Experience with tougher copyright laws in France

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Semantics aside, there's a well-established principle - in English law at least - that you can indeed be held responsible for the usage of something that you are the owner or keeper of. If your dog bites someone, then YOU will be prosecuted. If your car goes through a red light, or is caught by a speed camera, then you will be prosecuted for the offence (unless you can prove that someone else was driving). It seems a natural extension of that principle that if your internet connection is used to download illegally, then you are responsible for the copyright infringement unless you can demonstrate that it was someone else who did it.

You can't really put semantics aside when it comes to the law.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Three strike systems go way beyond speed cameras; with a speed camera, you're facing a monetary penalty - there's no potential for jail time or even demerits.

This is completely untrue. With a speed camera, if your offence is serious enough (eg driving at 100mph in a 30mph zone would quality) you can be taken to court and charged with "dangerous driving", which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. People have most assuredly been jailed on the basis of speed camera evidence.

Even for "normal" offences - eg, moderate speeding or running a red light - the consequences can still be serious. It's not the £60 fine that matters, but the 3 points on your driving licence (which expire after 3 years). Accumulate 12 points and you face a court appearance and a pretty-much automatic 6-month ban from driving. A friend of mine lost his job as a result of such a ban - he was a salesman, and being able to drive was a requirement of the job.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Just to get you to be more concise with your position, in an article in which a creator (who writes and draws her own stories),has said specifically that people who have nothing to do with her actual creative process do not deserve to distribute her work without her permission and take away page hits and ad revenue from her, what is your contention?

I've never read it, but I can remember it being pimped in the back of Cerebus once. She doesn't seem to have it online any more, but were the pirate versions of a higher quality than the official one? If they were, that would explain why people went elsewhere for them. Bryan Talbot made the same mistake when he put Luther Arkwright online a few years ago. They were too small to read.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's hardly unique. If you're caught by a speed camera, then you, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, will be prosecuted unless you can prove that someone else was driving the car at the time.

But they wouldn't take your car away, and also take away any other cars that belong to your immediate family. And other than your time, it wouldn't cost you anything to plead not guilty.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

But they wouldn't take your car away, and also take away any other cars that belong to your immediate family. And other than your time, it wouldn't cost you anything to plead not guilty.

But it can result in a driving ban which could result in you losing your job, not being able to take the kids to school, etc. A driving ban can have a devastating effect on someone's life.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But it can result in a driving ban which could result in you losing your job, not being able to take the kids to school, etc. A driving ban can have a devastating effect on someone's life.

But only the person who was guilty. There is no collective punishment for the rest of their family, and they could still walk or bus to school.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

But only the person who was guilty. There is no collective punishment for the rest of their family, and they could still walk or bus to school.

Is there anything in the French law which prevents another person living at the same address from opening a new internet account?

That's a genuine question, by the way - I don't know the answer.

Many people of course have multiple methods of internet access these days. Eg, I have a home internet connection, but I also have internet access on my iPhone, and a 3G dongle for my laptop which I use while travelling. Losing my home internet connection would be an inconvenience, but not a "show-stopper".

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's hardly unique. If you're caught by a speed camera, then you, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, will be prosecuted unless you can prove that someone else was driving the car at the time.

One of the many reasons why I want those laws overturned.

I actually know someone who was sitting at the stoplight when ANOTHER car ran the light. The picture grabbed my co-worker's license instead and sent them a ticket. It actually costs money to 'challenge' (I.e., make them replay the video and LOOK at it) the ticket, and that money is NOT refunded upon winning the challenge. (In my area, at least.)

Totally does not disproportionately affect the poor, no sir.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is there anything in the French law which prevents another person living at the same address from opening a new internet account?

That's a genuine question, by the way - I don't know the answer.

I don't either, but I would be surprised if they let you do that. If they did it would make it an even bigger waste of tax payers money than it is now.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is completely untrue. With a speed camera, if your offence is serious enough (eg driving at 100mph in a 30mph zone would quality) you can be taken to court and charged with "dangerous driving", which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. People have most assuredly been jailed on the basis of speed camera evidence.

Even for "normal" offences - eg, moderate speeding or running a red light - the consequences can still be serious. It's not the £60 fine that matters, but the 3 points on your driving licence (which expire after 3 years). Accumulate 12 points and you face a court appearance and a pretty-much automatic 6-month ban from driving. A friend of mine lost his job as a result of such a ban - he was a salesman, and being able to drive was a requirement of the job.

Evidently your mileage may vary with respect to speed camera laws - in my jurisdiction there's only a monetary fine with no potential for demerits or losing your license. As I said in an edit to my post though (which you may not have seen), it's irrelevant to the point you were making.

I'm not sure which jurisdiction you're in where you can lose your license, but I would also be opposed to that sort of law.

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Semantics aside, there's a well-established principle - in English law at least - that you can indeed be held responsible for the usage of something that you are the owner or keeper of. If your dog bites someone, then YOU will be prosecuted. If your car goes through a red light, or is caught by a speed camera, then you will be prosecuted for the offence (unless you can prove that someone else was driving). It seems a natural extension of that principle that if your internet connection is used to download illegally, then you are responsible for the copyright infringement unless you can demonstrate that it was someone else who did it.

Except in the digital age it is relatively trivial for someone to make it look like it was your car that went through the stop light.

IP spoofing is not a difficult thing to do. Add in open Wifi, Wifi hacking, multiple people potentially with access to your network who could be doing it...

It is a lot more nebulous than "important" physical property that you should know exactly who is using it and roughly when. I don't disagree that there is some burden on the IP address holder, but at the same time it should be comisurate with the scope and severity of the crime as well as potential ease with which the IP address could be missused by another person or has been completely misrepresented (spoofed).

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

Multiple years in jail and $150,000 per infringement in the US for copyright violations is a bit extreme when if I had shoplifted that DVD I might at most face a few hours of community service and a couple of hundred dollar fine.

So then, why aren't you looking at a $2000 fine and option to cut off Internet access for 1 month as a significant improvement?

There's no jail time for copyright infringement of digital goods, though you could get zinged if you're selling physical counterfeits like fake handbags.

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

One of the many reasons why I want those laws overturned.

I actually know someone who was sitting at the stoplight when ANOTHER car ran the light. The picture grabbed my co-worker's license instead and sent them a ticket. It actually costs money to 'challenge' (I.e., make them replay the video and LOOK at it) the ticket, and that money is NOT refunded upon winning the challenge. (In my area, at least.)

Totally does not disproportionately affect the poor, no sir.

At least in my State in the US, even if it is a physical human being (officer) who pulls you over and gives you a ticket, it costs you money to fight it. Ignoring likely time off from work you have to take, even if you win in court against the ticket, you MUST still pay the court fee. It is low, but that is still roughly $18 you should never have to pay, especially if found innocent.

Or in other cases there are speed cameras setup simply as revenu generating devices, and not for real societal benifit. My wife got a speed camera ticket right next to our neighborhood a few weeks ago. There are all of 3 houses along the quarter mile stretch of road, no businesses or anything else. The speed limit is 30 (she was doing 42) and she was caught at the bottom of a steep hill (which you have to brake to keep at the speed limit just coasting).

Contrasted to my neighborhood of roughly 200 townhomes with a speed limit of 30mph where people regularly drive in excess of 40mph and plenty who drive over 50mph. Also where 3 years ago a child was hit and killed by a speeding car that swerved around a parked school bus.

My neighborhood road is NOT speed camera enforced, nor have I once in the last 5 years of living here seen a single police officer running radar or laser to enforce the speed limit nor any county proposals to place speed bumps or similar along the road despite numerous appeals by myself and neighbors.

But that road right next to our neighborhood which has almost no one living on it, no businesses and no road hazards has a speed camera van that gets parked right at the bottom of the hill once or twice a month.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

With the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser ... and if it is anything like the UK version, you would also need to pay a fee before you had a chance to prove your innocence.

That's not how the Hadopi law works. The agency requests a meeting, and basically tries to figure out whether or not you're responsible; attendance is optional. If the answers are not satisfactory, or you decline to talk to them, the agency needs to convince a judge that there was sufficient infringement, and the judge is the one who decides to either reject or accept the claims.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

How would you go about proving you didn't do something anyway? I'm reasonably computer literate and I wouldn't have a clue how to do that.

They're checking the IP's of infringing file transfers. It's not a sure-fire method, so it is entirely plausible for someone to explain to the agency or judge that "my wireless access point got hacked." Of course, the plausibility of that declines a little bit when you've gotten a registered letter saying "we think you're a pirate" and your IP still racks up gig after gig of infringing traffic.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

What the Hadopi does is like expecting tax payers to cover the cost of having police officers in every shop doing the job of store detectives so that the shops don't have to hire people to do the same job.

Arresting people for shoplifting is a police responsibility. When the local mall develops a serious crime problem, you can bet that the local PD will get involved.

Similarly, there was a rash of car break-ins in my neighborhood, where the thieves would smash a window and steal GPS units. Is it the responsibility of neighborhood watch groups to catch these guys? No, that's a job for the cops. Nor do the cops levy a special tax on car owners to reimburse them for any time spent catching the crooks.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

If someone used my car to rob a bank that doesn't mean I should be held liable....

Correct, but this is not an apt analogy.

Hadopi works with the ISP's, so they might not be able to track a spoofed IP, but they can definitely figure out if it's one of their customers.

The accused in France receive an email, and then a registered letter (6 months later iirc), notifying them that they are suspected of piracy. They sent out 880,000 emails; followed by 68,000 registered letter. I.e. they nailed almost 810,000 on the first shot. After the letter, only 165 people went to the third stage, and supposedly only a fraction of them have gone before a judge.

Mistakes can happen, but it is somewhat hard to believe that you could be utterly blindsided after receiving at least one certified warning.

Originally Posted by azazael

....one who is actively disseminating copyrighted works is a bit easier to track down and considering the much greater scope of damages I think it behooves society to attempt to investigate a bit more closely....

The single point of contact does exist (e.g. Megaupload), but is only part of the story. Distributed P2P networks like Bittorrent have been prevalent since Napster got shut down. I.e. you can't just go after the easily targeted organizations.