French Parliament Passes Hard Internet Piracy Law

Remove all ads!

The lower house of the French parliament just passed, on their third try, a very hard law on internet piracy that has already attracted quite a bit of attention, especially in Europe. This law was known as the "three strikes law", as repeated "offenders" can be fined for large amounts or have their internet access stopped. I wonder what your opinion on the topic are:

Spoiler

French internet piracy bill passes on third attempt


The French lower house has narrowly approved some of the toughest anti-internet-piracy legislation in the world, a bill that would permit authorities to cut the internet connection of illegal downloaders, impose fines of hundreds of thousands of euros and even jail repeat offenders.

The Hadopi bill, named for the new anti-piracy agency it creates, was backed on Tuesday (15 September) by most members of the governing centre-right UMP group in the National Assembly and resisted by the opposition Socialists, 285 to 225.

Families whose children download illegally are not exempt from the law (Photo: Flickr)

* Print
* Comment article

This is the third attempt of the French government to pass such a law. The first attempt tripped at the final hurdle when insufficient numbers of deputies from the majority turned up to vote, requiring a resubmission of the bill, which was subsequently struck down by France's Constitutional Court, which ruled that only a judge could impose such penalties as cutting internet access.

The new bill, already approved by the Senate in July, is also known as the ‘three-strikes law' for its graduated response to internet piracy: first a suspected downloader is sent a warning email, then a letter in the post and finally would see their connection cut for up to a year if they persist in downloading content without the permission of the copyright owner.

A scofflaw could even face fines of up to €300,000 and up to two years in jail.

Families whose children download illegally are not exempt from the law, but face reduced penalties - a month of no internet access and fines of €3,750.

In a blow to hopes for the spread of ubiquitous wi-fi access, the bill also requires that wi-fi users block non-authorised users from accessing their connection.

To overcome the objections of the Constitutional Court, a judge will now be required for the imposition of penalties.

French culture minister Frederic Mitterrand cheered the bill's passage: "Artists will remember that we at last had the courage to break with the laissez-faire approach and protect their rights from people who want to turn the net into their libertarian utopia."

A commission of seven senators and seven lower chamber deputies must now combine the two houses' versions of the law into a single bill over the coming days.

Internet freedom advocates, noting that President Nicholas Sarkozy's wife, Carla Bruni, is a top-selling singer, have slammed the bill as draconian and a sop to the record and movie industries.

Other European countries however have watched the bill's evolution closely, hoping to develop similar legislation. Sweden already has a comparable legal framework and has seen a massive drop in internet piracy.

The European Parliament however has taken a strong stance against such legislation, arguing that cutting people's internet off now is akin to cutting off someone's electricity or water - essentially that internet access is a fundamental right.

The Greens in EU parliament, who welcomed Sweden's sole elected Pirate Party MEP - who campaigns against such internet restrictions - into their political family in the chamber after the June European elections, were quick to denounce the French law.

"We remain opposed to the 'Hadopi' law, even in its modified form, because it still fails to provide for a fair trial and goes against the principle of presuming innocence," said Green co-leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit

 

I certainly welcome the attempt but it remains to be seen how effective this will be. Never the less I'm quite that the law passed, this will provide significant proof the case wether or not it's possible to stop or atleast reduce internet piracy.

I also found the fact that piracy in Sweden has decreased thanks to the government's harder line towards piracy very interesting and actually somewhat surprising. It will be interesting to see how this works and wether or not it will make a new EU standard in piracy control.

 

That's BS. The right pushed the law without taking into account why it failed before. They would have kept pushing it 27 times if they had to. It had to pass no matter what. We can question whether France is still a democracy when we see how the Republic's ideals are being trampled down by the current government but let's not digress...

It's not about piracy and copyrights, it's about liberty and basic individual rights. France is slowly but surely turning into a police state and that is further proof of it.

Piracy is wrong but it's the hypocrisy that I find unbearable. Given that CDs, DVDs and stuff are over priced it's no surprise that kids turn to illegal means when they can't afford to buy these products which are (sadly) made easily (and illegally) available to them on the net.

The temptation is just too strong. Likewise it's nigh impossible to buy a PC or even a laptop without a CD or DVD burner. If they wanted to crack down on piracy they wouldn't make it compulsory for people to have broadband access and the means to burn DVDs in less than 5 minutes.

Before somebody starts flaming me I'd like to say that I'm French and that I witness this situation first hand. I've told kids that they shouldn't download stuff on the net if it's not legal but the point is moot.

Let me now present you with an example. When Fallout 3 was released I wanted to buy it from the shop next door, since it was only in French I ordered it from the UK. Even with shipment and taxes it ended up being much cheaper than what I would have paid over here...

This is a crazy situation when you realize that since we got the Euro inflation has gone through the roof.

That's just basic economics. I don't know anyone who would break the law if they could afford not to and still enjoy a certain access to culture. I can't imagine people who have enough money to buy any CDs, DVDs or other products going through the hassle of relying on cracks and piracy. It always makes me smile that when you buy a DVD you get an ad against piracy before playing a movie that you actually bought...

At the end of the day what this law entails is that internet providers will have to monitor their customers and communicate to the police data about their online activities. That is a step in the wrong direction because they are only aiming at repression. They are not trying to educate the population or help them getting legal access to these resources.

Not to mention that if someone uses your address or hacks your access to commit illegal activities you have to prove that you're not the one actually responsible... That is not how things should work, at least not in a free society.

The only redeeming feature is that this law does not conform to European legislation so we can expect a lot of paperwork and appeals when they decide to enforce it.

There is a great divide between the left and the right on this issue. It's not about condoning piracy, it's about the way you treat your population. From now on anyone with an internet access is a suspected felon in our fair country.

 

Caradhras, my only complaint on your post is the part where you seem to all but excuse the pirates. Oh, boo-hoo, their rap CDs cost too much, they have to turn to piracy. I know, that's not what you said, but it's close and it is something that a lot of internet pirates use to justify their actions: "Well, if the publishers would price the CDs reasonably, we wouldn't be forced to steal." That's bull. This isn't bread or water. You can live without it.

 

Music, books, movies, and other forms of entertainment have always costs money. The price of those things have pretty much followed inflation. The young people today can afford just as much music as I could when I was a kid (i.e., I had to work my ass of to earn a few bucks first).

Piracy is simply easy and an alternative to shoplifting (which is what some in my generation did when they couldn't afford the music -- albums were a bit difficult to sneak out, but cassettes were prime targets).

 

And this thread is not about whether piracy is right or wrong. It is about a harsh piece of legislation passed in France.

 

I know this is the Alley but I really don't care about splitting hairs or enculer les mouches as we say over here (pardon my French).

T2Bruno's comparison to shoplifting is particularly apt: it is easy.

It would be great if we could avoid straying away from the topic, i.e. the Hadopi legislation and what it entails.

 

joacqin, this kind of topic will always turn the way of why people pirate, I do actually think that it is relevant to the topic, understanding piracy would be the first step to addressing laws and bills.

Ill use a recent example, I preordered Batman Arkham Asylum for the PC, the release date was 28th August, the pushed the PC version back 3 weeks to today, released it on every other format, the PC copy cost £35 in my local Game, console version cost £45.
The developers always say things like postponed because of piracy, but this causes piracy.
I know the real reason for the delay, they know that every home has a PC today, most PC's can run these games, but also that kids often have consoles. A friend of mine buys games for her kids for the PC because they are cheaper, however she had to buy it for the Xbox because her son wanted it for his birthday, so she spent £10 more getting it for console.
see where Im going?

 

Actually the eurozone is currently stuck in a period of deflation and has been so for the past few months and the cheapness of the sterling would certainly explain a part of why buying from the UK is cheaper. Also if you bought it from a place such as Play.com it's worth to remember that the company is based on Jersey Island which is a crown dependency and a tax haven.

 

I think the issue he wants to keep on is the potentially excessive nature of the legislation. I still think it's directly related to the nature and causes of piracy, but it would do well to analyze the legislation first. There are two things in your link that bug me:
1.) the exessive fines. I have no problem with punishing crimes with fines, especially for crimes that are financial in nature. I even have no problem with asking a thief to repay more than he stole (Biblical standard is 3X what you stole), but we're talking potentially thousands of times that here.
2.) the implication that at least some punishments can be issued without trial or judge. It seems at least the first two warnings (and the original attempt appears to have been all punishments) are issued to "suspected downloaders".

Now, honestly, I see no problem with asking, or even requiring, internet providers to provide aid to the police. Anyone who thinks that's a violation of privacy needs to look up the definition of "privacy" again. The internet is a public domain.

 

I agree, the legislation they are bringing in is very agressive. It seems odd to me that the punishment is going above normal theft punishments.

If you steal an apple (and get caught) you can expect a caution from the police, if you get caught twice, then you would probably recieve an exclusion order preventing you from going near the store. If you get caught a third time, which would also be a violation of the exclusion order then you could expect to meet a magistrate who would slap you with a £150 fine.

If you get caught 12 times, you will probably get a month in jail..

We keep an eye out for a man who constantly steals spirits from various different shops in town, he's banned from all the pubs for taking people's drinks when theyre not looking, he's been slapped with god knows how many fines, which he cant pay and he still hasnt been jailed,
Im sure the situation would be different if is were the music industry.

Im also curious why the government in france care so much about the piracy, after all, most of the labels are not based in france and therefore most of these products are imports taking money away from the french economy.

 

Nice strawman.

How about draconian punishments, giving the entertainment industry powers even the police doesn't have, a very large and diverse assortment of crimes and scare tactics by the entertainment industry and the rather interesting case of something that a very large part of the population does being a crime to the benefit of a very small group that contributes very little if not nil to society.

You don't need to be a pirate to support pirates politically - all you need to be is to be the slightest bit interested in your right to freedom, privacy or a fair trial.

 

The punishments are very excessive and probably couldn't be met by a single individual, not without ruining them financially for years to come. For what, stealing a copy of a PC game? Ridiculous. Punishment is in order, but not of that magnitude. The punishment should match the crime. Whatever the punishment is for stealing the game from a store should be the equivilant of stealing it on-line.

 

@Morgoroth: I bought it from Amazon actually and the change might make up for some of the difference but not all of it.

Nobody in his right mind can defend piracy, the fact is that it exists. It's normal that there should be a legislation to prevent it. Nevertheless what is at stake is even more important than financial prejudice for big companies (and piracy is directly responsible for this). It's the way you deal with such a sensitive issue.

We could draw parallels with drug consumption (I'm talking of pot and weed here) as it is rampant but still illegal (in France) and people can get their lives ruined if they're caught for possession even though they never pushed and had no intention to sell drugs. But that is another matter entirely and I'm sorry for the digression.

Still, at any given time I'd find more reasons to condone smoking. In fact I'd be hard pressed to find any argument to condone piracy at all but you can't ignore the economics. If you've been in third world countries, you must know that piracy is quite common there. The point is we're talking in France about people who download stuff for their own use. That is certainly misguided but I don't think it deserves such harsh penalties.

That being said this bill fits perfectly in the repressive perspective that the current French government tries to enforce. Thus the two items NOG pointed out, i.e. excessive fines and absence of formal proceedings (no judge will be required to inflict a penalty, no need to say that this is really bad no matter what).

Sorry but that's France, not the States and the ACT 78-17 of 6 January 1978 on Data Processing, Data Files and Individual Liberties applies. I'm no lawyer so I can't tell how they plan to make the Hadopi bill work within this frame...

I'm not even convinced that this will amount to much as it doesn't seem to take into account streaming and the fact that real pirates won't get caught anyway.

I'm against this law because it is dangerous for our liberty and freedom. The internet is turning into some kind of criminal space where exchanges between individuals will be monitored and subject to control by an agency who will suspect anyone of wrongdoings and especially youngsters. What about freedom of speech? What about wifi and cyber cafés?

I'm against this law because it is dangerous for no man should be considered guilty until it is actually proved (i.e. presumption of innocence). How can an agency determine in the place of a judge a penalty for internet abuse. Not trials, no need for proofs, no possibility to defend oneself... What will happen when someone else uses your wifi? What will happen whe a child dowloads a file illegally? According to that law the penalty applies no matter what because one is responsible for the access and has to control it... So I'm asking you, Is that justice?

 

That part of the bill is wrong. Unless you need to meet certain technologiacl qualifications to buy Wi-Fi, how can they hold you responsible to defend against law-breakers, those people who are stealing your signal. That is impossible for the average Joe. What it would take to stop that is out of the ordinary persons budget. That is going to far to ask this of the general populace.

 

The president's wife is a singer so it's not a big surprise that the disc industry should get all the limelight in this story.

Anyway that's what France has become. I may be disgruntled (to say the least) but (and I never thought I'd actually write that) it really sucks to be French nowadays or to live in France for that matter.

 

I personally feel that the responsibility lies with producers of both the medium and the technology it is being used on to make these products neigh impossible to pirate, only that could justify harsh sentencing. Right know the protection is the equivilent to theft of an item you find laying in the street.

 

I much prefer pirates over the people in the copyright industry and the people in charge who let them get away with this.

Heck, if it was up to me I'd put the pirates in charge over the current batch of no-good corrupt traitors.

 

Just as a background question, as Caradhras correctly pointed out that this is France, not the US, are punishments without trial commonplace there, or is this the first, or one of only a few cases of such?