RSS
Add to Chrome
France Passes “Three-Strikes” Law for Second Time

France Passes “Three-Strikes” Law for Second Time

Satisfies Constitutional Council’s concern that only a judge can disconnect accused file-sharers from the Internet, but also holds responsible those that unwittingly allow third parties to to use their connection for illegal file-sharing.

France’s lower house of parliament formally passed a revised “three-strikes” bill that will allow authorities to disconnect illegal file-sharers from the Internet.

First proposed back in June of last year, the “Creation and Internet” law was later successfully passed before being ruled unconstitutional by the country’s Constitutional Council for the use of the Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des droits sur Internet (HADOPI), a new govt agency whose task it would be to sanction those accused of illegal file-sharing.

It concluded that under the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man only a judge should have the power to disconnect individuals from the Internet, arguing that the Internet is essential for the “free communication of thoughts” and therefore full civic participation in a democracy. To curtail basic freedoms will hence require a trial and judge’s order rather than that of a dedicated body (HADOPI).

The new bill satisfied those concerns by now allowing a judge to make the “third strike” decision of either disconnecting an Internet user, a fine of up to 300,000 euros ($415,000USD),or a two-year jail sentence.

“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,” remarked Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand.

The most frightening part is that even account holders who had nothing to do with the illegal file-sharing can be held accountable, risking a 1500 euro fine or month’s suspension of their Internet connection. So parents, entire households, or the simple unwitting victims of wi-fi piggybacking could find themselves without what the country’s Constitutional Council already concluded was essential for the “free communication of thoughts” and therefore full civic participation in a democracy.

The measure was passed on a vote of 285-225, close enough to make the issue far from over.

Stay tuned.

[email protected]

Jared Moya
I've been interested in P2P since the early, high-flying days of Napster and KaZaA. I believe that analog copyright laws are ill-suited to the digital age, and that art and culture shouldn't be subject to the whims of international entertainment industry conglomerates. Twitter | Google Plus
malcolm hume
malcolm hume

"The artist doesn’t have a fundamental human right on the distribution of his work" The moral rights (fundamental human rights) of the author are protected under french law. From wikipeida: "The following rights are recognised: right of publication (droit de divulgation): the author is the sole judge as to when the work may be first made available to the public (Art. L121-2). right of attribution (droit de paternité): the author has the right to insist that his name and his authorship are clearly stated. right to the respect of the work (droit au respect de l'intégrité de l'oeuvre): the author can prevent any modification to the work. right of withdrawal (droit de retrait et de repentir): the author can prevent further reproduction, distribution or representation in return for compensation paid to the distributor of the work for the damage done to him (Art. L121-4). right to protection of honour and reputation (droit à s'opposer à toute atteinte préjudiciable à l'honneur et à la réputation). " Sharing a file on p2p is a clear violation of every moral right of the author - there is no other way to read the law. Property rights are considered moral rights especially in the US. In the US constitution, the limited term of copyright was a balancing act between the presses, who were used to printing whatever they wanted, whatever the status in europe, and the emergent class of US authors who wanted the same rights as their european cousins. Other questions didn't enter in to it.

D.AN
D.AN

Clearly, malgre, merely sharing a file does not violate any of the rights you have listed. As well, all arguments in text are read at face value only, so anything you may have in mind that is not directly expressed in your writing is nonexistent to readers. Laws are also only read at face value, which is why loopholes exist. Now, do not compare "moral rights" to human rights. While human rights are basic, moral rights are arbitrarily created, hence the term moral right, which is indeed far less significant than a human right. Quite frankly, you are an idiot for comparing the digital world to the physical world.

soulxtc
soulxtc

Exactly. Human rights are not are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity.

D.AN
D.AN

You actually think that information is hoarded by file-sharing, malgre? That is impossible. This is the definition of hoarding: "In economics, hoarding is the unfair practice of buying up resources so that they can be sold to customers for profit."

soulxtc
soulxtc

Hoarded when its free? hardly. the exact opposite is true. Information is hoarded when its only offered for a fee. Lame Hume.

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

Information gets hoarded when there is no protection for authors and inventors. It's what happens in pirate states and what happened before the development of copyright.

D.AN
D.AN

Authorship is more of a credential. The right to authorship is just a right to be identified as an author. By definition of a moral right, mere file-sharing indeed does not violate any moral right.

soulxtc
soulxtc

The free flow of information not contingent upon remuneration is hardly self-serving.

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

The right of authorship is a moral right, not contingent on the self serving beliefs of a particular bunch of people who want free stuff.

soulxtc
soulxtc

If piracy is so bad then why has Steve Jobs figured out how to compete?

Sam I Am
Sam I Am

What a cogent observation. If murder is so bad why are there so many people left alive? These comments are so ZeroPaid.

soulxtc
soulxtc

Again lame. the point is is that he made a successful business model around digital music. rather than doing circles and whining for a decade he went out and competed against the best and teh brightest to deliver content to consumers unlike record labels. So narrow minded Hume its rather sad :( No worry. We're actually waiting for the "digital natives" to gain political control. Your pre-Internet generation and outdated copyright laws are growing rather nauseating. You just dont get it. Unless you inspect each and every piece of data transferred on the Internet you cant stop P2P. If youre willing to do that than p2P is the least of our worries.

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

Steve Jobs doesn't make any music. Actaully, itunes doesn't make any money, it's only the ipods, iphones and macs that make money.

D.AN
D.AN

Sia: "If murder is so bad why are there so many people left alive?" That makes less sense than what you cut it out to be, Sia. Your answer to your own question would definitely be more nonsensical.

soulxtc
soulxtc

Dumb as always. Murder and file-SHARING all in the same sentence. The point is that DESPITE MUSIC PIRACY being "SO BAD" Steve Jobs is literally making BILLIONS. He figured out how to compete in a world where the product he's selling via Apple's iTunes is literally available for free in a multitude of places. Not too shabby. When will you have something intelligible to say?

Gamer8585
Gamer8585

@ malcolm hume "It [the French Constitutional Council] concluded that under the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man only a judge should have the power to disconnect individuals from the Internet, arguing that the Internet is essential for the “free communication of thoughts” and therefore full civic participation in a democracy. " According to their experts on their own law and constitution the internet was deemed a facilitator of a basic human right: the participation in the political process. The US Supreme Court has found the same to be true of the "right to privacy." It's necessary for the facilitation of expression, and any abridgment of it endangers ones rights under the First amendment to the US Constitution. So while no the law doesn't stipulate either the internet or privacy within the text, the law expressly guarantees certain rights that cannot be preempted except through due process (i.e. trial and adjudication), and only for no more than is proportional to the harm incurred on society as a whole. The artist doesn't have a fundamental human right on the distribution of his work. The right you speak of comes from the Berne Convention. Its an ostensibly legal right of questionable and complex enforcement. The basic problem with pretending that its a fundamental right is the question of boundaries. How much of one's work is necessary to constitute infringement? How much is allowed to be used in derivative works? Take music for example: while the paradigm case (the total copying of a song) is usually considered and is the easiest to deal with, what happens when a song is broken up? What if someone just wants to use the first few chords, or a middle section, or even one lyric? How many chord combinations are necessary to make a song unique? What if someone else independently crafts a song with parts similar to another? What about long standing cross-cultural property rights such as the "right of first sale?" Dose that mean that if I want to sell a CD I bought, I would have to ask the artist permission because his music is on it? Intellectual Property rights are not the same as basic human rights or moral imperatives. They are a form of a limited monopoly to encourage artists to create instead of getting a normal day-job. However if such an allowance becomes detrimental to society as a whole (i.e. conflicting with human rights, physically harming people, causing undue financial burden on the individual or the state, etc.) the allowance can be easily adjusted or eliminated to remove the burden on more important concerns.

soulxtc
soulxtc

From the original ruling: Under Article 11 of the Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789: “The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: every citizen may therefore speak, write and print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this freedom in cases determined by law “that the current means of communication and given the widespread development of communication services to the public line and the importance of these services for participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, this right includes freedom to access these services;

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

Rights are often lost in a society when a crime is committed. That is why a judge has to be involved.

soulxtc
soulxtc

? We're talking data packet inspection (DPI) .....who's constitution are u referring to? The 4th amendment protects us against DPI. Eurotrash may mess up individual liberties, but we wont. BTW dorm room? Hardly. Its okay old timer, your selfish so-called Hippie generation is soon to pass. What a waste. So much potential. You just dont get it. Are u willing to inspect each and every data packet?

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

Yes, because from your dorm room or wherever, you are qualified to rewrite SOMEOME ELSES CONSTITUTION good luck with that. There are 736 representatives in the EP.

soulxtc
soulxtc

And it shouldn't be. Citizens there need to become more active for copyright reform as we've witnessed in Sweden and its successful bid to put 2 reps in the EP.

soulxtc
soulxtc

There is no crime. Most of the stuff people download is stuff they wouldnt have paid for otherwise. In addition study after study have shown that P2P actually increases music consumption. Its so tiresome to hear people like you wish for the 90s. File-SHARING is not a crime. Ask Spain. :)

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

It's not about profit, it's about rights. The moral right of the author, under French law. The author has the right to decide who sitributes his work. End of story.

soulxtc
soulxtc

Thats a dumb argument. Nobody's saying he doesnt have a right to profit, but only that disconnecting people from the Internet - in a DIGITAL WORLD - is a violation of human rights that must be reserved only for the most severe of cases. Worse still, think of much of a step backward its scoiety will be taking if its citizens arent allowed to communicate and to learn like everyone else.

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

Well, it's not a digital world at all. It's still very much the same world it's always been. The sooner we drop those ideas from the 90's and get on with living and improving the real world the better. Certainly, a lot of our communication has been digitized - how far that will go remains to be seen. But the nature and pattern of human communication is still the same - the same as it's always been. The advances in civil rights - like copyright - are not erased becasue of a change in medium. In the US, if you get caught driving drunk enough, you will lose your license. In a 'automotive world' this is a hell of a punishment for having a few beers. But nobody says driving is a human right. The right of mobility is. So someone who is disconnected from the internet will be horribly inconvenienced, but they can still use phones, write letters, go to a cafe and conspire against the government, etc.,

D.AN
D.AN

"Dude, if you make me miss a car payment or default on a mortgage, or drop my health insurace, or jesus, skip a fucking meal, you are physically harming me." If he were actually controlling your movements, it may be, but those circumstances would only transpire due to your own actions as you have full control of them. Only you can possibly put yourself in such a position or state that would transpire events that resultingly harm you. "Or maybe even, like, a little kid. Physically harming a baby by hurting his parent, the author, in his wallet." Unless that parent was being targeted by a rival of sorts, a consumer cannot hurt the author, whether physically or financially. Do not expect sympathy in a business and do not expect laws to be created such that you will be guaranteed to stay in business. This is a very obvious business principle. "I thought that was obvious." How does a poor financial position of the parent obviously lead to the physical harm of a the parent's child? "Have you never payed a bill?" This is so much a begging for sympathy.

D.AN
D.AN

"Maybe you should study recent history. Newspapers planned on going digital since the eighties, the idea has been around since the late 60’s when people used teletype machines. That’s just what happened." Again, they are extremely slow planners. As well, teletype machines have nothing to do with online-exclusive publications; digitizing text only to be read once it is physically printed does not mean online. "As far as copyright ‘reform’, Well, maybe, but certainly not what you have in mind, because people don’t get to be in charge and make laws by ignoring reality outside of their own tiny world, whether that’s one issue they care a lot about or one information medium they spend too much time with." Non sequitur. You obviously cannot fathom what is called influence of interests on ignorance. "People often do learn and grow, and start to understand the implications of their beliefs – and then they change them. That’s a good thing." No, the best thing to do is learn and grow and then derive the beliefs again on the basis of inference, to delete all implications; only then will those beliefs be considered acceptably plausible. "[...] But p2p is legally, proactically and morally identical to publishing , and that right is constitutionally protected as well." There are several implausable statements in your single assertion: 1. P2P cannot be legally identical to publishing, since the pro-Copyright side demeans it to be illegal in the first place. 2. P2P is not practically identical to publishing, since publishing requires resources to produce the copies in tangible forms. 3. No two different actions can be logically morally identical, as morals are subject to bias and bias is not part of inference.

mountain_rage
mountain_rage

If they choose to put themselves in that position they are only harming themselves. If someone starts a small business and a competitor opens up next door destroying the other business, is he physically harming the individual? Do you expect the original business to get sympathy and for laws to be passed so he has to stay in business? In my world, the failing business needs to retool and rethink their plan or get out of that life plan. Artist can still make lots of money, but it takes commitment, talent and luck just like any other business. The consequences of taking such a risk is no ones but the creators. Some artist are adapting and being successful because of it. Nine Inch Nails, Arctic Monkeys, Scott Andrew, Tay Zonda, RadioHead, etc... Artist can survive in the new market, its just a different market. Your just blind and naive, and for whatever reason have a bias that is pro copyright. Why do you support copyright so much? What is your vested interest?

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

Dude, if you make me miss a car payment or default on a mortgage, or drop my health insurace, or jesus, skip a fucking meal, you are physically harming me. Or maybe even, like, a little kid. Physically harming a baby by hurting his parent, the author, in his wallet. I thought that was obvious. Have you never payed a bill?

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

Maybe you should study recent history. Newspapers planned on going digital since the eighties, the idea has been around since the late 60's when people used teletype machines. That's just what happened. As far as copyright 'reform', Well, maybe, but certainly not what you have in mind, because people don't get to be in charge and make laws by ignoring reality outside of their own tiny world, whether that's one issue they care a lot about or one information medium they spend too much time with. People often do learn and grow, and start to understand the implications of their beliefs - and then they change them. That's a good thing. I doubt anyone will try to control what you do with your email, in my mind that does fall under privacy laws and the reasons you cite if not fair use - you are sending individual attachments to people you ostensibly know. But p2p is legally, proactically and morally identical to publishing , and that right is constitutionally protected as well.

soulxtc
soulxtc

Hmm, interesting being that the first commercial ISP didnt open till '89, and it would be at least another decade before a majority of households had an Internet connection. Newspapers had no need to go digital until sites like Craigslist decimated their classified advertising revenues, and others offering free, convenient news from any location. "Hide and watch?" That's also naive. Unless you plan to offer the federal govt sweeping powers to inspect each and every data packet, INCLUDING e-mail attachments, which also can contain be used for unauthorized distribution, it can't succeed. If you think that it's worth sacrificing the 4th amendment so that copyright holders can earn a profit you arguably lose any claim of moral superiority in the process. But, I suppose I dont fault you for clinging to the only reality you know. You're indicative of the tension between “digital natives,” those who don’t know life without a computer, Internet, and MP3s, and previous generations. We'll simply have to wait for you generation to pass on before we see any substantive copyright reform.

D.AN
D.AN

"It harms them physically and morally." If only I can harm you physically just by file-sharing something of yours. Try to establish the meaning of morality as a variable quantity before asserting that mere file-sharing is morally harmful. "[...] Only in an anarchist utopia where people don’t pay for anything does your statement make sense." Oh, really? Say in this world one shares a copyrighted work to a friend that is at the other side of the world. Then according to your assertion the author suffers a physical wound instantaneously. According to the laws of physics, something must have physically made contact to the author, but nothing did; therefore, by logical contradiction, I just disproved your assertion.

D.AN
D.AN

soulxtc refers to publications exclusively existing online i.e. that don't exist in the physical world. "Newspapers have been planning to go to digiital subscription services since the 80’s. BFD." Then their planning is extremely slow. "Hide and watch." Fail.

mountain_rage
mountain_rage

Funny last I checked physical harm did not equate to financial damages. But then again, with your level of logic I don't expect much in terms of cohesive thought. Unless there is some kind of weird voodoo magic at play here, file sharing does not physically harm an author. But thanks for clarifying that you are in fact a tool, and have no decent argument to make to defend your point.

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

" It also does not physically harm anyone to share copyrighted works" Iy harms the author whose property you are publishing without permission. It harms them physically and morally. People need money to survice. Only in an anarchist utopia where people don't pay for anything does your statement make sense.

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

Newspapers have been planning to go to digiital subscription services since the 80's. BFD. "it harms nobody but those dumb enough not to use VPNs, darknets, Usenet, etc,. and will have little, if any effect on P2P as a whole." Hide and watch.

mountain_rage
mountain_rage

The comparison is a poor one. You can actually drive with a drink, some people two, anymore impairs your ability to drive. This is scientifically proven, and socially accepted. This impairment puts peoples lives at risk. Comparing that to a loss of copyright displays how you have some serious moral judgment issues. Copyright in its current form is not socially accepted. It also does not physically harm anyone to share copyrighted works. There has yet to be any convincing evidence that it even affects album sales, and some studies shows that it increases consumption. So try again, maybe you will actually succeed eventually in making a decent argument.

soulxtc
soulxtc

Not a digital world at all? Try reading the Jerusalem Post, the NY Times, or a number of the other publications that exist only ONLINE. When u disconnect an IP address you're disconnecting a household not a single individual. "inconvenienced" is putting it mildly, it harms nobody but those dumb enough not to use VPNs, darknets, Usenet, etc,. and will have little, if any effect on P2P as a whole.

Mr. Briggs
Mr. Briggs

I think what malcolm is saying is that access to the Internet is not a basic human right, and is not protected by the constitution of any country. Certainly, it's a very commonly used tool - which means that governments will use alienation from the Internet as a disciplinary method. Basically, cut you off from something that you think supports your life but doesn't really support it.

soulxtc
soulxtc

Actually it is, in France at least, and was the main reason for the original proposal to be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL: From the original ruling: Under Article 11 of the Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789: “The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: every citizen may therefore speak, write and print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this freedom in cases determined by law “that the current means of communication and given the widespread development of communication services to the public line and the importance of these services for participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, this right includes freedom to access these services; http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86401/frances-top-court-rules-three-strikes-unconstitutional/

mountain_rage
mountain_rage

Why should people have a right to profit simply because they are the first to claim ownership of an idea. Should Shakespear have been banned from performing and profiting from his plays simply because he borrowed his ideas from others? Should Christianity have been banned due to it borrowing ideas from other religions? Society, art and culture is driven from the work done before it. Copyright is a modern creation and goes against human nature. Studies are even suggesting that we have reached the limit of variation on music, and if people were to check, all music copies each other at this point. Just because something is made law, does not mean that law is right. Copyright has become disproportionate and harmful to society, things are stating to change and artist need to adapt or they will die out no matter how much they think otherwise. The most that will happen from all this is the destruction of the internet as a hub of free flowing information, or a couple decades of censorship, enforcement and unfair manhandling until society pushes back. We already have the pirate party making headway, and I can guarantee that more people will join the movement to relax laws as it starts to affect those around them.

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

Copyright doesn't protect an idea, just that single expression of an idea. Next. Shakespeare was taking plots from history - yes, expressed in books. Even if he had plagiarized, which he didn't, those guys had been dead for hundreds of years. Again, you can't copyright an idea. Copyright is a modern recognition of the moral rights of the creator. Copyright for the first time gave Authors the right to decide who prints their work - and ushered in the most creative age in the history of man. We have entire professional classes of creative people who create because they can make a living doing it. Before copyright, people guarded information, didn;t share it, and only rich people could profit from it. The right of the author is a moral and universal right. What will happen is you will drop the rhetoric and pay for your pretty moving pictures.

D.AN
D.AN

Again, you are an imbecile for comparing moral rights to human rights. You are also oblivious to the fact that moral rights are distinct from the economic rights tied to copyrights.

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

If he wants. The moral rights of authorship are intrinsically tied to our democratic and property rights - all natural and universal rights of man. They are the same thing. I understands not wanting to pay for things you desire, but you fail to grasp the larger issues.

soulxtc
soulxtc

Right of the author to what? Have people pay for it? That's no right at all, and certainly not the same as being to fully participate in a democratic society.

mountain_rage
mountain_rage

This is so ridiculously disproportionate penalty when it has been yet to be proven that filesharing has any effect on profits. If the government has so much faith in this move maybe they should put it to a vote to the millions it will affect for the gain of select few. Hopefully these issues start to spread globally and people can vote these dolts out and reverse the ridiculous legislation.

iTeb
iTeb

So if someone steals my car, and uses it illegally, I'm held responsible, NO, and same should go for the Internet.



VyprVPN Personal VPN lets you browse securely