French ‘Loi Hadopi’ anti-filesharing law passed

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

I remember a (French) friend explaining to me that French politicians had a habit of passing laws that didn't (completely) exist. At some point in the future they would be finished, and only then they became law.

This is technically true : for a law to be applied the constitution requires that it be published with the "décrets d'application" (public order for implementation?), the administrative translation of the law that will specify the day to day appication of the law through regulations; so: you have a law voted "see? we did a law!" and then you postpone (indefinitely) the publication of the orders... and the law --though technically in force-- isn't enforceable...

According to the friend this had the benefit that the politicians could jump up and down saying how brilliant they were in responding to public opinion and addressing issues of great import (!), but without necessarily really having a law in the long term.[...].

Your friend is/was apparently knowledgeable in French public law...

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've already posted the link where I got my information, Ricky, but here it is again:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04...three_strikes/

This states that there will be no "automatic termination"; the matter will go to a body that's being set up with judicial powers, called the "Haute Autorité", which will have the power to impose fines, injunctions, or temporary suspension of Internet access. May I ask where you got your information that there will be some sort of "automatic" termination of access, because that's not at all in accordance with what I've read.

Happy reading!

Somehow this was ignored by everyone.

There may be some confusion with how people are using "automatic" in this discussion. So, instead, I will clarify and say that I am fully aware that people will not be immediately disconnected. However, I am not sure if there is anything to stop this Haute Autorite from disconnecting someone simply because the Haute Autorite receive information that the person's IP address is suspected of infringing on copyright, and the required warnings are sent to said person. (Or another example, after sending the required warnings, the Haute Autorite could decide to disconnect a single person, but may decide not to disconnect a company.)

Does anyone know how this Haute Autorite would work? HarryT says "judicial powers", which as a US citizen means to me that there would be due process, and a chance for the accused to prove they are innocent. However, I can see nothing in the article which states that this body would have to follow due process, or would indeed be given "judicial" powers. I know nothing of French government, so this Haute Autorite could have some precedent of which I am unaware.

Edit: If by judicial powers, you simply mean they are given the power to decide if someone is guilty or innocent on their own, without requiring due process, then I would think the problem(s) with that possibility would be obvious.

[kad032000]

There are of course, other problems with the law as well. Notably:

1) The controversial way in which it was passed.
2) It conflicts with a European law.
3) It allows for the blocking of p2p sites.

For elaboration on (3), there are plenty of legitimate uses of p2p. In the TPB trial, the defense (TPB) stated that based on random sampling, 80% of torrents were legal. Now, this could be biased or incorrect information, but AFAIK, there is no evidence contrary to this. In addition, could this law be used to block sites that are in an even more grey area legally, such as isohunt, which if I am correct, acts simply like a search engine and doesn't even have it's own tracker? Isohunt also complies with DMCA takedown requests.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by kad032000

Does anyone know how this Haute Autorite would work? HarryT says "judicial powers", which as a US citizen means to me that there would be due process, and a chance for the accused to prove they are innocent. However, I can see nothing in the article which states that this body would have to follow due process, or would indeed be given "judicial" powers. I know nothing of French government, so this Haute Autorite could have some precedent of which I am unaware.

Edit: If by judicial powers, you simply mean they are given the power to decide if someone is guilty or innocent on their own, without requiring due process, then I would think the problem(s) with that possibility would be obvious.

Hard to say. HADOPI is just the acronym for the organization that is created, and the wiki page on the high commissioner says little to nothing about it. The only thing I can find that seems to answer your question is this, but my french isn't really good enough to translate it:

Il s’agit d’une autorité administrative indépendante dont les pouvoirs seront très conséquents. Ses missions seront la protection des œuvres sur le Net, en sus d’études de l'offre légale et des usages illicites, et de régulation dans le domaine des DRM.

Cette autorité a une double tête : un collège et une commission de protection des droits, chacun ayant des rôles bien particuliers

Dans le collège, on trouve des juristes (du conseil d’État, de la Cour de cassation, de la Cour des comptes), mais aussi une personnalité qualifiée en raison de ses compétences en matière de technologies de l'information, un membre du Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique et quatre personnalités choisies sur proposition conjointe des ministres chargés des communications électroniques, de la consommation et de la culture. La Commission de protection des droits est seulement composée de trois juristes qualifiés.

Pour assurer sa subsistance, la Haute Autorité propose, lors de l'élaboration du projet de loi de finances de l'année, les crédits nécessaires à l’accomplissement de ses missions. Selon les informations données lors de la conférence de presse, l’Hadopi aura besoin de 15 millions d’euros pour assurer ses missions.

Enfin, l’Hadopi assumera un rôle d'observatoire, à la fois dans le domaine de l'utilisation illicite des œuvres, mais également pour ce qui concerne le respect, par les ayants droit, de leurs engagements dans le domaine de l'offre légale (le deuxième volet des accords de l'Élysée). Manière de vérifier si plus de riposte graduée génèrera plus de vente sur les réseaux. Elle s’occupera également des missions autrefois dévolues à l’Autorité de régulation des mesures de protection, dont elle hérite des compétences.

So there will be a commission concerned with the maintenance of civil rights, a few lawyers, and a "technical advisor", a member of some sort of council concerned with copyright (probably a govt body), and 4 people appointed at the discretion of the minister.
The last paragraph seems to be saying something about checking for legal sales avenues, but I can't really say what that is exactly.

Anyway, rest assured that due process will be violated. That said, there are some people here who don't care about that sort of thing, which is why a debate could arise over the legality of this bit of legislation at all.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm just happy that at least one country actually seems to be trying to take the huge problem of illegal downloading seriously.

If they were "taking it seriously," they'd be prosecuting those they believe are criminals. They are not. They are requiring businesses to cut off services to people accused of illegal activity, with no proof in court, with no government management of the penalties.

They are handing off their responsibility to stop crime, to the managers of the locations in which crime takes place. It's like they told individual store-owners that they were supposed to take away the wallets and ID cards of suspected shoplifters.

Shoplifting is indeed a problem. However, the solution isn't to strip-search every customer before they leave the building. And illegal filesharing is a problem. (I note that you & I probably have different ideas about what filesharing is illegal.) But the solution is not to give government--or worse, corporate--access to everyone's computers so they can search for evidence of crimes.

And in the US, the government does not mete out punishments to "suspected" criminals. We are required to convict.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Wait. What? Don't you need to have a quorum to vote in laws in France? Try to get a lw passed here with the equivalent of 19 representatives and you'll get laughed out of Washington...

Have you seen this youtubed news report?

[mjh215]

This makes me think of a town-watch reporting that they see a certain car has a habit of going into 'that' part of town. After being informed of this, law enforcement immediately revokes the owner's driving privileges pending a review as to whether or not the driver has 'legimate' reasons to be traveling there. It is of course for the greater good, and doesn't matter that the driver has family, friends, or WHATEVER reason he might have.

The above was just a test, had this been real fascism local revolutionaries would have informed you which people to stand in front of the wall...

I can't wait for all the cases of reporters that were critical of certain politicians, bloggers that write about kopyright/copyleft topics and ISP technicians' ex-g/f's who will be losing their internet access.

-MJ

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by mjh215

This makes me think of a town-watch reporting that they see a certain car has a habit of going into 'that' part of town. After being informed of this, law enforcement immediately revokes the owner's driving privileges pending a review as to whether or not the driver has 'legimate' reasons to be traveling there. It is of course for the greater good, and doesn't matter that the driver has family, friends, or WHATEVER reason he might have.

The above was just a test, had this been real fascism local revolutionaries would have informed you which people to stand in front of the wall...

I can't wait for all the cases of reporters that were critical of certain politicians, bloggers that write about kopyright/copyleft topics and ISP technicians' ex-g/f's who will be losing their internet access.

-MJ

It's bound to happen. As the power slips from their hands, whichever country they may have domain over, they'll get more and more desperate. For some, change is painful, unimaginable. But we're moving too fast now to stop. We're at a point of terminal velocity, once this hits, those who survive will be the ones who remembered to pack the parachute.

The next couple of years are going to be very interesting indeed

[gandor62]

Who decides what sites are illegal, will this be a pathway to enable governments shutting you down for visiting oposition governent websites, if you view a blog that is anti something, will you be banned. Yep just wait, shit like this is not far away. Trials are running in Australia that block web sites in Australia. They said only bad sites would be censored from the public, but already a honest dentist has had his site blocked, due to so e hacker hitting the dentists site over a year ago. So don't tell me we can trust our somehow elected leaders. I'm not that niece.

[JenPen1]

A link from Teleread saying what happened and would/would not happen in the States


http://www.teleread.org/2009/04/07/i...iracy-control/

~Jen

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Innocent people have nothing to fear from such things.

I would think that most people who have nothing illegal in their homes wouldn't want people monitoring their personal activities in their house. Is it ok for someone to spy on you in your home to make sure you're doing nothing illegal? What about in your bedroom? What about files on your computer? What about files being transferred by your computer? Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw it there?

And there is plenty to fear from being spied upon. What about people who do morally questionable things that are perfectly legal? What about people whose public persona would be harmed should their personal beliefs or actions be made known to the public? What about those whose career would be in jeopardy? Now obviously, this would be a highly unlikely result of this particular law, but as I asked, where do you draw the line?

This law would give a non-governmental entity the right to spy on your activities. Even if the "High Authority" works completely fairly and justly (which I haven't seen any evidence supporting), there is no guarantee that the third party company acting in its own interest to make profit off of the recording/movie/whatever industries that hire it will act fairly and justly. They are not directly concerned with protecting society, or even copyright. They are only directly concerned with making a profit. They will be taking on the role of the police.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by kad032000

I would think that most people who have nothing illegal in their homes wouldn't want people monitoring their personal activities in their house. Is it ok for someone to spy on you in your home to make sure you're doing nothing illegal? What about in your bedroom? What about files on your computer? What about files being transferred by your computer? Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw it there?

And there is plenty to fear from being spied upon. What about people who do morally questionable things that are perfectly legal? What about people whose public persona would be harmed should their personal beliefs or actions be made known to the public? What about those whose career would be in jeopardy? Now obviously, this would be a highly unlikely result of this particular law, but as I asked, where do you draw the line?

This law would give a non-governmental entity the right to spy on your activities. Even if the "High Authority" works completely fairly and justly (which I haven't seen any evidence supporting), there is no guarantee that the third party company acting in its own interest to make profit off of the recording/movie/whatever industries that hire it will act fairly and justly. They are not directly concerned with protecting society, or even copyright. They are only directly concerned with making a profit. They will be taking on the role of the police.

yes, exactly.

[Godzil]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Innocent people have nothing to fear from such things.

I don't agree about this, if you remember some site like The Pirate Bay push valid IP for some of their "active client" on their torrents, and if you are really innocent, but not using the HADOPI's Spying System ThatSayYouMayAreNotAThief©, you are, even if really didn't download ANYTHING you are considered as a nasty pirate...


What I fear the most about this set of laws is that they were nearly all written by lobbyist, majors and other company like this (FNAC, Vivendi/Universal, ...)

[YGG-]

The plain & simple fact about this is: PEOPLE MAKES MISTAKES!
A stupid comparison: how many people convicted for murder & (fairly,) trialed (may I say this?) & condemned to death, have enventually been found innocent?--

[Krystian Galaj]

I believe that laws should be made with society's benefit in mind. Internet is a new medium , and no one has proven yet which is better for the majority of the population - maintaining copyright law, or not maintaining it - because there's been no way to get hard data. Personally I believe copyright law stifles creativity, and currently the world would be better off with no copyright law at all (with advent of Internet and huge increase in the numbers of educated and intelligent people who want to create). I don't believe that artificially manipulating present situation with law, so a writer can get more money off his work, or that some business model is generating more income than it otherwise would is worth thwarting the ability of many other people to use the works in their own creations.

I write software for money myself, and I'm aware that in the world without copyright law the way I work would change considerably, but I have no doubts I'd get by somehow.

Assumptions that it will be better if copyright law continues to exist are unwarranted, and letting non-government agency spy on people in the name of those assumptions is a big mistake.