RSSFrance gets closer to banning accused downloaders from accessing the Internet
By Nate Mook | Published April 2, 2009, 7:02 PM
It's not law yet, but the French Parliament has moved one step closer to adopting harsh penalties for those caught downloading pirated content more than twice. Lawmakers voted Thursday on a provision that would essentially give citizens of France three strikes before their Internet access is cut off entirely for up to one year.
Once the rest of the "Creation and Internet Law" is approved, it will go to the National Assembly for a final vote. France's President Nicolas Sarkozy came out in support of the bill, and it's likely no coincidence that his wife, Carla Bruni, released her third album last year.
How will the government know what you're downloading? That will be possible thanks to a new national surveillance program that enlists Internet service providers to monitor what users are doing. Copyright holders would have access to the surveillance data; if they believed that their copyrights have been violated, they notify the user's ISP, which first sends an email, then a registered letter, then cuts off net access for 3-12 months.
The UK and New Zealand have attempted to pass similar laws, but those efforts were struck down. The French government, however, has stronger ties to the media industry, and has bowed to a petition in support of the bill signed by more than 10,000 artists, filmmakers, musicians and other industry figures.
Culture Minister Christine Albanel says the Creation and Internet Law is critical to encourage cultural development in France, but admits it will not completely eradicate "the mass phenomenon of pirating cultural works on the Internet." According to France's entertainment industry, 450,000 illegal downloads take place each day causing loses of $10 million in royalties each year.
John Kennedy, CEO of international music industry organization IFPI, voiced his support for the measure. "Over the last two years the French government has led the way in addressing this critical challenge. It has recognised that involving ISPs in addressing the massive flow of infringing content on their networks is not only essential to protect the rights of creators and producers, but can provide a sensible and proportionate solution that will work effectively in practice."
Consumer groups, clearly, are not happy with the proposed law. Nor is France's Socialist Party, which calls it, "an assault on public and individual liberties." Because the entertainment industry claims that proof would be too complicated to establish, critics say the law doesn't require an individual to be guilty before they are punished; only accusations are necessary for action.
Still, it could have been worse for French citizens. The one-year Internet ban replaces a provision that threatened downloaders with up to three years in prison and 300,000 euros in fines. Another provision was struck down that would have required accused individuals to continue paying their ISP during the period that they are banned.
UPDATE: According to reports, the full Creation and Internet Law was passed by the National Assembly last night in a late-night vote when only 16 lawmakers were still present.
I foresee vpn services popping up all over the place similar to Pirate Bay's ipredator.
Score: 0
|Hi all,
I'm french and I can say that this law "Creation and Internet" is really defective.
I hope for you, american people, that you'll never had a law like that. I can promise you something : french people will riot for that, as we used !
Score: 0
|edit: comment posted on the wrong article
Score: 0
|Let me put this in to a ridiculous analogy, as it seems fitting:
Say I bludgeon someone to death with a baseball bat.
Once I'm released from jail (presuming I'm caught), am I then banned from owning baseball bats or playing baseball? No, I'm not allowed to bludgeon someone to death with it, as I was before being jailed.
Banning usage of teh interwebs after filesharing is silly. If it's illegal to fileshare, then punish the use of that, and not everything associated with it.
Caught doing it for a second time, prepare to be "cuddling up" to Bubba in a nice comfy cell.
Score: 0
|Heh...
But they're not criminals anymore. They're "victims". You can't put "victims" in jail. At best you can remove them from the source of their victimization for a period of time and "hope" for "change". ;-)
Score: -1
|Laugh, as the irony is that Obama is bringing the US closer to the EU models of statist control.
Score: -3
|Mmm...statism, facism, socialism....
Is there an -ism we don't like here in the US?
Oh, right...Federalism. ;-)
Score: -4
|...You mean as we implement them in the name of solving this or that crisis?
So, name a situation identified as a 'crisis' by the government in the history of the US that has not resulted in either party NOT seeking an increase in governmental power to address it? Just ONE.
Seems the only thing we truly seem to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid is freedom and responsibility. After all, that just gets in the way of the well-behaved and orderly imposition of that same government policy.
Score: -3
|"EU models of statist control". What the hell are you talking about EU statist control?, just because France are idiotic and are in the European Union it doesn't mean all EU countries agree with France whatsoever. You shouldn't blame other EU countries for one countries views, California for instance has a law that states "Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.", that does not mean I don't like the US because of 1 states views or opinions towards a given subject.
Score: -1
|Don't worry, he just loves to think that Europe is meant to be one conjoined nation, and that whatever one decides all should be doing.
He doesn't realise that few nations' populace actually want that, and that it's certainly not the way it works at the moment.
Score: -1
|Not arguing with you Foxy, but agreeing with you. Neither "side" is doing anything solely for the purposes of supporting the basic rights and principles upon which this country was founded. It could be argued that one might be sticking a little closer to them, or who's plans might have a closer relationship to them, but when it comes right down to it, the belief in and support of these rights and principles was lost in both parties long ago.
We don't teach them anymore, we don't encourage them anymore and we sure as hell don't vote with them in mind anymore....so what the hell else should we expect other than to see them completely ignored.
I did not intend to claim one side was better than the other. In my ever-so-humble opinion, the ideals of federalism are no longer supported by *any* of the parties currently in power.
...our loss.
Score: -2
|I hear you.
And it is indeed sad.
But then I have folks above who don't realize, that in all but a few of the eastern European countries still very aware of their recent histories, that all of the EU is more socialist than the US. But yet all they want to debate over which is more or less. Even as the EU is a discombobulated mess with a stated unified goal with a herd of cats all fighting to retain their individual identities. They make Canada look unified! LOL! And it seems only the PM of the Czech Republic seems to grasp the idiocy of Obamas 'spending our way out of debt' fantasy as the government rushes to nationalize businesses...
Score: -2
|this kind of sh*t just makes me so angry...
Score: 0
|Cool, the French sell out to the American record companies.
Score: 0
|What? The French surrendered??
NOWAI! ;-)
Score: -2
|Hahaha.
Score: 0
|Again????
Now the Italians are going to sue over who has more foundation for rights to that reponse!!!! ...That is, if they aren't too busy out back burning the mail...or trying to figure out the differene between the government and the Mafia - like there is one! LOL!
Score: 1
|let's accuse all the artists of france that support that bill of murder, proof is not required. they'll just get the punishment.
Score: 0
|lmao....
Downloading equals murder. You're just full of emotional rhetoric/brainless BS today, aren't you?
Score: -3
|pay more attention while reading, that is highly recommendable.
you're the only person that I have to explain my comment.
"the law doesn't require an individual to be guilty before they are punished; only accusations are necessary for action."
so that means that we can accuse them of murder. and they will be punished.
Score: -1
|Wow...the dumb just doesn't stop with you, does it?
The law regards IP only and has *nothing* to do with murder. The *only* reason you are bringing it up is because of the emotional response you are hoping it will generate.
Assumption: If I compare it to murder, people will react emotionally instead of with reason and hate it without even bothering to process it.
Problem: We're not quite that stupid here.
I'm the only one bothering to point that out to you. The rest of them simply ignored you completely.
Score: -4
|how does it compare a copyright violation to murder? they are both illegal.
who decides what is illegal or not? -the law-. and -the law- doesn't require an individual to be guilty before they are punished; only accusations are necessary for action.
so if -the law- works that way, -the law- is applied to everything that is written in it, to the most punishable crime to the less punishable misdemeanor. that's how it works. so the relation between murder and copyright violation is that -the law- works the same way with both, realizes it happened and apply punishment.
Score: -1
|*laughing*
Dolt.
The law in question is in regard to IP, and has nothing to do with murder. Oh, wait, sorry..
"-the law-" in question is in regard to IP and has nothing to do with Murder.
I suppose you think a speeder should be put in jail for life because "-the law-" says someone who murdered 18 people should suffer that punishment, eh?
Or do your delusions only extend to IP law, of which you obviously have *zero* understanding?
Score: 0
|the fact that someone downloads a song is not a guarantee that person will buy the album.
is a low probability, but not a fact. most likely is gonna get it recording it from the radio, some friend will pass it to them, the stores that are near don't have that record, that person has more important bills to pay that buying a whole record just for one song, he is gonna tape it when it comes out on tv, he is gonna get it from the ipod of his cousin, is gonna record it with his cellphone when it goes to that concert, put all those possibilities on a pie chart. now, how much are record companies losing in royalties? way way less.
also, what are they gonna do about the encryption feature in p2p programs? or if they don't use other methods of downloading songs, like getting them from youtube?
Score: -1
|"the fact that someone downloads a song is not a guarantee that person will buy the album."
The fact that a person posesses a song is a guarantee that the person posesses the song.
:)
"that person has more important bills to pay that buying a whole record just for one song, "
Huh...there's this newfangled thing called iTunes where he can buy *just* the one song. Been around a while. Get out much?
Just because you think it might be hard for the owners of copyrights to retain their rights means to you that they should simply give up and stop trying? Can we start showing up at your door and video taping everything you do and when you've had enough claim, "well, It's just so hard for you to retain your privacy right now, why don't you just give it up?"
I mean, Is this a common standard you hold to all things, or just the stuff you want for free?
Score: -3
|they are saying that a certain damage has been done based on suppositions, not in solid facts.
because they can't get solid facts, how are they going to build up a case? how do they know if someone in rural france just copied a song from his ipod to his computer? they can try, they can sue, but only in totally proven solid cases. if the law start applying punishments based on people's imagination, dreams, hunchs, then i can imagine that you are a... killer and... a bank robber.. and based on my imagination you lose your liberties, living in jail for some years.
"you got any proof?" "no, but I dreamed he was"
Score: 1
|"they are saying that a certain damage has been done based on suppositions, not in solid facts."
Fact: Person possesses copyrighted material.
Fact: Copyright owner has not been paid for the distribution and performance of that copyrighted material.
Twist it however you want it, call it whatever you want it, it flies in the face of the intent of copyright law, whether you *agree* with it or not.
As for the rhetoric comparing it to murder, you may as well leave it out of your next reply, as I seem to be incapable of addressing such stupidity today. :) (If you can't tell the difference, why bother arguing with you about it...)
Score: -4
|fact: there is a copyright law, and for any law there is the possibility that someone will violate it.
and it's also a fact that copyright law has been violated by some people around the world. but can you give me an -exact- number of people that has violated copyright law today? no? how about an -exact- number of people around the world that has violated copyright law this year? can't do? no radar? then how they can come up with an -exact- number of money they lose because people violated copyright law? that number is based on calculations, suppositions.
Score: -1
|Exact numbers?
Your illogic is so amazing that even I have no interest in trying to debate you!
I am too busy LMAO!
With any luck, YOUR @ss will be one who is caught 'by supposition'! LOL!!!!
Score: 1
|@canoro,
You're lack of reason is astounding, and your ability to rationalize entitlement is staggering.
You: A downloaded song doesn't equal lost income.
Me: Person has song, but did not pay for the rights to possess it.
You: Uh.... The BSA's numbers are not exact!
So, do you always change the topic when faced with actual facts instead of your precious emotional rhetoric, or are you also suffering from MPD along with your delusional entitlement?
Score: 0
|alleged?? Can't that be everyone? or just the people france doesn't want to have internet access??
Score: 0
|I'm completely glad France has never interested me for living purposes! Don't download illegally anymore, but having your ability to interweb is a *bit* much.
Score: -1
|