TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

French 3 Strikes: Court Fines First File-Sharer, Even Though He’s Innocent

It’s been a long time coming but today the controversial French ‘Hadopi’ anti-piracy law has claimed its first scalp. After his account was connected to a series of previous infringements, a 40 year-old man was summoned to court today. Despite a third-party admitting that the music piracy in question was carried out by them and not the accused, the court still decided to fine the account holder.

For almost two years France has been running its controversial “3 strikes” mechanism to deal with the issue of online digital media piracy.

Alleged pirates are sent three warnings before being punished, giving them plenty of time to either mend their ways or take other measures to stop infringements being logged against their accounts.

Since October 2010, rightholders have identified a total of 3 million French IP addresses. Of these, Hadopi considered 1.15 million worthy of a “first strike” notice, 102,854 deserving of a second, and just 340 in line for a third.

From these, Hadopi referred just 14 cases to French prosecutors. Today the first persistent pirate, a craftsman from a small village in eastern France, was summoned to court to receive his punishment, potentially a 1,500 euro fine.

“He was warned three times by the Hadopi, without responding to these warnings,” Marc Rees of PCInpact told TorrentFreak.

Rees notes that the details behind the initial warnings are not available, but interestingly the man told the court today that he is incapable of downloading and did not commit the infringements. Supporting his claims he brought into court the person actually responsible for the file-sharing.

The actual infringer was the man’s soon-to-be ex-wife. She admitted downloading Rihanna songs but according to Guillaume Champeau of Numerama her confession may have actually hindered the case against her husband.

“By saying he knew she was downloading infringing content, but didn’t prevent her from doing so, he self-incriminated,” he told TorrentFreak.

According to the Hadopi law it doesn’t matter that the man didn’t carry out the infringements himself – as the owner of the Internet connection in question he is responsible for what happens on it.

The court (le Tribunal de Police de Belfort) found the man guilty of failing to secure his Internet connection. The prosecution asked for a 300 euro fine with 150 euros suspended, but the court settled on a flat fine of 150 euros.

The ultimate sanction, of terminating the 40-year-old’s Internet account, was not applied by the court.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Ryanrjb

     I fail to understand how one can be held accountable for the actions of another, since when have we decided to hold others responsible for that which they cannot control.

    • No1_2_u

      Sometime beginning in the 1980s when the world became “Politicaly Correct”; & then proceeded to completely lose its mind thereafter.

      • meowmix

        when ever somone says pc, or i see it writen anywhere, i always think ‘pretentious cunt’.

        i hate this pc stuff so much i’m fucking well tempted to register pretentiouscunt.org and put up all the moronic pc shite i come across up for riddicule.

        pc is almost as dumb as the archaic copywrong laws.

        • JordanKratz

           I can not sand PC SHIT !!! I still remember how the punk spot ABC No-Rio had my old Bands play there 3 times and when I wanted to come back they had a new Booking Guy with a PC Policy.He wanted Copies of all your lyrics so he could make sure it was all PC.
          I usually cover a GG Allin Punk Tune and they objected to letting us play.I also refused to give him a lyric sheet.Finally I told him to take his PC and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
          After that one (very early 90′s) I just Booked us at other NYC Spots when we wanted to do the Road Trip down to the Big City.

        • Aliena Ferox

          I’d visit that website.

        • http://twitter.com/KimberleyBButea Kimberley B. Buteau

          There’s plenty of cases in it of people, or indeed animals, being held accountable for things that other people have down. http://Ace16.com

        • http://twitter.com/NolanMurray3 NolanMurray

          Richard explained I am impressed that a mom can get paid $9585 in one month on the network. have you look this(Click on menu Home)

        • http://twitter.com/NolanMurray3 NolanMurray


          goo.gl/Uj7IV

        • François_Hollande

          Hadopi need a taste of their own medicine, so my devious plan involves visiting Hadopi’s Headquarters, in the 15th district in Paris, turn up posing as a gas maintenance man, then find a unused office, lock the door, and access all sites deemed to be illegal under French Law.

          Oh whilst browsing, I’ll head to TPB and download a few .torrents/get a few magnet links to various most recent Hollywood blockbusters, and set them downloading in uTorrent.

          There are some things money can’t buy, and to witness the expression on the face of Marie-Françoise Marais, the President of Hadopi, receiving a letter stating that Hadopi has infringed on (c) law will be absolutely priceless.

          Mind you, I’d have to pay Hadopi a visit on a further two occasions, to get Marie-Françoise Marais in the defense dock in court, being prosecuted by the organisation she runs.

          Only then will Marie-Françoise Marais understand the feeling of being wrongly accused.

        • yello

          the irony in this case, especially reading the torrentfreak post immediately below this story

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/BUSYAWMRBZOVHLEA566TYPDBKM D

         Reagen era…

      • Guest321

        Someone should ask this judge to open his mouth wide open and then we can all take turns taking a dump in it.

    • Hum

       The question is whether he knew, or should have known, she was doing it before or after the fact. If he only found out afterwards then it is absurd that he should be held responsible.

      • Charlize Moreau

        Even if you do know, it’s not exactly easy to stop someone who is set on doing whatever it is they’re set on doing. Just ask any parent. You can tell them to stop, but that’s about it. They’ll most likely ignore you and do it anyways. If you’re able to take physical measures to stop someone, it’s still no guarantee they’ll be stopped. In most cases they’ll find a way to do it without your knowledge.

        This judgment really shows how we’re all letting things get out of control. Charging the man even though he isn’t guilty is not in any way, shape, or form what I would call justice. It’s the complete opposite in fact. If the people currently in charge want to be unreasonable and unfair, then I say we follow the example they’re setting. They do not deserve our respect, certainly not when they do utterly contemptible things like this. It won’t be the last time we see news like this either.

      • OccamsKatana

        Not to mention the fact that policing your wife isn’t good for business! I ratted on my wife once, cuz she broke the law and did 5 MPH over the posted speed limit. The police weren’t amused, nor was my wife.  (Fictional story, for the purpose, but you get the point….!)

        I could maybe understand if the perp was a child, that the parents be held responsible, MAYBE, but not for the actions of another adult.

    • meowmix

      ever since cristianity became a dirty word and being a muslim became the new religeon of the west. bye bye long ago went these famouse words ‘not my brothers keeper’ from the former chistian europe bible.

      • Death

        Good, the people around me do not automatically deserve anything from me, anyways.

      • Nortov

        I guess you haven’t actually read the Bible then? There’s plenty of cases in it of people, or indeed animals, being held accountable for things that other people have down.

        • meowmix

          what people do and what the bible says to do are often at odds with each other. free will and all that. hth. hand.

      • Derpenstein

         Oh yeah, because the Bible NEVER holds people, or indeed animals, accountable for things they weren’t responsible for…

        Leviticus 20:16 ‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
        kill both the woman *and the animal.* They must be put to death; their
        blood will be on their own heads.’

        • Obvious Much?

          Excellent. So the bible has sanctioned the slaughter of George Bush and his wife – he’s a fucking chimp!

        • Conservative

          Leviticus is not part of the Christian Religion.  Leviticus is part of the JEWISH Religion and is part of the reason why Jesus Christ said stop the madness! and invented a new religion of love and tolerance.

          There is a lot of crazy stuff in the Jewish religion.  No Christians have ever followed crazy Jewish religious stuff.

        • Derpenstein

           @14dd4656a4f884dc9d60c7cb1787ebf0:disqus Uhhh…

          I guess you must have missed the relentless gay bashing by Christians for the last ~2000 years then Guess which ‘half’ of the Bible is used to justify that?

        • meowmix

           ell then. time to nuke nz, wales and the other sheep fuckers in oz. lets get old school biblical on thier arses.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/BUSYAWMRBZOVHLEA566TYPDBKM D

           >Leviticus is not part of the Christian Religion

          So the word of god is not good enough for you?

        • Decimus

          A small part of why Christianity is taking such a bashing is because of the stupid extremists who feel that they understand what God wants more than the next person.  Nowhere in the bible does it say that an extremist has the right to judge anyone else.

          I have a sister who has a degree in sacred theology and she was bashing my brother for getting his wife pregnant before they were married.  After telling her to shut up about it, she told me that the only reason that I would say that is if myself and my girlfriend were having sex before marriage.  Telling the prude to mind her own business only made her scream, “You are!!!”

          As much as it saddens me that my own sister is part of the group of Christian wack-o’s, you can’t really reason with them, but you can’t take them seriously.  It’s just like PETA or any other extremist group.  The Bible is meant to provide guidelines on how to live.  Much of the old testament is dated and replaced by the new testament.  Much of the new testament is dated and has not been updated by anything.  But the golden rule still applies and I think, despite my holy-roller sister’s arrogant approach, that if people minded their own business on religion (not using it to cut people down), people would be a lot better off.

        • Guest

          @f1a77db172f977b3ea38d259f35bef66:disqus

          “Nowhere in the bible does it say that an extremist has the right to judge anyone else.”

          Intersting claim. Let’s examine.

          Leviticus 20:13 “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

          Technically, your claim is correct. The bible does the judging for you; all you have to do is kill the people it judges.

        • Latecia

          I am guessing that for whatever reason, lots of this stuff is not practiced b/c UI have not heard of ppl being killed for xxx w/ animals. Also how does she have blood on her hands if she washed it off if there was any, and they say animals do not have souls, so if this is correct, then how is it bad?

      • Toasterenvelope

        Tea Party in U.S. says things like they are ‘not my brothers keeper’ so you might enjoy them.

        besides xianity has been pretty rude to pretty much every non xian

    • Kherua

       Actually, it is very simple : the original law just wanted to swiftly pass a “we flag you as a file-sharer, we cut your Internets.”
      Reactions from the French internauts have moved that into a long and painful process during which the defenders of this “3 strikes” approach battled to have their proposition adopted, despite the overwhelming case made against it.

      In the end, they did get their law, which had mutated into a “The account you are legally the owner of (because IP isn’t enough to identify a person) seems to have been (the company responsible for the denunciation is private and completely opaque) involved in infringement, please prove you did all is humanly possible (presumption of culpability, a heresy in every case but this one apparently) to prevent it (without of course giving any legal ground for “what is humanly possible”, because that’s technically *not* possible, but why should the lawmakers care about such details… :< ) or be punished. Regardless of what actually happened, that's not the question any more."

      Nice, uh? We gotta love our representatives. :)

      • meowmix

        maybe pier should sue his internet provider for allowing him to have an account which could be used to dling copyrighted material. the bottom line is this: isp’s are enablers.

        • Kherua

           Unfortunately here, suing is definitively not the way things are done. It’s actually more likely that the guy doesn’t even try to appeal, for the same reason he didn’t get a lawyer : it would cost him much more than the fine. He’s better off paying… :/

          Besides, I was a tad too cynical in my first post : to be honest, the lawmakers here probably did expect some “means to secure the access” (bad translation, sorry) to be officially released. The Internet spokespersons tried warning them it was not possible, but they didn’t believe them. Over 2 years later, the committee responsible for coming up with these specifications all but gave up, hence the problem of this guy who could not do anything to “secure his access”.
          That’s why the French article says he self-incriminated : in the current state of that law, he (or a lawyer) could have waged there is no patented “securisation system”, therefore the guy couldn’t be accused of anything. But since he acknowledged his wife was sharing, it was easy for the prosecutor to show he “didn’t do anything to stop it”.

          Even though he wouldn’t have known *what* to do, the fact he confessed that gave them ammo…

          (On another note, we do NOT want to aggravate the ISPs, they are already enough on the side of the copyright trolls as they are… If we start trying to make them liable, it will slap us right back in our faces… Or more likely, bank accounts. >< )

        • Yahoo

          well good idea but try this, online they have dmca and by connecting to the internet, you are safeguarded by dmca and because it exist, then anything that you downloaded should be protected under it as you thought it was dmca complaint, and if not you agree to remove it (but not these days because mafiaa is greedy and wants to control internet so should have to pay to remove it because if 1 dl = 100,000 $ lots (fbi warning on videos), then it should be a bargain at removing it for $10.

        • Toasterenvelope

           no dude or lady, ISP’s are not enablers, unless you are being ferociously sarcastic. Sounds like you prefer a partitioned internet access scheme? for shame!

    • N168058

       ”The court (le Tribunal de Police de Belfort) found the man guilty of failing to secure his Internet connection.”

      And mind that it’s possible to crack a wifi network.
      One could always say i turned on the wep encryption.

    • Piercing_male

       I think that is the gist of the French law, and I believe German law is also similar, in that there is a personal responsibility side to things far beyond what is enshrined in American and English statute.

      This “personal responsibility” side of things precedes, as I recall its more ingrained within what we would call common law (its a long time ago skirted with law as a possible career and was reading up on various differences between countries so could be wrong), the French 3 strikes.

      That said, I think it was specifically worded in such a way that if you received the first, second and third strikes then by this very act, of receiving the notices, you must have known your connections was being used to facilitate copyright infractions and therefore should have done “something” to prevent further use of your connection to facilitate.

      I guess there are possible defenses… such as a shared wireless access point in a shared house, or student accommodation, or campus, where multiple people had access to a single internet connection as there potentially would be no way to know who was infringing within the group and no way to monitor the users and to cut all access except to the bill payer would be impractical or impossible.

      I guess another way would be if your modem/router was capable of having a shared access point seperate from your standard internal, wired and non wired, network as a lot do and you didn’t know about it or were unsure how to disable it or even if it was working or not…

      my router can open a seperate wireless ip subnet that is specifically designed to allow an open access point that doesnt infringe on the “normal” subnet (for security) but as with all modems its interface and instructions are not at all “user friendly” and I would guess that very few people would know about it much less be able to know if it was open or not… I wouldn’t be able to use this excuse, however…

      I do have the open access point open as a service as I believe its the right thing to do, its the whole idea of it being there in the first place, its how the likes of McD’s, BT, et.al. set theirs up so their internal network is isolated from the wireless open access point, however the IP that is registered and recordable on the big www is identical for both internal networks subnets. My internal is 192.* my open access is 10.* but as far as the big www are they are both x.x.x.x.79 and there is no way to link which internal address is comunicating with the external internet.

      • Ophelia Millais

        See the “No Duty to Secure Wi-Fi from BitTorrent Pirates, Judge Rules” report that Ernesto posted yesterday. If you live in Northern California, you wouldn’t have to worry. It doesn’t guarantee a judge in another district won’t find otherwise, but it helps. It probably won’t be appealed, since these trolls generally don’t want to litigate, but if it did survive on appeal, the stronger precedent would apply to most of the westernmost U.S. states. More likely, the trolls will just forum-shop, only suing people in districts where the judges rule in their favor. 

    • Dondilly

      I can’t see where the self incrimination comes in.

      As the infringer is a soon to be ex partner, there is no telling what their motives were and she could well have denied it until she realized things had got out of hand.
      Her eventual confession in no way implies the account holder had prior knowledge of her intention to infringe.

      This judgement would be like the owner of a car receiving a speeding ticket baseed on camera evidence after loaning his car out.  The judge upholding the fine saying he must be guilty as he knew who was driving.

      In the infringement case, has mrs infringer denied the issue, knowing how insecure home dsl is, he had no reason to disbelieve any denial.

    • Gear Mentation

       Because in point of fact he could control it.  Just because controlling your internet connection is an unfair burden doesn’t mean it’s impossible.  Apparently the French law goes exactly where the MAFIAA wanted the American law to go. http://torrentfreak.com/no-duty-to-secure-wi-fi-from-bittorrent-pirates-judge-rules-120912/

    • PiRat

      Welcome to Frogland.

    • OccamsKatana

      The American people are responsible for the actions of the American government. No, let me expand on that. The rest of the world is responsible for the actions of the American government.  I agree. Why should we be responsible for the actions of another, even when we tell the American government we don’t want it.

    • SoItBegins

      It’s called ‘spite’. You are supposed to police anyone you let use your connection, out of sheer spitefulness.

    • GeorgeDWarren

      if you own a gun, legally, and leave it in your house, unsecured, your child picks up that gun and shoots someone else, you are looking at a HUGE lawsuit and some criminal charges of negligence.
      i dont know if negligence should be applied to copyright law, as its quite extreme, but i hope this answers your question regarding accountability for others actions.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

         See the above argument regarding the difference between a CHILD and a FULLY EMPOWERED ADULT.

        If you keep a gun in your house and your spouse shoots someone with it, there is no way you can be held culpable assuming that you kept your gun as your local national regulations required.

        An even better choice of metaphor would be a jointly owned car being used by one of the owners to hit someone in the street. The law is quite clear whose responsibility it is.

        Now if you are trying to tell me we should all secure our computers against them being used by our family members…honestly…

        Your entire argument lacks validity. For many reasons.

        • GeorgeDWarren

          as i said, i dont know if the same laws can be applied to copyright as they are extreme, but in the case of a weapon (not everyday objects not meant to kill) then accountability is definitely there! A gun’s sole purpose is to kill or injure, it is not the sole purpose of a car to kill or injure, and that is where the negligence lies.
          In terms of copyright, they are trying to associate an unsecure internet connection in the same way which i do believe is unwarranted, because the main purpose of the internet is connect to other computers and not pirate, though it can be used as such.
          and most national gun laws require you to secure your weapon and definitely keep it out of reach of minors. even in places where there are no specific laws, negligence for which has been argued successfully.

          Negligent Entrustment in Firearm Cases
          Negligent
          entrustment cases are similar to negligent sale cases. In both negligent
          sale and negligent entrustment cases the crux of the argument is that
          the defendant was negligent in allowing someone who the defendant knew
          or had reason to know was incompetent, inexperienced or reckless to have
          access to the gun. Entrustment occurs when the gun is given to the
          person, the person is given permission to use it or the defendant knows
          that the person will use it without permission.
          Courts often
          combine negligent entrustment with negligent storage because negligent
          storage is a passive form of negligent entrustment. Negligent storage
          involves storing the weapon in such a way that it is likely to be
          misused. The usual scenario in such cases is when guns are left
          accessible to children, particularly small children who do not and
          cannot be expected to appreciate the danger posed by the weapon. In
          negligent storage cases, the theft of the gun does not necessarily
          relieve the owner of liability if the theft was reasonably foreseeable.
          In such cases the courts will look at how securely the weapon was
          stored.

      • joexxx

         If I leave a broom stick unsecured in the house and your boyfriend uses it to sodomize you… am I responsible?
        Think before you post.

        • GeorgeDWarren

          first of all,  we are talking about accountability, if the rape in question happened at a supermarket, then yes ofcourse the supermarket is somewhat responsible, if it happened at your house, then maybe you too could be somewhat responsible, perhaps not in a criminal way, but possibly in a civil way. You can bet your arse you would be sued.
          Now ofcourse, it would be FAR more unfortunate if it was a weapon designed to kill or mame rather than an everyday object. Guns are designed to kill, so leaving that un-secured is definitely a huge basis for accountability. Brooms are meant for cleaning, thus you may not feel the need to secure it, understandibly so, but a gun? now lets see if a jury would agree with you!?
          think before YOU post.

    • François_Hollande

      “French 3 Strikes: Court Fines First File-Sharer, Even Though He’s Innocent”

      C’est la vie !!

    • Guest

      This doesn’t shock me. I once got a seat belt ticket because my friend was riding in the backseat of my jeep that had no seat belts installed. It’s more of an offroad jeep. The judge said that is my duty to not let anyone ride in that seat since it is my car. It’s sad what the world is turning into.

    • Christophe Thomas

      well the poor guy did self incriminate himself … he said to the police that he knew and that he should have done something but he did not know how. You may applaud the honesty of the guy or mock his nativity …  either way those are the people that HADOPI does catch: honest people that have no clue how to download a file. Just proves how wrong the approach. If they guy would have said no no – I don’t know nothing of all this he never would have been convicted. 

      I have to admit that the fine is reasonable – you have to give this credit to the French legal system for applying common sense and are not being bought by the system or some lobby. Let’s just hope it stays that way.

  • MAFIAAArse

    Fuck you copy troll

  • orfeas0

    He should have called the police as soon as he saw his wife pirating!
    “Hello, we have an emergancy here! My wife is downloading rihanna songs illegally, come arrest her!”.

    Fucking retarded politicians and their equally retarded laws…

    • MAFIAAA Know the Law

       Its not their law its OUR law!

    • Hogspace

      Let’s be absolutely honest here. He should be fined €150 just for being stupid enough to live in France. Nasty authoritarian country that is. Vive la Liberté my arse. 

      • Kherua

         Haha, yeah, how stupid was I to be born… :D

        Just name me one country that is doing better in these regards, and i’ll consider learning their language, culture and history… Maybe in 10 or 20 years I can start considering a nationality change!

        Or maybe, like many of us, i’ll just stay here and desperately try to change things back to the way they should be. Silly me. :)

        • Hogspace

          I can’t even ride my bike in France without wearing a fucking stupid yellow bib and carrying a breathalyser. You are under Dictatorship! Sadly, I just go elsewhere.

        • orfeas0

          Greece. We have so many problems that nobody gives a f**k about copyright infringement, except in a famous porn case with alexandratou.
          You better start learning greek ;)

    • Kherua

       Some people are starting to advise to “get divorced and/or send our children far away right now, just in case, while we wait for this Hadopi to finally do their job!” :þ

    • meowmix

       ”rihanna you say, well in that case, we’ll come aroun’ and give her a good truncheoning for dling complete fucking crap.”

      • meowmix

        what the fuck happend to that? it didn’t look like that when i composed it.

        • Anyone

          don’t use brackets, disqus will interpret that as HTML and fuck up your post

    • Violated0

      Nice but copyright infringement is a Civil and not Criminal law meaning it is not a police matter. Also rights holders have to police their own creation where no one else, like a concerned spouse, is liable to do this for them.

      Hadopi adds one exception about not allowing infringement over your own paid for connection. Most people just change their system to avoid being tracked.

      • orfeas0

        I thought my sarcasm was clear…
        But yeah hadopi must change asap, i wonder what the french people are doing about it…

        • Violated0

          Yes I spotted your joke but it was still invalid. Nice on-topic joke though.

  • Hollywood Bigshot

    Rihanna songs?

    No wonder hes getting divorced.

  • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

    The law is an ass at the best of times, but this law in France is an ass covered in it’s own damned shit as people get infected from it’s disease-ridden faeces.

    There is no justice possible in holding any internet account holder liable for EVERYTHING that happens via their connection.

    This stupid law and the even more stupid Court decision as noted above will turn  innocent citizens in France into Police or at best a super-grass against their own family, friends or passers-by.

    It’s utterly insane, unjust and unworkable.  So c’mon France – get a fecken grip onto reality and ease up.

    • FascismComingToYourCountrySoon

      Fascism gave us the Hitler Youth perhaps it’s about to give us the French Parents.

    • Popehat

      I think its unfair that these judgement are made in the courts.. It seems some the law/rules we make are though legislation and spme are made in court. I like legislation because it warns you in advance of whats illegal or not.. The courts suck because you have to wait for the court judgement to see if you’re in the wrong and by then its too late..

      Hope i explained that right… Im saying this because this guy’s wife admited she downloaded, not the man. So now the court has basicly decided that billpayer is responsible for any “infringement” and this precedent can be used in further cases. It doesn’t seem fair.

      • Kherua

         No, it’s the opposite here : the law that passed specifically states the owner will be held accountable for “failing to secure his access” if he is flagged by the copyright hounds.
        Actually, the use of Court and a judge was a victory for the people, a request we managed to sneak into the law : the original project (and the official advice from Hadopi) was to punish right away, without any further hearing, trial or investigation of any kind. Coupled to the “presumption of culpability” this law bears, yay for the law and its primary purpose to defend and protect the people… ^^;

        • Guest

          I’d just ask to see the evidence against me regarding the first 3 strikes. I doubt they’d provide it and even if they did it wouldn’t prove anything. They saw your IP in a swarm, maybe even downloaded a piece from you. That doesn’t prove anything. You haven’t uploaded a complete file. They would also infringe and would also have to be held accountable.

          Nothing else to say. I walk free.

        • Ophelia Millais

          @Guest:twitter  (sorry, can’t reply directly because comments can’t be very deeply nested here.) … Careful with that “maybe even downloaded a piece from you; that doesn’t prove anything” line of reasoning. It proves you were offering pieces for distribution (which is the same as actual distribution in some courts), and if you weren’t the original seeder (easily demonstrated if you were at any point still downloading), it’s almost certain you copied that piece from someone else, both acts without permission from the copyright owner.
          In any case, you can’t go into court with a “I did it, but it’s OK because I only did it a little bit” type of defense. The law doesn’t work that way. You can’t copy and distribute an entire page from a novel, for example, unless your action passes fair-use tests (or equivalent, if your country even has such a thing). You can’t be like “you only proved I infringed one page”. In copyright law, there’s no distinction between a piece and the whole; the work is infringed if any part of it is. Otherwise you’d have people saying they didn’t infringe if they made some little change somewhere in the work.However… HADOPI isn’t court. They don’t have to prove jack unless you’re one of the unlucky few (11 so far?) who gets three strikes and then gets taken to court.

    • Whatever

      It means that in France if you get hacked over the internet it is your own fault.

      It has been done using your connection.

  • flubalubaful

    150 euros for someone else sharing songs on your internet connection possibly with you not knowing, mmmmm i think the courts got this wrong but with the fine being so low and the fact that it could have been thousands I would not appeal I would just install a vpn or something like that. Maybe move to a different isp as you will probably be monitored by your isp after the first fine. I guess if they are just forcing everyone to make sure there intenet connection is as private as you can make it witch is not a bad thing is it.

  • Venomn

    This is the most absurd thing i have ever heard of….fining someone not responsible for pirating is a joke.France has some dumb laws.but then again so does the US…why go after people who download/share,why not go after the sites themselves.they will make alot more money…Spending Tax Payer dollars on this is just a rediculous idea.guess downlading takes precident over murderer’s and baby rapers now.

    • Toasterenvelope

      Organizations DO go after sites. BREIN does it all the time, and that is one out a large array of interested lobbyists, specialist groups, etc.  It sucks taxes are being drawn to support this, but it is not the first time by a long-shot.

  • Guest

    This is the dumbest ruling I have seen since OJ was found innocent.

    • ScrewEwe2

      “If dat glove don’t fit, y’all has to acquit”.

      “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.

      “I wasn’t speeding ociffer”.

  • Guest

    So by that rationale, I can rob a bank in France and the bank , not me, would be the responsible party.

    • Dark

       Armed robbery and piracy are two different things, bud.

      • Guest

        He’s right, though. If the owner of a computer can be punished for committing  copyright infringement because somebody else pirated a song on it, then if I rob a bank that means the bank owner should be punished for committing bank robbery. 

        • Kherua

           No, because only Internets gets its very own specific laws that make no sense and go against every other law we have. We get special treatment. :)

          The existing laws already cover most ground and take care of this kind of nonsense. But since our lawmakers understand nothing about Internet, they felt the need to make new laws for it only. So we have an insane law here, but it only functions around copyright infringement (the whole thing revolves around a private company paid by right-holders to track down and denounce the file sharers). Outside this scope, no contravention, no trial on that ground, no punishment against common sense. It’s all just for us… And then we were complaining we got no luv! :3

      • OccamsKatana

        Not according to DEA, CIA, FBI, DOJ and all the other 3 letter American government departments. You get less time for violent crimes than you do for downloading a song. They do nothing about the drug trade, but dump tons of cash into hunting the major threats: teens downloading. Child pornography is rampant out there, but fuck it, let’s go after the easy targets with SWAT teams and nail them to the wall. Talk about fucked up priorities.

        • Toasterenvelope

          Pray tell, what is the average jail time for downloading a song? You are way off-base in my opinion.

        • OccamsKatana

          @efa2fb1d05a3cd62f44802f31c5c127b:disqus 

          99.9% of the folks reading got the point I was making, but here’s clarification just for you.

          fa·ce·tious? ?[fuh-see-shuhs] Show IPA
          adjective 1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark. 2. amusing; humorous. 3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.

  • djnforce9

    I guess they had to convict “someone” in order to attempt to justify that this law is not completely pointless and a huge resource leech so they bent the rules to do so. I suppose the guy has the option to now sue his ex-wife and make her cover all the charges if she doesn’t already do so willingly. SHE was the downloader after all and not him.

    Also, if a library has open wi-fi and someone downloads music on that connection, are they going to shut that off too? This clearly wasn’t very well thought out.

    • Kherua

      I agree on the “they had to convict someone” : they are on the verge of being simply suppressed by the new government, and the “0 conviction” bilan made them laughable.

      However, they did not bend the rules : this is exactly what we had been expecting since this law passed. This is what it promised, and finally starts to actually deliver. Nothing even surprising here, for anyone who followed the making of this law. That’s exactly what it was meant to do. ^^;

      Suing his ex wife is unlikely to happen ; as I said to someone up here, trials cos money, too much. And it’s not a “cultural” reflex, it something that sounds very American to me, if you excuse the cliché… ^^;

      As for the open wi-fi spots, this whole law has been a terrible blow on them, because they raised that very question and were answered they did count as “owners” and had to take the same measures as everyone else. No special treatments, so if they o start to enforce this inane law, most hotspots (like in libraries, fast-foods and cafés, or anything like that) will simply have to sop their service. They can’t afford the responsibility. :/

    • Toasterenvelope

       actually a city in USA had the community wifi cut off for just that reason. i think it was reported on this site actually.

  • Pianogamer

    We should have Jesus come by and put his name on our Internet subscriptions…

    Sin atonement FTW ;)

    • Jesus-the-invisible-honky

       Hi i’m Jesus, what do you want me to do?

  • Apexdigit

    We Americans can smirk at the obviously unfair French law. But for generations we have had a law that makes the owner of a vehical responsible for parking violations. It doesn’t matter if your wife, girlfriend, kid, employee did the illegal parking, you, the owner, must pay. People have paid parking tickets when a thief abandonded a stolen car.  They have paid if their car broke down where parking is forbidden. When tickets were a buck or two and enforcement was lax we said little. Today they can withold license plates and even jail a person for parking tickets which can cost hundreds of dollars. Yet there are no trials and no appeals. Being accused equals guilt. And we have grown so accustomed to this clearly wrong law that we accept it as one more cost of living in America. Are the French an worse than we are?

    • Guest

       Well, same in France. Although if you can prove that you are not the culprit, you get reimbursed. But you always need to pay first before being able to complain.

    • Whatever

      Basically this would imply that if someone puts a bomb under your car and it explodes killing a few people you find yourself on death row in the US.

  • Whatever

    Does the 150 euros mean that his strikes are reset ?

    • meowmix

       i’d like to know the answer to this too.

      • Popehat

         I would say NO. There is no way they would want to reset his strikes (especially if they don’t have too). The thing i’m wondering about is, what happens if (his connection) continues to download…. surely they wont fine him again.

        • Toasterenvelope

           Yeah they might put him in the stocks next.

  • Guest

    In fact, the law was also supposed to provide “a technical way” to “secure your connection”. And by “a technical way”, I mean “a spyware”, and by “secure your connection”, I mean “send the shit you do to the government”. They still have not provided anything (luckily for them, because it would be the opportunity to hack this shit and turn all the computers using this soft into a giant botnet)

    So technically, the man should have argued that he did not know how to do this, and point out the fact that the government did not do its part of the job. The real mistake here was to admit that he knew his wife was downloading, because it breaks this defense strategy: not knowing how to secure is a thing, but knowing it is not secure and do nothing about it is a deliberate act of neglect, which is what the law punishes.

    • Wormlore

      Correct on the first point. The second point depends on whether he had knowledge of her behavior beforehand or after he was called in by the judge. Plus, was there anything he could do? That remains to be proved.

      Anyway, this whole law was made on very wrong basis, and its main foundation is weak since the “means of securing your connection” still don’t exist (and never will). “HADOPI” was supposed to provide a list of such means in their letters of warning, but since they couldn’t find or create any they just decided that, thanks to a loophole in the law, they didn’t actually need to explain people how to secure their connection before warning and punishing them.

      This law is already wrong to begin with (asking people to do a better job at securing their network than any specialist in the domain does) and the ones that are supposed to enforce it are actually taking extra steps to ignore parts of it (the rare ones that actually balance things a bit in favor of the “guilty” internet user). That in itself is a bad sign.

      • Toasterenvelope

         i think the idea of securing a network would mean making access reasonably difficult for unknown outsiders to obtain service from *your* (whoever’s) internet connect. Getting into a security battle with your housemates is a ridiculous proposition, and is a selfish one to boot.

        • OccamsKatana

          I reposted this here so we can make sure you get the reply. Next time call me out with facts. And of course you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as is any zealot, but let’s base it on facts, shall we, else you come off like a fool.

          Pray tell, what is the average jail time for downloading a song? You are way off-base in my opinion.

          99.9% of the folks reading got the point I was making, but here’s clarification just for you.

          Hmmm, let me see. The Pirate Bay boys were sentenced to prison for FACILITATING downloading.

          http://torrentfreak.com/pirate

          http://www.geek.com/articles/n

          http://seattletimes.com/html/l

          http://www.breakingnews.ie/ire

          These are just a few of the MANY examples, so while you are reading the links, bend your dick way back and GFYS.

          fa·ce·tious? ?[fuh-see-shuhs] Show IPA adjective 1. not meant to
          be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark. 2. amusing;
          humorous. 3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something
          nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.
           

        • Wormlore

          That’s something I told when this stupid law was still being debated.
          - “Network security” is supposed to be about “preventing third parties to do something with your network that you don’t want them to”.
          - RIAA/MPAA/WhateverAA’s concept of “network security” is about “them, as third party making sure you don’t do with your network what they don’t want you to”. That’s like… a total opposite. A bit like “Trusted Computing” in a way: a complete perversion of words. 1984′s Newspeak made real.

    • ScrewEwe2

      Here in the US, I believe in most cases, a spouse can’t be made to testify against their spouse. I don’t know if that applies in other countries. 150 € isn’t half bad.

  • Fanden

    And so the tyranny begins.
    The amount of VPN users in France must have exploded lately.

    • chronoss chiron

      OVH backdoors sftp by default for example so make sure you know whom your dealing with

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003037095323 Jerilyn Nighy

    Someone teach her how to download videos from Youtube and convert them to her file format of choice.

  • pRAWPs

    Everyone saying this is unfair is either blinded by their desire to get content for free or just stupid. This isn’t the same as someone leaving their WiFi open and a random stranger downloading copyrighted content on it. This was the man’s wife and he clearly knew it was happening.

    Did you think when he said “Oh sorry, you can’t charge me. Yes, I knew my wife was the one downloading things, and yes, I got 3 warnings stating clearly that she was, but you can’t charge me because I didn’t actually do it” they were actually let him off? Why? This just opens the door for everyone else. “Oh I didn’t do, it, it was my brother” “I’m sorry sir, our mistake, run along now”. Nope, not going to happen. Now, if he could prove (through logs or whatever) that someone from outside was accessing his connection to download the content, it would be a different story.

    I actually agree with this 3 strikes policy. Sure, getting caught sucks, but lets face it, you’re stealing content. You know it isn’t legal, but there’s a very small chance of getting caught so whatever. It’s like doing a rolling stop at a stop sign in the country where you can clearly see there’s nobody around for 5 miles. Sure, it’s illegal, but who’s going to catch you?

    With the 3 strikes policy, you can effectively pirate as much as you want until you get 2 warning letters. People who are more discrete and sign up for VPNs, use private trackers and the like will still be able to pirate to their hearts content. Idiots like this man’s wife that Google “[band] [album] torrent” and click on the first result will get 3 warnings in the space of a month and go to court to pay a fine.

    This is the way it should be, it’s going back to the way it was where the majority of people couldn’t get pirated content for free (either because they didn’t know their way around a computer or didn’t have connections), but the minority that had access to scene FTP servers, Usenet, VPNs, private trackers and such were relatively unharassed, because on the whole, they didn’t really factor in to companies bottom line.

    Not everybody can get everything for free, and with internet now pretty much ubiquitous  and getting free content obscenely easy, this is what’s starting to happen, which is what’s causing companies and ISPs to start implementing these policies.

    • Gear Mentation

       ”Stealing content.”  Nah, let’s distinguish between real democracy wherein the laws are made by representatives of the people, and corporatocracy.  Then, let’s remember that in a corporatocracy the laws are not binding on the people.  Certainly, when the culture of the people is held hostage while its creators are not paid, we owe nothing to the law, and from a moral standpoint may ignore it.  To call it “stealing” is only a corruption of the concept, essentially newspeak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

    • Conservative

      You are saying he should have murdered his wife to stop her from downloading.  You are a freak.

    • Whatever

      By downloading this page you got copyrighted content for free as anything that anyone creates is automatically copyrighted by law (maybe US law needs you to apply for a copyright). Did you pay all who commented and TF for downloading their content or did you download for free ? Maybe you want to have it added explicitly so here it is: Copyright 2012.

      You are hereby ordered to immediatelly report yourself to the nearest jail.

      (Already mentioned) That something is against the law doesn’t mean it is stealing. Or is speeding stealing too ?

      Keeping logs only works for the MAFIAA as no court is going to accept a log as proof from any private person. Besides, anyone that has logs of random strangers downloading content would have been able to secury his/her wireless device. Also anyone can pretend their computer has a different name, IP address and MAC address, create logs and paint screenshots for the wireless connection. All which can be changed almost instantly as proof.

      That’s at least three strikes for you.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

       Except for every argument you just made you would be correct.

      We can start off with where you still have no clue that copying a file never is and never can be “theft”.

      And then we can also state – emphatically – that if what you claim regarding culpability is true then by the very same argument your own drivers license should be revoked if your spouse drives your car over the limit.

      In short, your wordwall is one solid mass of nonsense not backed by any other area of either law or common sense.

  • Anonymous

    it matters not what defense is used, you will be found guilty of something just to prove that they are right, can do what they like and you cant do anything to stop them. what a shame the person who has taken over Hadopi, from what i understand, thinks it’s a waste of time and money, still hasn’t switched the damn thing off!

  • Read

    The music industry is in its death throes.

  • Pingback: In de marge van het nieuws - Deel 5 - Pagina 168 - 9lives - Games Forum

  • Pingback: Fanka Rihanny winna grzywny na?o?onej na eks-m??a | Co nas uwiera

  • Gear Mentation

    So what we see here is that you need to STFU.  This again proves the rule that you never get convicted for Bittorrenting UNLESS you self-incriminate.  See this article: http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/11/what-to-do-if-prosecuted-for-sharing-culture-stfu/

  • Boblenton3

    someone please tell me..honestly – Is this really the end for us?……..

    • Violated0

      Hmmm 3 million French citizens tracked and 1 now fined €150.

      Seems good odds for not ending up in Court and even if so €150 is far removed from the $222,000 such people would get in the United States.

      In social terms this is about as damaging as a possible gnat bite.

  • ZungDoo

    lol, wow. Talking about a kangaroo court system. Too funny.

    Anon-Right.tk

  • suozhem

     http://lnk.co/I2VI9

  • Pingback: In the News.. | TorGuard.net Blog - Anonymous VPN Services

  • CaptainKidd

    He should pay a heavier fine who on their right mind marries a Rihanna songs dowloader it’s probaly why he’s getting divorced

    Solution create a Corporation name an animal CEO and put all your things in the Corporation’s name them when they come for you say it’s not my fault since corporation are people, the animal will do jail time /s

    Joking appart this means in France all people must have an IT Security course and know how to secure internet access and control all packages that flow from their routers, this is ridiculous and humorous at the same time

    Also found this might be interresting to know

    “ACTA Lives: How the EU & Canada Are Using CETA as Backdoor Mechanism To Revive ACTA” fb.me/1W3w9NeyS

  • Guest

    Let’s consider the fact that the new French government, not having seen any tangible result indicating HADOPI’s effectiveness, is seriously considering cutting funds to HADOPI or canning the whole thing altogether. Of course they had to get their shit together and bring someone to court even if it wasn’t the right person!

    • MadAsASnake

      Hence one where the detection wasn’t questioned – I wonder if they actually provided this fabled IP evidence at all?

      • Guest

        Are you kidding? If the sap admits to it there’s no need for the evidence to be presented – and damn do the MAFIAA salivate at the prospects of such a scenario. Not to say that their slipshod evidence was ever held up to close scrutiny.

    • servercity

      thee french government planted this bloke and slipped him and his missus two crates of chatuex nuef 69 and a years supply carrefour frozen garlic baguettes. the whole episode stinks and yes Hadopi is coming to a conclusion very soon. 

  • Pingback: HADOPI, cade il primo pirata francese | infropy - information entropy

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=676827475 Luke Solis

    TIME to sue the ex!

  • Freja

     €150 and no suspended service. Looks like not too much happened.
    Still, he should not have been fined at all.
    But compare that with the fine of poor Jammie Thomas.

    • MadAsASnake

      And how many millions in taxpayers Euros were sunk into this squalid enterprise? Value for money it ain’t.

  • Abunchofgibberish

    In 2012 people are still paying thousands of dollars in fines and court fees for downloading a few Pop songs. Fuck you, legal system. Seriously, fuck this.

    • ScrewEwe2

      Stay away from the new Pop crap. I’m sure they devote more effort to busting people downloading a few Rhianna songs than whole discography’s of non-pop stuff. When I was young I had quite a few muscle cars and was alway’s getting pulled over. Got a little older and realized generic looking family cars don’t get much attention. I still drive fast, albeit less recklessly, and I blend in with the rest of the traffic, because everyone seems to speed. 

  • Based God

     Stupid that he’s held responsible for what his soon-to-be ex-wife did, but I mean really, 3 warnings bro.

    • Violated0

      Well he did marry her so they share all worldly possessions including Court imposed fines.

  • George Wilson

    I agree it is unfortunate that this man has been held accountable for his soon-to-be-ex-wife downloading music illegally, but I don’t think that is a defense. He was given the appropriate notices by the French authorities and the legislation specifically holds the owner of the internet connection responsible. He openly admitted to knowledge of her downloading activities which even rules out pleading ignorance. He should be prosecuted as allowed by law.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

       You mean the same way we should hold a car owner responsible if his spouse uses said car in a hit-and-run? Instead of charging the actual driver?

      You have a very odd outlook on what the law ought to be.

      • LetshaveaTVparty

        Well, Forfeiture law is pretty close to that in the states. Imitation is flattery, you know.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p0120a5509de8970c ???

    Fascist law

  • Pingback: French Anti-Piracy Law Claims First Victim, Convicted of Failing to Secure His Internet Connection | Pimp My Resume

  • Violated0

    It is only a shame he did not tell the Court that he has never seen the Hadopi warning letters because his wife hid them from him. He was also unaware of all infringement his wife did until day he got the Court summons and confronted her.

    Then he would be seen as innocent in all matters beyond paying for the connection his wife used.

    Anyway good going Hadopi to fine the wrong person when the real infringer was stated and known.

  • Miami Sunset

    Basically he got about the same as a speeding ticket. The judge was reasonable about it. He wasn’t sent to jail nor fined thousands of dollars. But the law was technically broken so the judge had to do something.

  • Your Daddy

    Are you people fucking that stupid?

    He can be held responsible for his wife’s actions because he owned the Internet connection. Therefore he could have put a firewall on it and stopped anyone from using it.

    If he was to stupid to firewall off the Internet connection that could potentially be abused by his wife, he deserves everything he got.

    Ignorance is not an excuse and you fucking dumb arses that think him not knowing how to firewall a connection you are responsible for is OK, need to be dragged out the back and fucking shot. 

    You fucking oxygen thieves.

    • Techanon

      as if anybody could configure a firewall right…
      anyways the only thing a tipical firewal can do is open and close ports…
      thinking that a firewall can stop a torrent client is stupid.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

       Nice bit of vitriol there, troll.

      Personally I agree that anyone unable to monitor and control their own network shouldn’t own a computer. From my own point of view as a sysadmin that excludes roughly 90% of the citizenry.

      Including you, given that you think securing a computer is a matter of “firewalling” it. Kindly march your own self out of the back.

      What you are talking about is that the man in question should treat his SPOUSE as if she was a juvenile under his dominion. Nice going there, jack.

    • Toasterenvelope

      Lordy! Lordy! Women shouldn’t be allowed to be on the internet or wear skirts above their ankles, either, huh? Get a clue you verbal abuser- the lady might have been a valued part of the family unit and permitted to make her own decisions.

    • PushOffGrub

       Push off you rude grub.
      My Daddy is a pedophile who used to rape me – you’re not my daddy, but you sure are rude

    • servercity

      i am so glad your daddy can use this channel to contribute to humanities ongoing experiment in how to be fuck brain without actually using up the oxygen the rest of us need to laugh at his stupidity.

  • I’m Batman

    People copy & save images from the interwebs — ALL THE TIME.

    How long before this TOO becomes “a crime” . . . ??????

  • Alrock

    “The court (le Tribunal de Police de Belfort) found the man guilty of failing to secure his Internet connection”

    That’s like not locking your car, someone stealing it & killing someone with it & you get done for murder instead of the car thief.

  • Christophe Thomas

    reading some French news – OMG – this guy really beats it!! When he got the first or second notification  he went himself to the police with his computer to have it “cleaned”  - he was convinced that when cooperation with the police it would make it all go ways. He seems to have even cancelled his internet contract  … that’s why he did not get the third notification … well sort of unclear why this all happened to him … absurd … 

  • Pingback: French piracy law claims first (innocent) victim | Geeklin

  • Mathieu KOLB

    Being french, i am fully ashamed of this, the guy is innocent, in an audio interview he talks about ‘adriana’ songs, he do not even know Rihana.
    As always law is for powerfull people.

    Shame on our politician and our Justice System

  • DavyDev

    Only French speaking countries are so stupid to hold others rather than who commit the crime accountable. The French Way of poky thinking.

    • Toasterenvelope

       Bigot

      • servercity

        troll

  • P2pfreak

    Fuck these hadopi rats. Sharing is caring, sharing ftw! I will never stop. My 3 1GB/s seedboxes running 24/7 ;) 

  • meowmix

    @efa2fb1d05a3cd62f44802f31c5c127b:disqus yes, i was being sarcastic. really. how can you blame the isp, they  provide a service, how we use it should be upto us and  not the isp. i wouldn’t have called it ferocious, but i like that you think it was. btw i don’t need to sit down when i go for a jimmy riddle, that’s my gender coverd.

  • Pingback: Rob’s Radar 9/14 | Robert Croak

  • Pingback: French Anti-Piracy Law Claims First Victim, Convicted of Failing to Secure His Internet Connection | Electronic Frontier Foundation

  • Pingback: Corte francesa multa al primer infractor de la ley Hadopi, pese a que es inocente - FayerWayer

  • Pingback: Corte francesa multa al primer infractor de la ley Hadopi, pese a que es inocente | SoftMexico - (SinapsysMx)

  • Pingback: French court fined the first lawbreaker Hadopi, despite his innocence | Tech News Pedia

  • joexxx

    French idiots will always be French idiots.
    Sounds like they need to be f&&cked in the ass by the Germans again…

  • Pingback: Corte francesa multa al primer infractor de la ley Hadopi, pese a que es inocente Noticias

  • Pingback: El primer condenado por Hadopi era inocente, la ‘piratilla’ era su mujer

  • mudslingerwindpipe

    i know these people. they drink red wine, they eat garlic. they walk about with batons and baguettes in the rain with onions about their person.. they are stuck in the nineteenth century and their internet is in the twenty second already, is it any wonder the courts have their heads up their arses in a country where a blank cd or dvd costs about the same as one does with music/film on it in Germany and spain. France is stuck in the past and until it removes protectionism from its products and supermarkets file sharing will continue fine or no. 

  • huoouuo

     http://lnk.co/I2VI9

  • Not_Important_here

    Having an Internet connection with a company is a legal contract.  Thus the name of persons taking out that contract are responsible for the product and how it is used.  In this case an internet connection and how that is used – ie what is downloaded etcetera.
    My query is this –
    If someone you knew used your internet connection to, unknowingly to you, download child pornography and this was discovered by the police (as one would hope), is it you who gets gaoled or the paedophile?
    Where does the justice system and police authority decide the line is between who is responsible for their internet connection and who isn’t? Surely in this circumstance only the perpetrator would be gaoled? If this be so, then how can there be two different rulings for the same crime – others using your internet for their own illegal activities?

    • servercity

      french law has yet to be tested on this current prosecution. if appealed, they would have a long drawn out case involving thousands of hours of work and an inconclusive outcome is sure to be the ending. someone will appeal eventually…..we await that day

  • Pingback: #251: Se olimme me! | PuhujainKulma - viikottainen paneelikeskustelupodcast teknologiasta

  • http://twitter.com/pitchblack00 Voltariy Sarrella

    So that’s our dystopian version of a future where you can get in trouble for sharing a silly tune on the network…Our government is telling us how to use our internet connection, well how about we ban the government from using our internet channels? How would they feel then?… Actually that’s a possibility, RSA and DES encryption methods are very strong, enough to bar even annoying governments, maybe that’s an idea.

  • Pingback: Apple, Kodak, Home Shopping Network:Intellectual Property | Shopping Program

  • Pingback: Apple, Kodak, Home Shopping Network:Intellectual PropertyJailbreak News | Jailbreak News

  • Pingback: Apple, Kodak, Home Shopping Network:Intellectual Property - Bloomberg |

  • Pingback: Apple, Kodak, Home Shopping Network:Intellectual Property | Shopping News Blog

  • rmstallman

    This case reveals the deep evil of Hadopi: punishimng people forfailing to enforce the copyright regime against others. In effect, itconscripts everone in France as soldiers in the evil War on Sharing.People in France should resist conscription by running wirelessnetworks without keys. To protect your own security, communicate withservers using SSH and HTTPS.
     

  • Pingback: French Anti-Piracy Law Claims First Victim, Convicted of Failing to Secure His Internet Connection | GrassrootsHeadlines.com

  • Pingback: Netizen Report: YouTube Edition - Global Voices Advocacy

  • Pingback: Eight ‘Music Pirates’ To Face Copyright Tribunal, One To Defend In Person | TorrentFreak

  • Pingback: Eight ‘Music Pirates’ To Face Copyright Tribunal, One To Defend In Person | Best Seedbox

  • Pingback: Eight ‘Music Pirates’ To Face Copyright Tribunal, One To Defend In Person | We R Pirates

  • Pingback: Eight ‘Music Pirates’ To Face Copyright Tribunal, One To Defend In Person | Zombie Torrents - Ultimate Torrents Downloads

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.