plus !) de sa connexion (Et de celle de ceux qui partagent sa vie : encore qu une famille de petits malins mal intentionn s ou un groupe de copains du m me genre n aura sans doute qu cr er autant de connexions internet des adresses physiques diff rentes qu il y a d adultes, et pourquoi pas en effet en proposer une la grand tante qui habite pas loin?).

    All guarantees were taken in civil liberties since sanctions pronounced by Hadopi will be taken by magistrates of the Council of State or of the Supreme court of appeal (They already lack magistrates of high rank to try more serious cases, and there they are going to mobilise it for making work Hadopi?), and that it will be always possible to the internaut to grab a judge (yes, it is necessary to hope for it, but when? The Parliament is unaware that "Justice" is already overbook e? Blocked courts! " Abandoned courts " It was on January 29th Everywhere in France. And did they envisage in law a possibility of complaining right away about the piracy of his address IP and of finding the culprit?).

    Finally, taking a census one of the offenders will agree to the protocols of management of databases and will be controlled by Cnil. (I hope that he says plainly, and they know the important means put in disposition of said Cnil.)

    If he is not willy-nilly popular (certainly, it is going to improve the feeling of a part of youth to be a bit the turkey of the ongoing socioeconomic joke Not forgery of the whole, the tr s seen well, bravo!), this new legal setting is necessary to make become aware to Frenchmen (to note: an emergent New Thought, law with pedagogic aim, which had said that it was necessary less but better to legislate?) of the necessity to put an end to practices which threaten directly the courses of study of creation and our model of cultural exception (I am not sure that to prevent the downloading of Anglo-Saxon music type Madonna or from American films type Batman favours directly our model of cultural exception, it will help on the contrary France not to have problems with the United States which could complain really. I approve this weaning of American subculture which is so going to be imposed!).

    (Attention reader, the sentence which follows is a model of denial-revelation typical of the political language:) this law isn't conceived to satisfy the lobbying of the big actors of the sector (Not???? Olson would be wrong?), but first of all to support the babies (They will admire this argument always used by the most stupid droaaaaaaaate of the world when it is a question of defending an economic important interest, cf. for ISF, celebrates it " widow of the island of R , or else all history of the agricultural lobbys since 1880 at least).

    Without guarantee that the offer of online contents will be regulated and reassured, which will take the risk of throwing new talents? (Of course, it is better to speak to defend this reason of the current poor artists beginners, new talents , than already force-feeding, current talents, who, moreover, do not show these last years of a creativity such as it is necessary to die for this French culture there, Jacques Brel is not who wants!)

    Everybody has interest in the success of this device (There also classic of French right: there is not re ls conflicts of interest in the society, a positive mediation is always possible, they always wonder why people do not agree in that case, of simpletons undoubtedly. This it is as blow of January 29th? Frenchmen demonstrated for more reforms and to support the Government and the President (Luke Chatel) They have not owed look at the same programmes on the television! Where then I cannot read French any more), which will favour the development of new less expensive and rival, more innovative offer for the consumer (Hu #, less expensive than the free or more exactly the stealing, I do not know, but ok I am old-fashioned; let us translate: with such regime of sanctions, the paid will appear less expensive that the free or the stealing let us say to stay in the line).

    (Other sentence of denial-revelation:) it is not a question of re-creating curiosity artificially on the Internet, it is all the opposite! (If Rifkin and Co reads this sentence, that they die immediately struck down!).

    Very personal and very little objective conclusion: this young deputy really chose well his political commitment, he seems to me perfectly in the tradition of the most stupid French droaaaaaaaaate of the world. He is perfect. The friend of the internauts As Mrs Morano would be him is that of families?

    Any doubts over there!

    Sincerely mister Vanneste, this deputy deserves t him your "respect" more than your voters? Needs him to choose most stupid "Droaaaaaaaaate" of the world Instead of France?

    Seb 12 mar 2009 Answer

24. Yours, in fact, the vanneste did it join patrick's proposal bloche, aiming at suprimer DADVSI (you know, this law badly tied up, badly set up (the majority of the decrees have never come into the world, badly follow (no study on its impact)?

    And yesterday, apparamment, albanel earned a point godwin! the class! (according to godwin's law, the more a debate lasts, the less one of the dealers has arguments (still, strangely, the one who least worked his file), therefore, he ends up alluding to Nazism or to the hitler)

    Louis Cypher 13 mar 2009 Answer

25. Mr Vanneste, my big father was also delegated, at his time. There was the Independent group of the Republicans.

    I would not have opportunity unfortunately any more to discuss this bill with him, because he left us last June.

    I do not know if we would have shared the same opinion, but anyway, it had developed always, a big passion for computer science, the one that it transmitted to me and which makes my job today.

    From father to grandson, business managers, my sensitivity turned to the right of course, but there, I cannot accept what takes place at present.

    And I find that the dealers of the left (Brard, bloche, Billiards, etc) are fair, in tone as in arguments.

    Please, express your your next Tuesday!

    Remind of you therefore in the good memory of Mrs Albanel who thinks that wifi is female type and that continuation OpenОфис has a firebreak!!!

    Reason May 7th, 2009 Answer

Post a comment on the article "Vanneste (UMP): Hadopi is a scandalous plan doomed to failure"

Name (required)

E-mail (will not be published) (Required)

Website