I think it's ironic that France is involved. The effect their three-strikes law has is to remove French culture from the Internet, which I was under the impression they liked trying to spread.
Firstly, I should say there's less to worry about than people might think.
I know how Sarkozy governs : he or his government create a big buzz. People are obsessed over it for a few weeks and talk about nothing else. Then nothing really happens and we move on to the next big buzz.
Sarkozy's presidency can be summed by this : much ado about nothing.
Though there are a few exceptions, and although indeed we must fight against those who want to destroy freedom of speech on the internet, it is not as if concrete terrifying things were about to happen.
As for French culture, there's this great obsession in american and british media of the decline thereof and our alleged lamentation over it, but actually, noone in France cares. (see http://superfrenchie.com/?p=1410)
To understand, it is important to compare french and american treatment of culture.
France has the religion of culture. It's an exaggeration, but it's quite true. In France, there's this idea that art and philosophy are the best, highest things someone can do, and that art must deliver deep truths about life, death, and choucroute. While the best artists can be good artists and manage that, it also attracts a lot of pretentious people who have nothing to say, like Bernard Henri Lévy.
America, on the other hand, has the worship of money. Again, an exaggeration. Culture is treated like any other kind of product, and it works pretty well. Hollywood is to movies as Akron is to rubber. Again, the best artists can manage to be good and make money at the same time, but here, it attracts a lot of greedy people who will milk money out of anything that has any kind of success, for example through shameless plagiarising.
"Spreading" fits in the capitalist logic that prevails in America, but not in the snob logic that prevails in France. Here, having popular success is not important. It may even be a flaw.
This talk is an almost perfect example of applause light[1]. 95% of it is either self evident or universally accepted. But in the end, there's very little substance, if at all.
What I found most creepy about this talk is how similar it is from preaches I used to hear for Christmas. Same tone, same use of applause lights. It really felt religious. And for such important (and practical) issues, I don't take religiosity as a good starting point.
"France" is not involved - the French gvt is, which is slightly different. I think few French citizens would even care about this law, and for those who do, would most likely be against it.
There is also the context of presidential elections next year in France, where Sarkozy is in a tough situation to win. Trying to win points in international summits also works well with French citizen people who have not yet realized France is a minor power for more than 50 years.
