Experience with tougher copyright laws in France

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I doubt it's all that expensive to send out a million emails.

11 million euros a year is the stated running cost of Hadopi, so they're not particularly cheap emails.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

So we're supposed to tolerate copyright violations, because that lets people spend their money on other things?

No, it is to point out that the economy as a whole is no better off either with or without piracy. If piracy somehow ended completely, the economy would not grow because consumers have a finite amount of money. Some industries might to beter, but it will be at the expense of other industries.

From a government perspective, growth in the economy is essential, and during a worldwide recession, France spending 11 million euros so that an American company can make 13 million euros is just plain daft. Especially when a lot of that 13 million euros will be at the expense of French companies.

Even if it was done to benefit French companies, the sums still wouldn't make sense. Use the 11 million euros to reduce consumer taxation and people will have more disposable income. That will give a boost to all industries.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Hmmm. Should the law really be based on whether the cost of enforcement exceeds the economic benefit? That strikes me as the wrong way to look at it. Surely the law should exist because it's wrong to download stuff without paying for it, shouldn't it?

So we shouldn't prosecute criminals because, as a result of their crimes, they have more disposable income?

You're applying a very specific theory of morality, one that isn't universal. The utilitarians (Benthem, John Stewart Mills, etc.) would say you shouldn't pass any law where the harm created by the law is greater than its benefit.

I would tend to agree [with the utilitarians]; why shouldn't the standard for a law be that it should bring a net benefit to society rather than a net detriment? How can you justify a law that is more damaging than helpful?

Originally Posted by anamardoll

If the harm that a law causes outweighs the harm it is trying to prevent/correct/address, then that is a problem.

Apparently laws are proper if they enforce HenryT's specific values, regardless of whether they are harmful or not. Infringers should be tossed in jail; and maybe while we're at it we can bring back debtor prisons.

[anamardoll]

@NinjaLawyer, good parsing. I'm probably a utilitarian.

For instance, I read about some program where they gave homeless people with alcohol addictions free housing with no strings attached and the cost of the housing was LOWER than the cost of the same people on the infrastructure (as measured, in this case, on ER costs. The ER had been required to aid their alcohol related injuries, even though the state had to absorb the cost because they didn't have any money), AND some of the people were able to take advantage of optional counseling programs, beat the addiction, find steady jobs, and become taxpayers.

I thought that was Win-Win. The state saved money (and got new taxpayers on top of it!), after all. But some people were opposed to the program in general because of non-utilitarian reasons. Interesting how widely people vary in their opinions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Apparently laws are proper if they enforce HenryT's specific values, regardless of whether they are harmful or not. Infringers should be tossed in jail; and maybe while we're at it we can bring back debtor prisons.

Don't be so damned rude.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Apparently laws are proper if they enforce HenryT's specific values, regardless of whether they are harmful or not. Infringers should be tossed in jail; and maybe while we're at it we can bring back debtor prisons.

Not good enough. First step is to determine their guilt or innocence. For that, I prefer trial by water. We take accused infringers, bind them with hemp rope, and then toss them in a lake. If they sink, they're innocent. If they float, they're guilty. The guilty are then taken to the town square and placed in stocks for three days. After which, they're consigned to the purifying flames of fire.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I thought that was Win-Win. The state saved money (and got new taxpayers on top of it!), after all. But some people were opposed to the program in general because of non-utilitarian reasons. Interesting how widely people vary in their opinions.

It's down to greed, selfishness and jealousy.

Spoiler:

Over here, we have a government that has gone out of its way to get people to demand that they take money away from the unemployed and make them homeless. Nobody seems to realise that this will result in higher crime, higher insurance premiums, and higher taxes. All they care about is stopping people from getting something they don't get themselves.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by plib

....At the most they seem to be likely to recover 165x1500 Euros... etc

Laws are not passed or enforced in order to break even. If that was the case, fines for almost any penalty would be astronomically high, in order to pay the enforcement budgets.

Governments are not for-profit entities -- and again, people routinely complain about instances where fines are a revenue source for a government, such as quotas on parking tickets. Fines are not levied to pay for enforcement, they are a form of punishment.

Would you genuinely prefer it if the Hadopi laws leveled a mandatory minimum fine of €100,000 for each convicted individual? Why stop at Hadopi? Why don't we make criminals pay the costs of their trial and incarcerations?

And much in the same way that the government protects your private property in exchange for tax revenues, media companies and retailers pay their taxes in exchange for their businesses to be protected.

Originally Posted by plib

There's a reason both of the main opposition parties in next years French elections are committed to abolishing Hadopi.

One of the parties discussed in the article is the National Front, an extreme right-wing party that asserts zero tolerance for law enforcement, is anti-immigrant, wants to forcibly deport around 3 million people from France, espouses protectionism and wants to leave the EU. Their opposition to Hadopi is almost certainly due to political expediency rather than principle.

You may or may not like the Socialists, who ruled France for decades and nationalized numerous industries. Until recently they were led by Dominique Strauss-Kahn; I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not that reflects well on them.

You may want to be careful whom you cite as your allies in this matter.

Originally Posted by plib

That is exactly what ACTA, SOPA/PIPA and C11 in Canada are designed to do - transfer the costs for protecting corporate profits from the corporate budget to the public budget.

So you prefer the system where the RIAA can sue individuals for tens of thousands of dollars for alleged copyright infringements?

I mean, really, what method of copyright enforcement would you support?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

....it is to point out that the economy as a whole is no better off either with or without piracy.

So keeping in mind that piracy is not "theft" in the traditional sense: Let's say a thief breaks into a house, steals a bunch of jewelry, fences it for $5000 and puts that money towards buying a new car. In theory, the thief has unlocked financial resources that were not improving the economy, and has plowed $5000 back into it. Should we therefore say that theft is beneficial to the economy?

Clearly not, because of the intangible benefits of respecting private property laws. IP is no different.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

From a government perspective, growth in the economy is essential, and during a worldwide recession, France spending 11 million euros so that an American company can make 13 million euros is just plain daft....

There are many French media companies, publishers and the like.

France's 2010 government budget was $1.44 trillion. €11 million is not chump change, but it is 0.76% of their budget. It also replaces ARMT, so it's not a whole new charge on the books.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Use the 11 million euros to reduce consumer taxation and people will have more disposable income. That will give a boost to all industries.

Yes, I'm sure that cutting €6 off of every individual's taxes will provide a big boost. They can do what, buy one extra bottle of wine?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

They sent out 822,000 email warnings.

They sent out 68,000 second-stage warnings.

They sent out 165 third-stage warnings.

Only fraction of those 165 third-stage warnings appear to be going to court, where the individual might face a €1500 fine and/or lose Internet for 1 month. Or, if they can demonstrate that it's not their fault, they are not punished.

That doesn't sound like a horrendous cost to me, especially compared to a maximum of $20,000 per-download fine that you could face in the US.

The at least some of the ones that were accused were innocent. So they got the got the first, second and third stage warnings for nothing (except the expense on the taxpayers). Then they were considered guilty until proven innocent. Seems like a few steps backwards from an ideal situation.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And much in the same way that the government protects your private property in exchange for tax revenues, media companies and retailers pay their taxes in exchange for their businesses to be protected.

You're acting as if copyright laws, and the ability to enforce them, didn't exist until Hadopi, DEA, etc were enacted. All those new laws did was introduce the presumption of guilt upon accusation, and shift the burden of cost from the corporation to the consumer. As far as I can see, none of those corporations have passed on the vast savings in running costs it will save them.

You said high fines for people guilty of unauthorised downloading, as if that would be a bad thing. At least that would make these laws self-financing, so ordinary tax payers wouldn't be hurt by them. But first you would need to reintroduce the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

[6charlong]

It seems to me the cost benefit analysis for this law suggests that every time someone is punished by it the result is a pyrrhic victory. The discussion to this point has been all about money, but what is the social cost of this approach to digital theft? The obvious purpose of this kind of enforcement is to make people afraid. I can imagine a world where enforcement is perfect and only the guilty are accused but that is not the world any of us lives in.

Granted that the French legal system is different than the Anglo-Saxon one that I'm familiar with, but I think there must be a better way to deal with the problem. I was happy to see that educating the people about digital property is part of what they are doing. It does shift the cost from the government to the businesses that want to get the word out so I understand that those businesses will not like this approach as much. And I certainly think that large scale and "for profit" theft is a government responsibility, but I know it is unwise public policy to try to make the people afraid to use the resources their communities provide or try to make them mistrust their government.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The at least some of the ones that were accused were innocent.

On what basis do you make that claim? The example given in the article was of someone who cleared up a misunderstanding after receiving a third warning, and before going to court.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Then they were considered guilty until proven innocent. Seems like a few steps backwards from an ideal situation.

Incorrect, a hearing with a judge is required before fines or sanctions can be levied.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You're acting as if copyright laws, and the ability to enforce them, didn't exist until Hadopi...

I made no such claim. Government does in many instances get involved in copyright enforcement; e.g. the NYPD occasionally cracks down on counterfeit goods, which falls under copyright laws.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

All those new laws did was introduce the presumption of guilt upon accusation...

Incorrect, a hearing with a judge is required before fines or sanctions can be levied.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You said high fines for people guilty of unauthorised downloading, as if that would be a bad thing. At least that would make these laws self-financing, so ordinary tax payers wouldn't be hurt by them.

People have complained for years about how awful the RIAA is when they sued individuals for copyright infringement, with penalties up to $20,000 per download.

And again, this "laws must pay for themselves" is not a valid position. I've never heard of any requirement that the fees generated by a law must pay for enforcement.

Should the costs of maintaining traffic lights be paid back by tickets for running a red light? Should the fines for DUI cover the costs of police overtime and breathalyzers? Should the penalties for cheating on your taxes pay for the hours of the IRS auditors? If my neighbor is making too much noise, should the police hand my neighbor a bill every time they show up? No, no, no, no.

The purpose of levying a fine is to penalize the individual and discourage them from performing or repeating that behavior. As such, the typical standard is to determine a fair penalty for the offense, not pay back the costs of enforcement.

I.e. this is a patently absurd standard to apply to an enforcement issue, and it's based on emotion rather than an understanding of how laws are devised.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And again, this "laws must pay for themselves" is not a valid position. I've never heard of any requirement that the fees generated by a law must pay for enforcement.

Should the costs of maintaining traffic lights be paid back by tickets for running a red light? Should the fines for DUI cover the costs of police overtime and breathalyzers? Should the penalties for cheating on your taxes pay for the hours of the IRS auditors? If my neighbor is making too much noise, should the police hand my neighbor a bill every time they show up? No, no, no, no.

DUI (according to my GF's brother, who's a cop) is one of the only things that pays for itself. They even have awards for the cops that arrest the most people for DUI, because unlike almost any other law, it generates a lot of money for a lot of different areas (DMV, Courts, treatment programs, etc.).

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

But we are paying, in our higher taxes, to subsidise the large corporations who can easily afford to pay for their own prosecutions. We won't get the same protection for our files as they do because we're not big enough.

This.

Look at what happens with the economic down turn in a lot of places. I live in a relatively affluent county in the US. Yet with the budget issues my county had, police budgets were cut. One of the results? Police don't investigate more minor crimes that they used to investigate.

I don't expect a full TV-esque CSI investigation of a minor crime, but the fact that police can barely be bothered to take a report of the crime to me is telling.

My neighbor had the wheels stolen off their car about 2 years back. The police refused to send a patrol officer to take a report or even look at it. The best they'd offer is to do a report for the person's insurance if they showed up to a police station.

I don't disagree that copyright "crime" is an issue and it does hurt people. However, I very much think that legal enforcement has to be weighed against economic cost and societal good.

What has more societal good? Extremely strict enforcement with limited or no privacy on the internet because absolutely everything is monitored to the n-th degree for any possible sign of copyright crimes?

What is the economic return on strict copyright enforcement if you spend millions of tax payer dollars for very limited tax payer return in increased tax revenues or criminal penalties? Weigh that along with any societal good garnered by increased intellectual property protection spurring more people to create intellectual property.

When it comes down to it there HAS to be a balancing act. One should not punish a person more severly by commiting a crime that has more direct impact on a person than one with less. 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.

Yes, most people don't face those kinds of penalties. However, the fact that they CAN be leverage to me is abhorant. There are still plenty of tools against copyright infringers, especially those peddling copyrighted materials.

So, what is the penalty is as severe as shoplifting? Say a maximum of 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine per offense? Those serial copyright infringers (Say, the Megaupload types) can still face hundres or thousands of counts. Those "little guys" who might simply download a movie could still face an actual penalty, yet not have the ridiculous "weight of the law" potentially choking the life out of them for a very minor crime.