France is one of the countries where illegal downloading is the most important. ("cultural" factors not withstanding, the fact that broadband triple play (cable TV, Unlimited national and international landline, and broadband internet access) of much higher bandwith than in the US is available for only €29.99 a month probably plays a major role).
Hence, for months, the Parliament has been debating a law to fight piracy and protect digital media agains P2P downloading. The topic has become politically sensitive, with Mrs. Sarkozy, an artist herself, getting involved in the debate, and the left opposition, tradionnally sensitive to the artists' revendications, opposing the government's plans.
To add to the confusion, the European Parliement adopted a couple of months ago a legislative package which was said to be in contradiction with the government's plans under way.
Here finally was the French government's law, named Loi Hadopi:
- An independent Authority for the protection of copyrights on the internet was to be created.
- After a first notice of illegal downloading, the internet user was to receive an email warning. After the user was caught a 2nd time, he was to to receive a formal written warning by registered post.
- Upon the 3rd breach, the user was to have his internet access suspended.
Why do i use the preterit? because this law is most likely going to be born dead.
First, it had to be voted twice, because the first time government-supporting MPs did not show up enough for the late night vote, and the oppostion was able to reject it.
When it was passed at the 2nd attempt, the opposition asked for the ruling of France's Conseil Constitutionnel, which in charge of ruling whether laws are set in accordance to the Constitution (i guess the equivalent of the US Supreme Court).
And on June 10th, the CC rejected key components of the law.
To begin with, it ruled that a public authority cannot decide to deprive somebody from his right to access the Internet. Only a judiciary authority can do this. For the first time, the Internet is considered to be a "fundamental right", such as freedom of expression and communication, which was instored in 1789. Therefore, only a judge can take it away. The CC in this matter ruled in the same way as had been decided by the European Parliement .
Secondly, it said that the law was wrong in deciding that the user was presumed guilty ex ante, and not ex post. According to the CC, this in contradiction with the principle of presumption of innocence. Therefore, illegal downloaders should be considered not guilty until proven otherwise.
This is considered to be a major blow for the government. Whereas most artists supported the law in principle (although did not express their support too vocally), a lot of controversy surrounded the text: since it provided for illegal sites to be referenced, Google protested against what it viewed as censorship (wtf? the Company is not that vocal in China imho); ISPs protested against the associated costs; some online content websites, such as DailyMotion, the French Youtuve, mounted a public protest campaign. A plan allowing people found guilty to reduce their sentence by installing spyware on their PCs brought back some painful memories.
Since the ruling came out today, it is too soon to see what will happen next. The government just said that it would make sure any sentence would have to be pronounced by a judge, but it will have to go to Parliament again, for the 3rd time this year.
How can we conciliate respect of copyright with individual privacy laws ? tough...
To be continued!
No comments:
Post a Comment