France ignores EU and passes antipiracy law
The French National Assembly ignored a vote last week by the European Parliament and approved its "Création et Internet" three-strikes bill on Tuesday.
The measure supported by French President Nicolas Sarkozy punishes digital pirates by suspending Internet service if they are caught illegally sharing copyrighted material. The vote comes a little more than a month after the same government body rejected the proposal.
It seems the vote by the French Assembly is in direct opposition to the European Parliament, which last week passed a measure prohibiting EU governments from terminating a user's Internet access without a court order. The European Parliament also adopted an amendment that said, "Internet access is a fundamental right such as the freedom of expression and the freedom to access information."
The bill passed in France's National Assembly, the lower house of the French Parliament, by a narrow margin of 296 to 233. The legislation essentially creates a new government agency known as HADOPI (the Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des droits sur Internet), which will be tasked with sending notices to illegal file sharers.
The way it would work is that suspected offenders would receive two warnings about their illegal activities and on the third suspected offense, their Internet access would be cut off for anywhere from two months to a year. Users will also be put on a "three-strikes" blacklist so that they can't sign up for service from another ISP.
The legislation has proven to be quite controversial in France and throughout the world. It is considered one of the most aggressive digital antipiracy regulations out there, which has helped it win the support of the music and movie industries.
But consumer and free speech advocates have opposed the passage of such legislation, arguing that it denies accused Internet pirates the right to challenge the government's charges in court. Opponents of the legislation also fear that it will pave the way for governments to violate its citizens' personal privacy rights.
The bill had been expected to pass the General Assembly in France in early April, but Socialists, who opposed the measure, rallied at the last moment, and surprisingly defeated the measure.
It was reintroduced to the assembly in late April and was debated and discussed until the vote Tuesday.
Even though the entertainment industry for years has lobbied for more active policing of the Internet, France is one of the only countries to put together such stringent legislation. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, have not introduced strict legislation yet, but instead are encouraging partnerships between ISPs and the entertainment industry to fight piracy.
At least one major ISP in the U.S., AT&T, has already agreed to work with the music industry by sending notices to consumers suspected of illegally distributing copyrighted content. And in the U.K., ISPs have agreed to help the entertainment industry fight piracy in lieu of new legislation.
But other countries, such as Sweden are also taking a heavy handed approach to fighting digital piracy. France's strict piracy legislation comes less than a month after a Swedish court found the founders of the peer-to-peer site The Pirate Bay guilty of infringing copyright. The four defendants were each sentenced to a year in jail and ordered to pay 30 million Swedish kronor ($3.6 million) in damages to copyright holders. The Pirate Bay has already been mentioned as one of the sites that could be easily taken out under the new French law.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
Holy crap!
Sounds reasonable and rational to me. Am I missing something?
If you are suspected of parking for longer than you put money in the meter - no one really knows, the parking inspecter just had a gut 'feeling' about you, he didn't know for sure, but he suspected - now on the third time, you are no longer allowed to park you car. Period. Not just not allowed to park at that one place, but anywhere. And not just parking. You are banned from accessing road infrastructure. All because someone suspected, without giving you a chance to due process, defence, explanation. All because, what, the inspector claims he could've sworn he put that chalk mark on your tyre there... right there, see?
Now lets consider that it is well known that hoods have been messing with the parking meters. Or that the ticket machines are faulty. You will still be penalised as being a "parking violator" in the same way that we know that people can be unknowingly download illegal material, or have their connection hacked, or have the data that is being used to prosecute them be completely unreliable. Eg. you downloading something from a server that contains illegal material doesn't mean what you downloaded was illegal. So considering all of this - all they need is to "suspect" you and BAM you have no access to the internet.
Note the word "suspected" here, meaning they don't know, haven't necessarily got proof and thus there is no need for them to justify the accusation or capacity for you to defend yourself.
This will only hurt law-abiding people. The criminals will bypass any laws and continue doing what they do.
I'm all for cutting off spammers and pirates - as long as you can prove in a court of law that they are spammers and pirates.
This is very similar to the racketeering scheme going on in California's justice system right about now. We've got a massive budget crisis that started impacting the judicial system because of tight budgets, so all of a sudden there's cops handing out tickets left and right. Regardless of the reality of the ticket, you have to pay the state the fine before you can even fight it. I got handed a ticket from a cop saying he had to do 130 to catch me and that I was going over 95 mph, even though I showed my GPS which said I was going 72. Oh, and the fact that the cop stopped me 11 miles from where he supposedly started chasing me, also according to GPS.
Regardless of these facts that show the cop is lying/an idiot, I have to pay a 234 dollar ticket, drive four hours to a courthouse in the middle of freaking NOWHERE, and then fight the ticket. I'll bet you any amount of money that I'll lose because of said budget crunch, despite GPS/factual evidence. Even if I don't lose, however, the fact that I was accused of this baseless BS means I have to pay the fine to the state. They then, win or lose in court, collect interest on it for 4-6 months before finally refunding me the money less interest and court fees.
It's the same exact concept here. They accuse you, and no matter what, they profit/win, simply because you were accused. The facts are rapidly becoming irrelevant in the courts of law around the world - it's just a matter of who can afford the most lawyers.
@monkeyfun14 Don't be so ignorant with the whole "if you aren't doing something wrong you've got nothing to worry about" BS. That is a line that has been used by supporters of policies that violate privacy and legislation such as the patriot act and other equivalent legislation that allows for civilians to be held without due process or charges for indefiniate amounts of time based on 'suspician'.
Indeed the spanish inquisition used a varient of that line to reassure people. Nazi's and the Russian communist movement used it too to control people.
In a world where our freedoms and rights are being eroded at every opportunity by governements motivated by corporate greed, we need to fight at every point to hold on to our rights. Lest there be nothing worth fighting for.
Take our rights and freedoms and there is no need for terrorists - there will be nothing left for the terrorists to attack.
If my access is cut off for pirating software or music or movies suddenly I can't pay my credit card bills, I can't pay my rent, I can't pay my phone bills, I can't read the news, I can't stay in contact with my friends, I can't do my job.
I also can't download or distribute software I don't have the rights to, but is it worth it?
Easy way around this is, of course, don't violate copyright laws through distribution of software... And that no one else is using your computer for this purpose. Or that the neighbours aren't using your wireless connection. Etc, etc ad infinitum.
How 'bout big fines? Like traffic tickets. People are going to speed, people are going to violate copyrights. Make them pay, but don't limit their access to what is, in my life, a basic utility.
France has now placed itself in the camp of the "money is always right" oligarchs.
Thats funny I work in internet security too and I track internet use, downloads/uploads everyday to the individual computer via its MAC address which is attached to every packet.
MAC Addresses can be spoofed and even a legitimate network host can be compromised and used as a proxy for another host. If you went in to court with a log of activity on my MAC address and not the actual device with the files and corresponding logs showing local transfer activity, a real security expert would rip sizable holes in that evidence in a matter of minutes.
The flip side of this issue is that many small and medium sized ISP keep crappy logs. The RIAA had to drop many lawsuits against grandmothers with iMacs because of this. If they were simply allowed to accuse, black list and move on without a mechanism for challenging the accusation, groups like the RIAA and MPAA would suddenly have the ability to decide who has access to the internet and even potentially use it to silence their critics.
Thats funny I work in internet security too and I track internet use, downloads/uploads everyday to the individual computer via its MAC address which is attached to every packet."
Wow, I hope you don't actually work in internet security, because that statement is alarmingly ignorant.
As was already stated, NAT and spoofing makes it very difficult to prove anything based on MAC addresses.
Now, I have just made some accusations that, if repeated by two other people, should cause the directors of the MPAA and RIAA to be locked in prison without trial and tortured for information (using the same logic as the new law just passed by France). After all, they've been accused, so they must be guilty, and a trial is unnecessary, right?
J'accuse!
Actually, no, the point of the legislation is that you do not get the right to defend accusations against you.
We all deserve the right to due process for any accusation against us because we don't live in an impartial world nor a 100% accurate one. In this legislation no one is getting "caught" pirating, they are "suspected" of pirating and that is WORLDS apart. Getting caught would require evidence, warrents, due process etc. You see, due process works for both the prosecutors and the defence. This legislation is bypassing the process of prosecution and thus the right for defence.
And yes, the internet is a fundamental right such as the freedom of expression and access to information - why? Because, unless I"m mistaken, it is used for a hell of a lot more than just copyright violations. People speed in their cars too and that doesn't mean we suddenly say you can't use the whole freaking road anywhere just because you sped. Indeed, you have more capacity to defend a speeding ticket than this legislation.
Your ignorance, andrew, is frightening. "Piracy" is a infringement of a minor act, not theft nor a crime according to France's own Crimes Act. So what is being done here is completely disproportionate to the crime: you are being denied all rights to use the road over a parking ticket. That is the true equivalent. A parking ticket is due to an infringement of a minor act, just like piracy. Parking violations are not crimes in the Crimes Act nor are they considered "theft" of said parking space. In this legislation, you don't even need to have committed a parking violation, merely someone need only suspect you parked poorly.
I hope you can parallel park Andrew, because I suspect, with your level of ignorance, you are about to be denied access to the road.
Yeah, nice little omitted factoid that the judge has a proven conflict of interest.
Its not up to the people to make sure the entertainment industry gets money, its up to the entertainment industry to get people to give them money.
Stay tuned ... :)
Stay tuned ... :)
It might have been better to post in French and let those interested run it through a translator.
easy way around it (for pirates or people who are getting nowhere fighting to clear their good name): On notice #2, alleged pirate signs up for internet with ISP #2, so when the probable or definate notice #3 arrives evoking the ill conceived "three strikes" rule, ISP #1 cuts off access, blacklists alleged infringer, but alleged infringer has internet anyway.
What is that saying? "Money makes the laws go around..."?
Wow, great legislation really /end sarcasm
to see if they can help. I am glad I did read it before I talk to my CC company and it helped - Jane Jim, California
Not a case of isp's doing business with you or not.
www.jamendo.com
free downloads of artists and musicians who "get it" and have given permission for their music to be dawnloaded and if you like it you can make a donation to them, no obligation no sign up fee nothing but an email address. That is the real future of the music industry. They even have their own HADOPI, the first time you downlad from them thay send you a thankyou email, the second time they send you stickers in the mail, and if you are really devoted to helping them expand then they will pay a month of your ISP's bill.
at one time music labels were an important part of the process, without the money and power of a large corporation no one's music would have been known outside of their imediate region, but because of technology it can now be the best sounding bands and not the best connected ones that become the rich rockers. It is time for the RIAA ect. to lay down and give up(i am not so nieve as to think they will but nevertheless it is time for it)
- by onefour7 June 19, 2009 1:55 AM PDT
- Music and film have essentially become a non-excludable, non-rivalrous public good - where consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good, eg. air, street lamps, free-to-air television, national defense.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(44 Comments)Generally, within the school of Economics, the supply of a public good left to private firms will inevitably lead to market failue. That is, production of the good will cease due to lack of monetary incentives - since it is available for free, no (rational, wealth-maximising) individual would choose to pay for it, and hence, the lack of revenues for private firms. Though the term 'public good' does not necessarily imply provision by the government, in the majority of cases it is necessary, as illustrated by the rationale above. Hence, the supply of a public good is usually nationalised, funded for solely by tax revenues (eg. education, clean air, law enforcement, etc.).
In my opinion, the music industry is going about the wrong way - suing grannies and toddlers for every penny, imposing their burdens on ISPs, and selling songs/films loaded with a bunch of restrictive rights is akin to stuffing toothpaste back in the tube. They have to face the hard fact that the genie is well and truly out of the lamp, and is doing 180 down the highway, in the wrong direction no less. A decisive move is required soon to overtake the 'pirates' and for once be in the driving seat of their own industry.
I suggest nationalising the distribution of music. (close mouth and read on). Legalising file-sharing, and incorporating a 'music tax' to fund it would be a large step forward. Now, for arguments sake, let's say the world is only comprised of country X, with a population of 10 people, each paying an annual music tax of $10. There are 10 artistes peddling their albums competitively (Mr/Ms 1 to 10), all vying for the lion's share of the market. Now let's say artistes 1 to 9 sold only one album each, while Mr 10 sold 91 albums. His revenue will be tagged to his market share, and in this case, 91% = $91. This system would still provide the incentive for healthy competition among artistes, and will also monetize the P2P file-sharing culture. Into the finer details (I'm winging it now): Individuals may get their first x albums free, after which they may purchase more for a price. The music tax could also be varied along the age, income, and household continuum, to ensure a 'fair' structure based on predicted consumption, and adequate accommodation for it.
Granted, it may take unprecendented global co-operation, dozens of legislations, and a unanimous vote for it to even smell its first greenback, but I think it's worth a try. Ok so go easy on me - this just popped into my head over fries and a cheeseburger at lunch. But i'd just hate to see a consumer vs. distributor war, and the creative juices / incentive for artistes take a beating for it.
And finally, as a retort to those anti-piracy campaigns targeting our conscience with their "you wouldn't steal a car / bike / blah blah blah", Yes, I would! On the condition that all I had to do was touch the car, and thirty seconds later I owned the car. While the person who originally owned the car got to keep an identical copy of the car in the same condition.