Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Government The Internet Your Rights Online

France Passes Harsh Three-Strikes Legislation, Again 207

shrik writes "After having it struck down as 'unconstitutional' by the Conseil Constitutionnel once, Sarkozy's controversial 'three-strikes' law (known as HADOPI) was once again passed by the French National Assembly, this time allowing for a judge to order the disconnection (without requiring the presence of the accused party!), thus placating some of the administrative concerns. Opponents say they will 'challenge the law again in front of the Constitutional Council because it deprives the accused of being able to defend themselves properly.' Coverage at Ars also points out a provision that says, 'all Internet users must keep their connections 'secure' and are responsible for what happens on them.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France Passes Harsh Three-Strikes Legislation, Again

Comments Filter:
  • Already done? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Vanderhoth ( 1582661 ) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @09:11AM (#29438839)
    I know this is taking place in France, but in North America hasn't the RIAA already prosecuted people without notifying them they were being prosecuted?
  • Merde! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Wowsers ( 1151731 ) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @09:15AM (#29438881) Journal

    If at first you don't succeed, bribe and bribe again.

    How will this pass the European Unions "right to free speech" when you have no internet connection to communicate with anyone? Oh silly me, it's the French we're talking about, they never did give a cr@p about European laws unless it was in their favour.

  • Sad trend (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Idiomatick ( 976696 ) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @09:16AM (#29438893)
    I LIKE leaving my wrouter unpassworded. I have a resource that costs me nothing it makes good sense to share. My neighbours do the same and are on a different ISP. The result? Near 0 downtime. But it seems this will be legislated away. It depresses me that since I got cable almost 10years ago my speed and capacity has dropped, reliability has dropped massively and is going to take another hit. Capitalism works very well on small individual items but clearly cannot deal with massive projects. Oh well at least its not as bad as cellphones...
  • by rqqrtnb ( 753156 ) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @09:21AM (#29438969)

    Copyright holders already have legal processes to follow: DMCA takedown notices (sent under penalty of perjury) and civil lawsuits. If they don't choose to use them, tough.

    They frequently bleat that it's expensive. It is, but mainly for the people they accuse, who can't afford to defend it.

    They frequently bleat that it's difficult to prove. That's hardly an excuse to make accusation the only burden of proof required, is it?

  • Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @09:25AM (#29439009)

    It also raises the question of whether an organisation becomes responsible for any piracy which occurs as a result of a thirdparty sneaking onto their network. Say, the French government being responsible if a bunch of hackers start downloading pirated material using their network. Wouldn't a judge be obliged to cut that network off immediately?

  • Re:Sad trend (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @09:28AM (#29439065) Journal
    Maybe someone should send the story that was on Idle a few days ago about Asutralian children getting lost in a storm drain to the French parliament. They couldn't get a mobile phone signal, but they managed to let people know they were lost down there because they went under a house with an unsecured wireless access point. Clearly the legislators who voted for this bill want children to die in storm drains! Won't somebody please think of the children!
  • I wonder how... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Demonantis ( 1340557 ) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @09:33AM (#29439139)
    ...long this will be humored by the courts. Basically, the politicians are passing the most restrictive rules possible for consumers they can think of then tune them back until the courts let it pass. Why don't they just think up what would be considered fair in a free society then see what happens from there. I am not France, but would be interest to find out if this is how French society allows all its laws to be created.
  • by eulernet ( 1132389 ) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @10:18AM (#29439811)

    No, piracy is widespread because it's easier to download than going to a shop to buy a real product.

    As long as the pirated product is equivalent to a real product (and in some cases, it's worse due to the protection), I don't see why I should buy a product, except encouraging its creators.

    Politicians don't have the fucking stones to put forward this kind of legislation.

    No, the politicians know very well from where the money comes.
    They are elected by people, but they can punish them as long as they can get a few bucks for themselves.
    Politicians have renounced to care for their voters, and this is especially true for the french president.

    I'm a french guy, and I can only notice that Sarkozy just runs for himself, as most of the french society now.

    He dreams about the 'american model', where only money matters, where there is no social insurance and where the employees can be fired without notice.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @10:38AM (#29440071)

    The first one has obvious implications; Poverty.

    While most of your people who pirate aren't exactly "impoverished", (actually, working poor to middle class mostly) they DO have a very limited economy for purchasing luxury goods.

    What causes a person to suffer the ill effects of poverty, is a physical need, or want, for various goods and services (Such as food, water, electricity, clothing, etc.) without the required resources to obtain them all. This gives incentive to get those resources through less legal means. This is how poverty incites crime.

    If we use the same metric to gauge internet piracy, we see artificial scarcity between artificially imposed monopolies vying for each other for the consumer's dollar; all using social engineering tactics to dazzle and goad the consumer into purchasing their products. This is seen in everything from children's toy commercials to buying music and games.

    The cumulative result of all this conflicting social engineering is a consumer who is pressured not only by mainstream media, but by other consumers who have had their behavior influenced by such means, and has a social status-quo obligation to satisfy in order to fit in, and avoid ostracism. However, he may not have enough resources to accomplish this goal, and much like the impoverished, is driven to seek less than reputable solutions on the sly.

    If shoplifting is the recourse of the blue-collar world, software piracy is the recourse of the white-collar world.

    I would propose that a LOT of software piracy would dry up in a few short years if there was massive advertising reform legislation, and legislation against uncontrolled social engineering projects.

  • Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Golddess ( 1361003 ) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @12:25PM (#29441659)
    Age has nothing to do with it. I believe purledinoz's point was that grandma probably isn't the one who configured the router.

    In the spirit of providing a car analogy, if a dealership sells you a car as being street-legal, and a police officer later pulls you over about some aftermarket street-illegal modifications that were already present prior to the sale, why should you be thrown in jail for it?
  • by Golddess ( 1361003 ) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @01:27PM (#29442779)

    I wonder how secure the Internet connections owned by the members of the French National Assembly are. Maybe a tracker could be set up on Sarkozy's Minitel terminal.

    Considering that the French president has apparently gotten off scott-free for actual copyright infringement [] (I say apparently because I've not heard anything about the infringement since that story in 2008), I suspect it doesn't matter how secure or insecure it is, nothing would happen.

"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of course you never do." -- Gregory Bateson