France okays Three Strikes censorship bill
p2pnet news view | P2P | Politics:- French politicians have again shown their overwhelming commitment to Hollywood and the Big 4 record labels which control the music industry, and their extreme contempt for the people who elected them.
France’s parliament yesterday gave its final approval to the Three Strikes bill created principally by the entertainment industry, with the software and gaming houses in the wings.
It gives the cartels the power have anyone they accuse of being an illegal downloader taken offline without proof of wrong-doing.
Touted relentlessly by FNAC retail chain boss Denis Oliviennes, president Nicolas Sarkozy (right) and his wife, corporate-backed singer Carla Bruni, the HADOPI anti-piracy law, “was adopted in May after a stormy parliament battle, but was blocked in June by France’s top legal authority,” says France 24.
“The new bill shifts the final decision on cutting off web users away from the state agency to the courts,” says, going on:
“On the third strike, a judge would hand down an Internet ban or — as was possible under existing but rarely applied legislation — impose a fine of up to 300,000 euros (415,000 dollars) or a two-year jail sentence.
“Account holders found guilty of ‘negligence’ for allowing a third party to pirate music or films using their web connection, would risk a 1,500-euro fine and a month-long suspension.”
That means anyone who’s WiFi account is hijacked will be responsible for whatever the hijacker does.
HADOPI is the acronym for a special agency funded by French taxpayers and given the grandiose title the High Authority for the Dissemination of Creative Works and Protection of Rights on the Internet.
Sarkozy’s latest effort to do the bidding of the entertainment industry is being called HADOPI2. But the chances of it ever becoming a permanent component of French law are zero.
Like the politicians who allowed this farce to travel as far as it has, the people behind the entertainment industry are forgetting the power of the net, and of the young.
Said Reporters Without Borders when news that the French National Assembly was to vote on whether to allow the cartel to use the French political system to have people accused of being downloaders disconnected first broke »»»
The bill does not specify the mechanism to be used to search for illegal downloads. If it is an algorhythm, there is every reason to fear it will be poor at distinguishing legal from illegal online activity. A detailed but innocent email exchange with a friend about a movie, for example, could be picked up by the algorhythm. Similarly, how do you prove the innocence of someone whose IP address is hijacked for the purposes of illegal downloading, and no trace is left?
Legislators are supposed to be responsible for protecting basic freedoms. The bill should stipulate the methods used to monitor the Internet so that their scope and their impact on free expression can be evaluated.
The legal procedure chosen for applying the sanctions is also a source of concern. Of all the penal procedures available, the simplest and quickest has been chosen, one in which a single judge issues a court order without the accused being present.
TWB said it also fears alleged offenders won’t get details of the supposed illegal download when the Disconnect order is issued.
“This recalls the censorship methods in force prior to the 1881 press freedom law, when the censor did not have to tell offenders why they were being censored,” it declared, continuing:
This violates defence rights. According to the European Court of Human Rights, respect for the rights of the defence in judicial procedures means that all sides get access to all prosecution and trial documents so that they can be equally equipped and the principle of impartiality can be maintained. This partial return to censorship is contrary to constitutional principles.
Furthermore, under HADOPI 2, Internet users will break the law just by visiting an illegal download site, even before they download anything. This also recalls 19th century censorship, which restricted freedom of expression even before it was exercised. Internet users should not be liable to punishment until they have actually committed an illegal download.
Finally, the sanction envisaged by HADOPI 2, loss of Internet access for one year, is clearly disproportionate and poses a major threat to free expression. Under HADOPI 2, anyone who abuses freedom of communication by downloading a song or a film protected by copyright could have their own freedom of expression and communication abused by being denied access to online information and the ability to communicate with friends and family by email, Twitter, Facebook, Skype and blogs for one year.
Such sanctions are not applied to other violations of free expression. Has anyone convicted of libel ever been ordered to buy no newspapers, read no newspapers or write no newspaper articles for a year? The law does not normally punish a violation of freedom of expression by violating the offender’s own freedom of expression. Why should it with the Internet?
Not at all incidentally, European Parliament amendment 139/46 declaring Internet access to be a fundamental right was opposed by France, notes RWB.
Stay tuned. And if you’re in France, let Sarkozy know how you feel.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
overwhelming commitment – France formally becomes cartel copyright cop, September 22, 2009
France 24 -France approves ban for illegal downloaders, September 23, 2009
Reporters Without Borders – Government pushes through spruced-up version of draconian Internet piracy bill, September 21, 2009
first broke – France votes on `3 strikes` law. Again, September 21, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Well there goes OVH……It’s either this or taxes…..Play the game or lose your chips people.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:58 pm
So a judge will be able to chose between a 300,000 Euro fine, two year jail sentence, or internet ban? Hmm, I wonder which of those three possibilities we’ll see applied most often on the third strike? Considering how much retail business is done online (over 50% in my case) combined with the direct affect a loss of customers would have on the ISP’s, I doubt we’ll see too many internet bans handed down. Two years in jail would cause all kinds of controversy, especially among rights advocates, not to mention an unnecessary drain on a resource already at it’s limits in most countries so I can’t see it handed down as a sentence all too often either. That just leaves a very hefty fine, one which most people can’t afford. It is the most desirable from the courts point of view however, given all of it’s options. Personally I’d rather just take the ban and say goodbye to my ISP and shopping online given the choice as a defendant. It will certainly be very interesting to see the outcome of this bill and whether it works as intended, which is doubtful.
September 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Gee, you neglected to mention what the penalty is for companies that wrongfully accuse an innocent person…