Showing posts with label Countries - France. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Countries - France. Show all posts

Wednesday, 16 June 2010

offensive and harmful content: reaction or education?

We may well be in a transition period where people are not fully understanding that what on the net is not necessarily reliable, accurate and representative of the truth. Therefore it may be more an educational issue than a legal issue and to modify the law or use it and distort it appears quite silly.







File sharing and piracy

three articles recently, two showing the opposite approaches that can be adopted by courts and one the absurdity of trying to get rid of the file sharing via the ISPs

ISP Tries To Charge Users To Block File Sharing... Ends Up Installing Malware That Exposes Private Info (TechDirt 14 June 2010)


Dutch Court Says Just Publishing Links To A Movie Is Illegal And Must Be Blocked (TechDirt, 04 Jun 2010)


compared to

Yet Another Spanish Court Finds File Sharing Site Legal; Compares File Sharing To Book Lending (TechDirt, 08 June 2010) - the source in English language is Torrent Freak which has a link in Spanish to the interview given by the Lawyer Carlos Sanchez Almeida to Publico.es (04 June 2010) - research in Spanish gives access to the text of the judgment available on what seems to be the website of Almeida's law firm. http://www.bufetalmeida.com/602/caso-cvcdgo-pagina-de-enlaces-la-audiencia-provincial-de-madrid-confirma-el-auto-de-archivo.html The Google translation is not bad at all and confirms the translation made. It also reveals more clearly than my now poor understanding of Spanish could grasp. The Judges have referred to various cases, acknowledging that the law is not settled on this issue. Yet, for them

"since ancient times has been the loan or sale of books, movies, music and more. The difference now is primarily on the medium used was previously the paper or analog and now everything is digital format which allows an exchange much faster and higher quality and also a global reach through the Internet. And this exchange takes place in the network through file-sharing systems "P2P (or peer network) where there are no fixed clients and servers have a global reach as any Internet user can connect to your computer and share files that are divided, in turn, a large number of parties.

To use file sharing programs (Emule, etc.) Running the link or link to the document that is on the website so that the user's computer connects to a computer but not many who have various stages of This same document being shared among many users at once without anyone perceived why any financial reward."

In most English newspapers/blogs, the first part is quoted. Yet I find the second paragraph equally interesting: it is saying that file sharing is not about holding the copyrights of the book and making money on it. It is just like a village market place providing the platform for users to exchange.





Friday, 23 April 2010

Hyping issues up: distortions when it comes to internet

1 - "The Real Problem With Internet Comments Isn't Anonymity" (TechDirt, 12 April 2010). That I would agree; people before internet could be anonymous for the better or for the worse (blackmail...). They could also be discovered and were accepting the risk; so why not now? Why the internet should change anything in us allowing anonymity? What we need is better education for people to understand the impact of their behaviours and better policing, but not an end to anonymity.
"Judge Who Was Revealed As Anonymous Commenter Sues Newspaper For $50 Million" (TechDirt, 8 April 2010)
"Israeli Supreme Court Says There Is No Legal Way To Reveal Anonymous Commenters Online" (TechDirt, 1 April 2010)
Columnist Claims Anonymity Is Bad For Our Country (TechDirt, 31 March 2010)


2 - "Dear Journalists: There Is No Cyberwar" (TechDirt, 9 April 2010). I don't completely agree. Governments use and will use the new technologies to attack and the disruptions will be different.

3 - As Cyberbullying Moral Panics Heat Up, Actual Rates Of Cyberbullying Decreasing (TechDirt, 9 April 2010). Well yes and no. Cyberbullying is a problem like its off-line version, but it is probably not so much of a problem as it is made up.

Similar distortion in the understanding of the law in order to catch behaviours we find offensive but which are not necessarily legal:
Son Gets Mom Charged With Harassment Over Facebook Account Hijacking (TechDirt, 8 April 2010) - apparently, the son lets the computer logged in; that is unauthorised access in the UK!
And if this is true, it is even worse: Sarkozy Kicks Off Criminal Investigation Into Blog/Twitter Reports He Had An Affair (TechDirt, 7 April 2010)

4 - or distortion in the use of the law: "Court Says President Bush Violated Wiretapping Laws With Warrantless Wiretap" (TechDirt, 31 March 2010) with Wired having published the decision from NorthDistrict Court of California http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/03/walker.pdf

This affair echoes two others about procedure and the difficulties to conceptualise it:
"Leaving Your WiFi Open Decreases Your Fourth Amendment Rights To Privacy?" (TechDirt, 10 February 2010) - I can't see how there is less privacy if you leave your mobile phone or your landline accessible to people from the outside
"Duh, Don't Leave A Thumb Drive With Child Porn Plugged Into A Shared Computer" (TechDirt, 22 April 2010) - no expectation of privacy for a US court when the thumb drive is plugged in. I would agree (like Masnick and unlike Kerr with whom I seem to disagree quite a lot - he writes on VWs). Kerr argues the thumb drive is like a suitcase in a public space; inaccurate if it is plugged in as everybody can see what's in it, like an open suitcase (aka Masnick).

and see "Les points-clés du projet de loi Loppsi" (LeMonde, 09 February 2010)

Thursday, 18 March 2010

Copyrights

The bug in HADOPI 2 (French version of three strikes law for piracy) was "patched" by governmental decree or statutory instrument, with the possibility to ask for damages in the criminal proceedings. But some more difficulties have been highlighted, mainly due to the administrative status of HADOPI which does not have the quality of police officer and thus can't receive complaints linked to criminal charges and torts claims as an officer would.
"L’argent du beurre des ayants droit : Hadopi 2 bientôt patchée" PC INpact 5 March 2010

"French Government Looking To Set Up The Great Firewall Of France?" TechDirt 18 February 2010

While most European countries are happy with the secrecy surrounding ACTA (and the EU COmmission also), Sweden, the EU data protection agency, and the EU Parliament are quite worried about it.
"Parliament threatens court action on anti-piracy treaty" EurActiv 10 March 2010
"La « Cnil européenne » demande plus de transparence sur l'Acta", 01net, 23 February 2010
And yet, Sweden accepted that the expert who has worked for the music industry in the Pirate Bay case could be head of the IT crime unit.
"Swedish Investigator Hired By Warner Bros. During Pirate Bay Investigation Now In Charge Of IT Crime In Sweden" TechDirt, 26 February 2010

THose copyrights claim are becoming ridiculous, as even a video of PRof. Lessig has been taken done on YouTube. Ironically, Prof. Lessig was in favour of copyrights in Second Life
"Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Yet Another Larry Lessig YouTube Presentation" TechDirt, 2 March 2010

Friday, 22 January 2010

New report in France to reflect on digital economy

Well, I have just scrolled through the report and the least we can say is that the committee did not really engage with the issues at a deep level. The report is disappointing:
- for a summary in English, "France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels" (TechDirt, 7 january 2010)
-for an equally sanguine account, in French, "Mission Zelnik : les principales propositions du rapport" (Numerama, 7 January 2010)
- for the report itself (in French), in La Documentation Francaise

Privacy, piracy, copyrights and censorship

The theme of the week seems to turn around protecting privacy.

"Hacking Surpassing Human Error For Data Breaches?" (TechDirt, 19 January 2010). For the author, the answer is actually positive: hacking is a major threat, more that insiders leaking data.

In the fight against piracy, will privacy be waived? "Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up Info; Says IPRED Violates EU Privacy Rules" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010)

"The Similarity Between ACTA And Chinese Internet Censorship" (TechDirt, 20 January 2010) in that both requires strong involvement from ISPs. I also think that both infringed on privacy. But the issue of ISPs involvement is also close to more traditional searches and seizures: "Once Again, FBI Caught Breaking The Law In Gathering Phone Call Info; But Real Issue Is Why Telcos Let Them" (TechDirt, 19 January 2010)

Obviously, all this debate supposes there is such thing as privacy about data online. Hence the issue about cloud computing and expectations of privacy. "Do You Have Any Legal Right To Privacy For Information Stored Online?" (TechDirt, 19 January 2010) THe US have actually articulated that notion of expectation of privacy, even though the answer is not satisfactory: it is not because it is online that there is no expectation of privacy. It all depends on where and what was intended to be done with the data.

France Considers 'Right To Forget' Law, Apparently Not Realizing The Internet Never Forgets (TechDirt, 8 January 2010)


Wednesday, 6 January 2010

Digitalisation of books - comparing France and the UK

Already yesterday I thought of writing a post about it, while I was discovering the poverty, I would nearly say the misery if the word had been appropriate, of digitilased books in the UK accessible free of charge. I wanted an old book from 1824 printed in London about criminal libel; so one can guess that copyrights should not be an issue. Well, where do I find it online? Certainly not on the British Library website; it is appallingly bad as far as digital collections are concerned. Despite the hype about the Online Gallery, there is absolutely nothing. Compared to its English counterpart, the French Bibliothèque Nationale de France is light years ahead of the British Library. On its Gallica website, also accessible in English and Spanish, there are hundred of thousands of old books (mainly pre-1930s) having been scanned with often a text search available. In my fields, I have all the old books that I need and still use; I even have the first issues of the main French law journal on criminal law. And the RSS feed allows me to keep up to date with the new books added to the digital collection, all that free of charge to the user.
So one can criticise the French Government for sponsoring the programme, but frankly, I would prefer my taxes to go into the programme than leaving it to private companies to do the job. Why? because the 1824 I mentioned earlier was scanned by Google and available at Google books, but frankly, half of the information displayed on the search result is inaccurate, the references not corresponding to what has actually been digitalised.

"Sarkozy To Throw Another Billion At Digitizing Books" (TechDirt, 17 December 2009)

"Now France Fines Google For Scanning French Books" (TechDirt, 18 December 2009)

and the European policy in the same lines as France's http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/web-inventor-snooping-authorities-threaten-internet/article-187987 (14 october 2009/25 November 2009)

Now, on Jan 12, having received a newsletter from a French website, I post the following. It is about an article from Le Monde (The newspaper in France) dating from 19 december 2009. It confirms what I have described about the poor quality of the digitalisation of books. One author said his book was digitalised without his authorisation and Google used non corrected/checked proofs of the book. In other words, it was worthless. In the article, is also mentioned the work of the BNF and its willingness to digitalise but with quality and with compliance with the copyrights law. "

Livre numérique : la justice française donne raison aux éditeurs face à Google (Le Monde, 19 Dec 2009)

Good wishes, piracy and censorhip: happy new year!

I cannot believe it is already the new year and ... that I have not written for the past month. I only took two weeks of holidays, but being busy elsewhere did not give time to sit down in front of the computer with an actual internet connection.
So here I am, wishing you a happy new year, with the best for 2010 and maybe less snow that here in Suffolk and Essex we receive!

Back to business: 2010 will probably be like 2009 for piracy. The same debates and the same lack of innovative thinking about creation, authors' rights and distribution when it comes to legal reforms.



1 - So for the UK, "UK Government Report Shows That Digital Economy Bill Will Cost More Than Highest 'Piracy' Estimates, Drive 40,000 Offline" (TechDirt, 28 December 2009)

"Lord Lucas Wants UK Digital Economy Bill To Include Remedy For Bogus Copyright Threats" (TechDirt, 22 December 1009)

"UK Digital Economy Bill Section 124H Would Give Ability To Silently Censor Websites" (TechDirt, 18 December 2009)

For the text of the Bill, its different amendments and the parliamentar process, one can have a look at the UK Parliament website which is improving on a regular basis: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html

2 - and France: "Will France's Three Strikes Law Matter?" (TechDirt, 4 January 2010) The story is as follow. The database to be created with the names of the offenders has to be approved by the CNIL (the French quango established years ago to protect freedom of expression and privacy) which is careful in the methods used to hold the data, the length of time it is held, who has access, for which purposes etc... The problem is that the CNIL decided not to assess anything until it receives the details of the procedure that will be used, details awaiting finalisation in a decree (i.e. statutory instrument). Given the reputation of the CNIL, the French Government is stuck and just has to wait if it does not want to be seen as bypassing the CNIL's protecting role. See the text in French of the newspaper La Tribune, 23 December 2009

see also "French Government's Plan To Help Book Publishers Adapt: Have Them Embrace Three Strikes Plan" (TechDirt, 7 December 2009)

3 - I came accross the issue yesterday while working on the same article as last month. Reading again Levy's book on Becoming virtual: reality of the digital age, the passage on the changes brought by the acceleration of virtualisation in cyberspace struck me as ahead of his time (he wrote in 1998). He more or less noticed that the difference publishers, distributors and creators is abolished, or at least blurred, and that the model we rely upon, that of the printing press, is outdated and needs to be rethought. Technology should be used to promote distribution with fair use of authors' creations (= not charging like we do with publishers benefiting, but charging with authors receiving directly the money!).

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Towards an international protection for privacy

The CNIL (French quango to protect freedom of information and liberties) website reports of a conference to elaborate/create international standards that would overcome the patchy protection offered by national legislations to internet users. The article is in English, and is also available in French
"Privacy Policy: a first step towards international standards" (CNIL, 10 November 2009)

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Hadopi 2; the piracy matter in France

As already pointed out, France enacted its legislation after the first censorship by the Constitutional council. Except that the law went back to the Council a second time (22 October 2009)... and Parliament was censored for not having explained in details what the procedure will be (incompetence negative). Hence, a third version of the statute: a future Hadopi 3.

Frankly, given the short comings of the Hadopis, one really wonders whether Parliament should not have just paused and thought a bit, rather than rushing about.



See (all in French) Marinese http://www.juriscom.net/actu/visu.php?ID=1157 (3 november 2009)
Rojinsky, http://www.juriscom.net/actu/visu.php?ID=1155 (28 October 2009)
Thoumyre being interviewed, 3 November 2009 http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/53927-claire-chazal-reponsabilite-diffamation-hadopi.htm
And for a longer analysis by V. Benabou, Glose de la loi favorisant la création et la protection de la creation (dite HADOPI) (Juriscom.net. 7 november 2009)

And the link towards the two Acts: http://www.service-public.fr/actualites/001268.html?xtor=EPR-140 that are on Legifrance

Obviously, the UK contemplates introducing similar legislation and does not seem to be put off neither by the peripetieas of French law, nor by the criticism the system attracted/attracts.
UK Gov't Official: Innocent People Won't Get Kicked Off The Internet; Trust Us (TechDirt, 12 November 2009)

On the international dimension of piracy, there is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Rees, 9 November 2009, http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/54030-acta-hadopi-riposte-surveillance-internet.htm)

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Three strikes law in the UK?

France having enacted its legislation after the Constitutional Council's disapproval of the original draft, the UK is thinking of adopting the same law despite the EU's opposition.

Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK? (TechDirt, 30 October 2009)

As Expected, Mandelson To Introduce Plan To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet (TechDirt, 28 October 2009)

UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline (TechDirt, 27 October 2009)

France Agrees To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet Again; Lobbyists Call It 'Consumer Relief' (TechDirt, 22 October 2009)

Monday, 26 October 2009

Reports of crime: difficulties in the UK

Whereas France has now a unique website to report cybercrimes, the UK still struggles, with no sight of relief yet.

E-crime victims uncertain where to turn (ZDnet.co.uk, 27 August 2009)

Friday, 24 July 2009

Cybercrime trends and security issues

Quite obvious: "US prosecutor: Cybercrime will follow the cloud" (ZDnet.co.uk, 13 july 2009)

More surprising: "Cisco reports rise in text-message scams" (ZDnet.co.uk, 15 July 2009)

And quite welcome: France now has its Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d'information, or National Agency for security of information systems, with a budget of 90 millions euros and 120 people working and potentially 250 by 2012. Its role is to detect and prevent cyberattacks on information systems (=the net)

"La cybersécurité hissée au rang de priorité nationale" (JDN, 09 July 2009)

Thursday, 23 July 2009

Views on regulation on the net

Axel Pawlik, managing director of the Ripe NCC, writes about regulation on the net. He considers that ISPs should not take an active role in regulation, notably in relation to piracy. THey should be treated like telecom companies which list calls and that's all.
The article is definitely not a cybercrime perspective as such: there is piracy, but I think the issue of piracy is first of all an issue about what we want with copyrights; domain names attribution is looked at and again there is no incidence in criminal law for that.
However there is an interesting parallel with telephone companies when it comes to surveillance. We all know that surveillance of contents on phone conversation requires preliminary investigation: governments are not allowed to wiretap telephone conversations just to find out about illegal contents (or let's put it that way: in democracies, they are not supposed to do random wiretapping without warrant). Why should the net be treated different? Apart from the non feasibility of spying on all contents, it's nothing different and privacy is key.

Politicians should stay out of internet policing (ZDnet.co.uk, 22 July 2009)

which is obviously not what the UK Government does as it poured 10 millions pounds on monitoring.
"Gov't boosts spending on web monitoring" (ZDnet.co.uk, 13 July 2009)

whereas in France, Mr. Alain Bravo for the Assemblee Nationale (Parliament), published his report on security and digital economy to explain six scenarios, from no control apart from big firms' to too much control... http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/rap-info/i1670.asp

Update on Hadopi 2

lots of daily changes on the bill related to piracy. The amendment about e-mail surveillance has been withdrawn and the whole discussion postpones to early september. It's true the bill 'raised' 800 amendments!

Will France's Three Strikes Law Also Allow Gov't Email Surveillance? (TechDirt, 21 july 2009)

Le vote de la loi Hadopi 2 reporté au mois de septembre (JDN, 21 July 2009)

Friday, 10 July 2009

Update on Hadopi 2 (Senate)

Juriscom.net - droit des technologies de l'information
Sandrine Rouja, Une deuxième loi "création et internet" pour juillet, versant pénal (25 June 2009)

Le Sénat adopte le projet de loi HADOPI 2
(Juriscom. 9 July 2009)
for the details (in French) on the French Senate website: http://www.senat.fr/dossierleg/pjl08-498.html

The bill has now been approved by Senate. Two main measures: one against the person pirating with the already existing 3 years prison and 300.000 euros fine, but with the additional sentence of forbidden access to the internet; the second measure is against the person who would not have secured her/his connexion once warned that his/her IP address was used for pirating, under the basis of "characterised negligence". The latter offence would be a misdemeanour.
The procedure remains that of the "ordonnance penale" thus an expeditive procedure used for mass offences (contentieux de masse) like driving offences. On that see Masnik's view from the US:

New French Three Strikes Law: Judges Will Get Five Minutes To Rule


On the general debate on intellectual property and whether the rules should be changed, a.k.a. created products should be available for free, Pierre-Yves Gautier, French Professor at Paris-Assas, was interviewed on 1st July 2009 in the (left-wing) newspaper Liberation. He notes the sociological phenomenom of illegal downloading and criticises the idea that intellectual property is not equivalent to property or is a sub-class of property not worthy of protection, and that their owners/inventors should beg to make a living out of it.

La propriété intellectuelle, un sous-droit (1st July 2009)


I feel it is a very simplified view of the matter, given that the people really opposing piracy are mostly linked with Hollywood and that artists like the Monthy Pythons chose a different route. For my own work, as an academic, I don't like the fact that my articles are not freely available once I published them. Frankly the publisher nowadays does not do much: I am the one typing the article, reviewing all references and proof-reading at least twice (publisher only once). The peer-review is done free of charge for the publisher who rarely pays the reviewers. And the cost of printing is becoming inexistent as most journals are available online or only online. yes there is all the coordination stuff; by experience, I know how time-consuming it can be. But worst of all if the argument of IP is that creators should get their share of the money, well: I am not paid a single bit of a penny to publish. Arguably, as an academic I am paid by the University which employs me, but I am certainly not paid per article, and publishing is just one out of three jobs I am supposed to fulfill. So why should my work not be freely available?

Thursday, 2 July 2009

Privacy: the cost of protecting it

Avis d’expert : Données personnelles : une dictature de la transparence sans les moyens de l’assurer ? par Patrick Deleau – Tribune Solutions (08 June 2009)

An analysis of the CNIL's 2008 report on its work to protect privacy. There seems to be a shift in liability from Government to private firms which, in French law, are responsible to protect access to private data and to ultimately destroy it. The liability is actually of a criminal nature with heavy fines, up to 1.5 millions of euros and 5 years emprisonment. Considering that most firms do not know what the law is about and do not have the capacity to comply with the legislation, this is quite scary. The CNIL also notes that it does not have the means to continue its role in the field as the audits, which would help the firms to understand what they need to do, cannot be financed.

Update on Hadopi 2

Hadopi 2 jugée inconstitutionnelle, le gouvernement s'enferre - Journal du Net > e-Business (30 June 2009)

Interesting impact assessment of the new proposal conducted by the newspaper La Tribune. If 50 000 cases per year are to be treated, 109 posts would have to be created of which 26 for judges. In 80% of cases, the judge will use the abbreviated procedure of "ordonnance penale". The remainder will go to the equivalent of the Crown Court (Tribunal correctionnel)

Friday, 26 June 2009

Hadopi: the new bill establishing sanctions and procedures to be followed

The tone of the new bill (projet de loi), not yet discussed by Parliament, is much harsher than the previous version struck down by the Constitutional Council.
No access to internet for a maximum of a year; any attempt to reinstate the connexion would attract up to 2 years imprisonment and 30 000 euros fine (about 21 000 pounds). I find it fascinating that at a time where copyrights regulations, hence piracy, are strongly criticised in their very existence, the Government chose to take a stand harsher than what happened sometimes when somebody's life and well being is at stake. In other words, money linked with copyrights has more value than the protection of the person, say on social networks. This discrepancy in priorities is typical of the regulatory approach to the internet (think of the US where striking down the legislation on child porn in the name of free speech meant property is better protected than the child's person/body abused by adults), but I can't get over it, and hope I actually won't get over it.
Moreover the procedure used will not involve a contradictory debate but will be one of those simplified ordonnance type of procedure, which when one thinks that freedom of communication is at stake here (including jobs because today one cannot work without internet), is pretty troubling.

Un texte plus répressif pour sanctionner le piratage (JDN 25 June 2009)

Thursday, 25 June 2009

Hadopi, right to access a court of first instance and piracy policy

Before it was even adopted by Parliament, the French bill that promoted the three strikes policy in its attempt to fight piracy was doomed.

The EU Parliament condemned it (See TechDirt, 6 May 2009) EU Says No To Three Strikes On Accusation Only; Requires Court Order

and even the UK TalkTalk ISP (TechDirt, June 9, 2009) director considered it was silly to forbid, "pirats will always win" UK ISP Boss: 'The Pirates Will Always Win'

Without surprise, the bill, passed by an empty Assembly, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council and thus in effect can only become a Statute if the unconstitutional provisions are withdrawn.


"French Constitutional Council Guts 'Three Strikes' As Unconstitutional" (TechDirt, 10 June 2009)

Legally, the decision is particularly enlightening when it comes to the grounds of unconstitutionality. The Council found several flaws, all in line with what I have been writing about in this blog:

- violation of freedom of speech and communication because the sanction was not decided by a court, but by an administrative agency; I keep saying that a court/ the judiciary has to decide on withdrawing illegal content as much as who committed any other illegal behaviour
  • "16. Considérant que les pouvoirs de sanction institués par les dispositions critiquées habilitent la commission de protection des droits, qui n'est pas une juridiction, à restreindre ou à empêcher l'accès à internet de titulaires d'abonnement ainsi que des personnes qu'ils en font bénéficier ; que la compétence reconnue à cette autorité administrative n'est pas limitée à une catégorie particulière de personnes mais s'étend à la totalité de la population ; que ses pouvoirs peuvent conduire à restreindre l'exercice, par toute personne, de son droit de s'exprimer et de communiquer librement, notamment depuis son domicile ; que, dans ces conditions, eu égard à la nature de la liberté garantie par l'article 11 de la Déclaration de 1789, le législateur ne pouvait, quelles que soient les garanties encadrant le prononcé des sanctions, confier de tels pouvoirs à une autorité administrative dans le but de protéger les droits des titulaires du droit d'auteur et de droits voisins ;"

- violation of presumption of innocence by reversing the burden of proof to the accused; it is what I always found disturbing in those cases where the RIAA in the US bring lawsuits/charges before the Court and it is most of the time for the defendant to find proof s/he did not commit the action.
  • "18. Considérant, en l'espèce, qu'il résulte des dispositions déférées que la réalisation d'un acte de contrefaçon à partir de l'adresse internet de l'abonné constitue, selon les termes du deuxième alinéa de l'article L. 331-21, " la matérialité des manquements à l'obligation définie à l'article L. 336-3 " ; que seul le titulaire du contrat d'abonnement d'accès à internet peut faire l'objet des sanctions instituées par le dispositif déféré ; que, pour s'exonérer de ces sanctions, il lui incombe, en vertu de l'article L. 331-38, de produire les éléments de nature à établir que l'atteinte portée au droit d'auteur ou aux droits voisins procède de la fraude d'un tiers ; qu'ainsi, en opérant un renversement de la charge de la preuve, l'article L. 331-38 institue, en méconnaissance des exigences résultant de l'article 9 de la Déclaration de 1789, une présomption de culpabilité à l'encontre du titulaire de l'accès à internet, pouvant conduire à prononcer contre lui des sanctions privatives ou restrictives de droit ;"
- violation of privacy if the private institutions collecting data about illegal downloading use this data for other purposes; we know by experience that it is well possible, so I wonder how the Constitutional Council thought his "reserve of interpretation" will be complied with and which mecanisms will be used to ensure compliance.
  • 27. Considérant que la lutte contre les pratiques de contrefaçon sur internet répond à l'objectif de sauvegarde de la propriété intellectuelle et de la création culturelle ; que, toutefois, l'autorisation donnée à des personnes privées de collecter les données permettant indirectement d'identifier les titulaires de l'accès à des services de communication au public en ligne conduit à la mise en oeuvre, par ces personnes privées, d'un traitement de données à caractère personnel relatives à des infractions ; qu'une telle autorisation ne saurait, sans porter une atteinte disproportionnée au droit au respect de la vie privée, avoir d'autres finalités que de permettre aux titulaires du droit d'auteur et de droits voisins d'exercer les recours juridictionnels dont dispose toute personne physique ou morale s'agissant des infractions dont elle a été victime ;

Censure du Conseil constitutionnel : pas d'happy end pour l'HADOPI (Juriscom. 10 June 2009)

"French court curbs internet piracy legislation" (ZDnet.co.uk, 11 June 2009)

David El Sayegh (Snep)"Couper l'accès Internet comme on envoie les contraventions établies par les radars" (JDN, 11 June 2009)