Hadopi (French Anti-Piracy Group) Not Long for this World

[Ninjalawyer]

For those that don't know, Hadopi is the group that enforces France's draconian law that kicks a user off the internet after that user is accused of copyright infringement three times. Previously, the law was heavily criticized by the European Parliament because it carried with it the possibility that a harsh penalty (being excommunicated from the internet) would be imposed without any effective judicial oversight.

Now the law, and the group that enforces it, are facing more criticism, this time from the French minister of culture. In an interview, the minister stated:

I do not know what will become of [Hadopi], but one thing is clear: Hadopi has not fulfilled its mission of developing legal content offerings...

"In financial terms, [spending] €12 million euros ($14.86 million) and 60 agents—that’s expensive [just] to send a million e-mails," she continued.

Finally, the suspension of Internet access seems to be a disproportionate penalty given the intended goal. But this will all be examined by the Lescure Commission. In the meantime, with respect to budgetary efforts, I’m going to ask that Hadopi’s funds be significantly reduced for the rest of 2012. I prefer to reduce the finances of [agencies] whose utility is not proven. In September, I will announce the details of these budgetary decisions.

It'll be interesting to see what, if any, lesson other countries thinking of a three-strikes system like Frances will take from this.

Full story on Ars Technica here.

[Sil_liS]

So the initial purpose was for them to develop legal content offerings. That would have worked better than the emails, but it would have required some knowledge of economics and marketing.

[Belfaborac]

Interesting. A recent story I particularly liked was the leaked RIAA presentation showing that online music piracy accounts for only a small part of the total, unlike what they've been claiming publicly. Perhaps this "revelation" too will serve to make governments and law makers think again.

[SeaKing]

RIH! Rest in hell!

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So the initial purpose was for them to develop legal content offerings. That would have worked better than the emails, but it would have required some knowledge of economics and marketing.

Yeah, that !

We're seriously lacking some descant offer as far as video est concerned.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Interesting. A recent story I particularly liked was the leaked RIAA presentation showing that online music piracy accounts for only a small part of the total, unlike what they've been claiming publicly. Perhaps this "revelation" too will serve to make governments and law makers think again.

The modern day version of home taping! As a teenager, I'd often see classmates buy blank 90 minute cassettes which would hold up to two albums plus maybe a bonus song, and pass them to friends they knew had records of their choice. The same rings true with modern versions of copying physical data.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

As a teenager, I'd often see classmates buy blank 90 minute cassettes...

I went through hundreds of those. It's actually not that long ago that I gave away my last tapes, some 300 or so, along with my tape deck and a box of blanks to a friend who is still a "connoisseur" of such arcana. Quite a sad little moment it was too.

[spindlegirl]

I was given a blank tape with "The Other Side of Life" by the Moody Blues on it. It led to me buying the cd about a year later.

I also used to tape stuff directly off the radio.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

I was given a blank tape with "The Other Side of Life" by the Moody Blues on it. It led to me buying the cd about a year later.

I also used to tape stuff directly off the radio.

In the late LP era it was standard practice to buy a high quality blank tape along with the LP to record the full album on first play for use in the car. A lot of my friends would rely on the taped version and only play the LP when they needed a new copy or to make compilations.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In the late LP era it was standard practice to buy a high quality blank tape along with the LP to record the full album on first play for use in the car. A lot of my friends would rely on the taped version and only play the LP when they needed a new copy or to make compilations.

Indeed. The LP was the "master" copy and used for nothing else, really.

[MidnightBlue]

I see nothing wrong with a person losing Internet access for proven piracy or copyright infringement, but not for nothing more than accusations of copyright breaches. With so many legal music streaming sources, how can anyone know whether a person who has a file on their computer has it legally or not? I store music on my iPhone and computer that is streamed to it and which is supposed to automatically delete if I cease to pay the monthly or annual premium. I found that with my old iPhone 4, which I use just as an iPod after upgrading to the 4s, that it does not delete. I can still play the music on either phone. I am legal as I still keep my subscription uptodate but clearly their security is weak as it relies on the device accessing the Internet in order to delete the files if my subscription lapses. Suppose that I forgot to renew my subscription in time, under those laws, would I lose my Internet access for simply being late?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I see nothing wrong with a person losing Internet access for proven piracy or copyright infringement, but not for nothing more than accusations of copyright breaches.

Agreed, as for other alleged civil offenses. But it wouldn't be reasonable to allow the defense that some other member of your household must have been the downloader. This is comparable to a parking ticket, where the owner of the car is presumed responsible for misuse of said vehicle.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

For those that don't know, Hadopi is the group that enforces France's draconian law that kicks a user off the internet after that user is accused of copyright infringement three times.

Life without parole is draconian. Three strikes and a life sentence is draconian. Giving someone a permanent criminal record, checkable by employers, is, I think, almost always draconian. Imposing a fine so high as to take a big chunk of your kids' college fund is draconian. But losing your internet access is the opposite of draconian. And it is more fair than fines and civil judgments, because the sting of the punishment is less greatly mitigated by wealth.

Here is what draconian punishment looks like:
Justices allow 25-year-to-life terms for shoplifting

[sabredog]

The music and entertainment industry tried this caper on via their AFACT minions here in Australia.

One court case and two appeals right up to the highest Australian court resulted in failure and payment of millions of dollars in costs to their targeted ISP in an attempt to force Australian internet providers to disconnect users that AFACT accused of file sharing via a letter.

Sorry AFACT and your bunch of cronies around the world, legally PROVE such accusations first.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Life without parole is draconian. Three strikes and a life sentence is draconian. Giving someone a permanent criminal record, checkable by employers, is, I think, almost always draconian. Imposing a fine so high as to take a big chunk of your kids' college fund is draconian. But losing your internet access is the opposite of draconian. And it is more fair than fines and civil judgments, because the sting of the punishment is less greatly mitigated by wealth.

At some point, we're going to have to reconcile internet access not being a right on a par with free speech, voting, and due process, with the increasing trend towards government services being available only online. If you, say, get a parcking ticket, and can only pay it online, but have no internet access, you have a serious problem (and society does, too).

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Here is what draconian punishment looks like:
Justices allow 25-year-to-life terms for shoplifting

Note that a) that article is nearly ten years old, b) the third strike must, indeed, be a felony, and c) a good deal of what the (members of) the press (who oppose three strikes) call "shoplifting is often charged as felony robbery or commercial burglary (There's a big difference between stuffing a cookie in your pocket while no one is looking and doing the exact same thing while an employee is watching.)

Doesn't make the early overextension of California's three strikes law right, but it makes it more complicated to judge.

Also note that most Californians have no problem at all with locking someone away forever when they have a history of multiple felonies, at least two of which are violent by definition, when they commit a third.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by taustin

Also note that most Californians have no problem at all with locking someone away forever when they have a history of multiple felonies, at least two of which are violent by definition, when they commit a third.

Draconian punishments are indeed popular with the California electorate.

I wonder what sort of punishment the average Californian would suggest for the third offense of illegally downloading a bestseller. Not life, but I'll bet a lot of Californians would see illegally downloading a book as a more serious matter than illegally downloading a song*, and would be OK with prison. Suggesting that the judgment of the general public justifies policy is a slippery slope when you don't want draconian punishment.

__________________________________
* How's that? Mostly I am thinking that if no one you know does it, it sounds bad right that. And most people don't know a book pirate. A lesser factor might be that it sounds worse to rip off an author than a celebrity.