The judge will then review the case and hand down any one of a range of penalties, from fines through to disconnecting the Internet connection of the infringer.

This week the Hadopi office for the first time released official data on the massive anti-piracy effort. The scope of the operation is mind-boggling, but whether it will result in the desired outcome is yet to be seen.

Despite millions of file-sharers being tracked, France has yet to witness its first disconnection.

The Hadopi agency revealed that since October last year the IP-addresses of 18 Million file-sharers were reported by their ‘hacked‘ tracking partner Trident Media Guard. Of this massive list a randomly selected sample of one million IP-addresses was sent to the Internet providers to obtain further information on the subscribers, and 900,000 identities were returned.

This mass discovery process resulted in 470,000 first warning emails, which equals little over 50,000 per month. The number of people who received a second warning is currently stuck at 20,000 and only 10 Internet subscribers received a third warning.

According to the Hadopi agency these 10 cases are currently being investigated by a judge. These alleged offenders risk a fine of 1500 euros and could lose their Internet connection temporarily. Thus far, however, no French file-sharers have been disconnected.

As the results of France’s controversial three-strikes anti-piracy law are revealed, many people doubt whether the costs involved with the massive operation are justified.

Last month a report from the UN’s Human Rights Council labeled Internet access a human right, arguing that Hadopi is a disproportionate law that should be repealed. This assessment was supported by Reporters Without Borders recently.

“Aside from its practical omissions and shortcomings, the Hadopi law directly violates the principles of the defence of free expression by making it possible to disconnect people from the Internet. Its adoption was one of Reporters Without Borders’ reasons for adding France to the list of ‘countries under surveillance’ in its latest ‘Enemies of the Internet’ report,” the organization writes.

In addition to the human rights issues it is also highly questionable how significant the claimed deterrent effect of the disconnection threat is.

A recent survey by ZDNet.fr found that just 4% of file-sharers polled said they have stopped sourcing music from illegal services for fear of detection. Instead, many BitTorrent users simply turn to proxies and VPNs to conceal their identities.

Thus far, however, the French Government is determined to continue its war against piracy. Effective or not, the Hadopi office will continue to track down millions of French file-sharers each month in the hope that the tide turns in their favor.

Source: France Tracks Down 18 Million File-Sharers

One site which utilized Canadian hosting was the French site Liberty Land (LL). Listed among France’s top 200 sites, Liberty Land carried estimated 30,000 links to albums and 100,000 links to movies and TV shows. This material was not hosted by the site, but made available from services such as MegaUpload and RapidShare.

However, despite the perceived legality of mere links – even when coupled with friendly Canadian hosting – in May 2010 rightsholder groups SACEM and ALPA filed a complaint against Liberty Land with the French authorities.

Last week, police described the subsequent investigation as “difficult” due to a combination of Canadian hosting and measures put in place by the site’s operators to remain anonymous. Nevertheless, an operation against Liberty Land went ahead.

According to a report, its alleged operators have now been arrested. It is being suggested that an investigation into one of the site’s major link uploaders led police to the men.

Jean-Philippe Vidal, the chief police officer leading the operation, said three men aged between 25 and 30 were arrested in Marseille, near Le Havre and in the Paris suburb of Montreuil.

Some reports are indicating the trio generated up to $285,300 in revenue from banner advertising on the site, an accusation which has led to them being charged with organised counterfeiting.

The men have been released pending a trial, where they face a possible five years in jail and fines of up to $700,000.

Liberty Land is currently down and there are no indications it is set to return.

Source: Arrested File-Sharing Admins Face Jail, $700,000 Fines

Now aged 25, Valade was the owner of ed2K link site Emule Paradise, which at the time was one of the most popular sites of its type. Indeed, the claims from the movie company plaintiffs including Association of Film Producers, the National Federation of Film Distributors, the Association of Independent Producers, Universal, Galatée Films and Pathé Rennare, are that the site attracted around 300,000 visitors every day.

From this traffic, say the plaintiffs, Valade generated a sizeable advertising income. During the two year period in question it’s claimed he had revenues of more than 416,000 euros which were placed in bank accounts in Belize and Cyprus. Five other defendants including the Future Net (Net Avenir) advertising agency will appear alongside Valade at the trial.

Valade, now aged 25, is accused of facilitating the illegal distribution of 7,113 copyright movies, some of which were pre-release, between 2005 and 2006. He is also accused of the illegal copying of 19 films which were found on his computer following his December 2006 arrest.

It is by no means certain that Valade will lose his case. A similar case brought by 20th Century Fox, Columbia, Disney, Paramount, Universal and Warner against link site see-link.net failed last year after the plaintiffs presented no evidence to show that even a single infringement had taken place due to the site’s links.

“The underlying question is, can Vallade be held liable for links that are Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI), and not Uniform Resource Locators (URL),” Guillaume Champeau of file-sharing news site Numerama told TorrentFreak this afternoon.

“That is, if there is no evidence that the referenced content was actually shared when the .ed2K files were created, can you say it is infringement? Even if the content is shared, is it second degree infringement?”

In addition, one of the core arguments of the plaintiffs is that eMule Paradise offered the eMule file-sharing software for download – complete with how-to guides – alongside links to infringing downloads.

“[The plaintiffs] say that given ‘the context’ of eMule Paradise, with lots of links enabling the downloading of infringing content, the act of offering eMule for download is criminal,” Guillaume explains.

“Since the DADVSI law passed in 2006, it is forbidden in France to ‘knowingly and by any form, publish, make available or communicate to the public a device clearly intended for making available copyrighted works and material without authorization’.”

If found guilty Valade faces a 3 year jail sentence, fines of up to 300,000 euros and damages payouts potentially running to millions of euros.

Update: According to Guillaume, the trial has been postponed.

“The defense lawyers have shown flaws in the order of reference, and the court agreed that the case had to go back to the investigation judge. When the flaws are fixed, a new date for the trial will be decided. It should take months, if not years.”

Source: P2P Site Operator Appears in French File-Sharing “Show Trial”

While RapidShare has gone on the offensive, describing claims in anti-piracy-funded studies as ‘defamation’, MegaUpload has been more direct. A few days ago the company responded to accusations the RIAA and MPAA made about the facilitation of copyright infringement, calling them “grotesquely overblown allegations.”

While all of this was going on a separate conflict was brewing in France, between MegaUpload and France Telecom, specifically the Orange subsidiary.

MegaUpload has claimed that Orange has been substantially slowing down, or blocking access to its servers. Presumably these actions were taken in an attempt to discourage people from using the service, a claim Orange denies.

Accusations and claims have been flying back and forth for the past few days, including a banner run by Megaupload this week which suggested that Orange subscribers call up and cancel their subscriptions, in favour of ISPs with better peering.

The full text is (translated from French)

Slow Downloads? Video playback is hesitant?
It is likely that your Internet provider is intentionally restricting your access to significant portions of the Internet! Our claims statistics show that most users who have this problem are accessing the Internet via France Telecom, often under the Orange brand (also “Ya” in Spain).

If you are concerned, please call Orange customer service on 3900 and tell them that you can not connect to sites hosted on Cogent and TATA. Also tell them that you are considering moving to an Internet provider with an excellent global connectivity, such as Iliad or SFR (free.fr, Alice). If you’re impatient and you need a good service immediately, consider changing your supplier for one of them, and be sure to tell Orange the reason for your decision to terminate your line!

In a telephone press conference last Thursday, Orange hit back at MegaUpload. The ISP stated that it follows the Net Neutrality rules as laid down by the communications regulation body ARCEP. Instead, the ISP argued that MegaUpload’s users are the victims of ‘a low-cost business model,’ where the cyberlocker signs cheap peering contracts that lead to the slow downloads.

Orange further noted that it takes no responsibility for the situation, and that MegaUpload should improve their infrastructure as other French ISP’s have had the same kinds of problems with MegaVideo/MegaUpload at times. They also added that although difficult, MegaUpload needs to find a balance between quality and economic performance.

While some might suggest it’s a battle between peering companies, there may well be more to it, which will bring the focus on ARCEP’s 4 month old net neutrality guidelines for France. It’s clear however, that this battle of wills is just heating up. Especially when (or if) the likes of HADOPI get involved, the new anti-piracy law which ironically doesn’t affect users of cyberlockers.

Source: MegaUpload Accuses ISP of Restricting Access To Its Services

Under the new law alleged copyright infringers will be reported to a judge once they have received three warnings. The judge will then review the case and hand down any one of a range of penalties, from fines through to severing the Internet connection of the infringer.

Proponents of the new law claimed that the law would convince millions of people to stop downloading copyrighted content through file-sharing networks. Most critics, however, doubted the effectiveness of the system and pointed out that there are many ways to circumvent the law.

A new study published by the University of Rennes shows that the critics are indeed right. The researchers looked into the habits of downloaders before and after the law was implemented. They found that instead of reducing piracy levels, the piracy rate actually went up by 3%.

This increase in piracy shows that the French are not changing their downloading habits much, despite the tougher legislation. There is, however, an interesting shift in the sources people use to download copyrighted movies and music. At an increasing rate the French are using streaming services along with file-hosting ‘cyberlockers’ such as Rapidshare and Megaupload.

These services are not covered by the Hadopi law and therefore ‘safe’ to use. Conversely, usage of P2P services such as BitTorrent dropped from 17.1 percent to 14.6 percent between September and December last year. Overall the research seems to suggest that the looming disconnection threat has changed how and where people get pirated content, while the piracy rate itself increased.

Another remarkable statistic uncovered by the researchers is that half of all P2P users who download copyrighted content also buy digital content online. This means that if these users were disconnected from the Internet under the new law, the music industry would lose customers and thus revenue.

The overall message put forward by the research seems to be that it is hard to deter people from copyright infringement when there are plenty of alternatives to bypass the legislation. This does not only hold for the French case but can also be applied to the UK and other countries where tougher anti-piracy laws are implemented.

The answer to the increasing piracy rates worldwide is not legislation. Instead, the entertainment industry may accomplish much more by innovating and expanding their online business so that it meets the demands of today’s digital consumers.

Source: Piracy Rises In France Despite Three Strikes Law

When ‘caught’ uploading copyright works for the first time, the owner of the Internet connection used for the alleged infringement will receive an email warning. On allegations of a second offense, a physical letter will drop through the door. On the the third, the account holder will be summoned to appear before a judge who will have the power to fine, or even disconnect them from the Internet.

French senator Michel Thiolliere has told the BBC that the so-called Hadopi legislation will have the desired effect, with nearly everyone warned a second time abandoning illegal file-sharing for good.

“What we think is that after the first message… about two-thirds of the people (will) stop their illegal usages of the internet,” he explained

“After the second message more than 95% will finish with that bad usage.”

It is, however, much more likely that after getting a first warning, or even before, French Internet users will try to find a way round this system. They will discover that it’s surprisingly easy.

6 Ways Savvy Internet Users Will Neutralize Hadopi

Free options

MP3 Search Engines

One of the simplest ways to find music online is to use an MP3 search engine. That won’t be difficult as there are dozens to choose from. Sites like Skreemr, Songza, beeMP3, MP3Realm and AirMP3 are very simple to use and since there is no uploading, they drive a cart and horses through Hadopi. For those who don’t mind getting their hands dirty, Google offers similar functionality with their filetype: search operator.

Direct Downloads

During 2008 and 2009, the continued rise of blogs and forums that link to music, movies, tv shows and games stored on so-called cyberlocker sites was difficult to ignore. Although links can get taken down very quickly by copyright holders, they are often replaced just as swiftly by the communities that frequent such sites. The international music industry is particularly worried about the phenomenon, as tracking those that download from sites such as Rapidshare and MegaUpload is completely impractical.

Of course there are also perfectly legal alternatives, such as the excellent Jamendo.

Streaming Music and Video

While there are dozens of sites to visit directly, for those who really can’t be bothered to look any further and don’t mind closing a couple of slightly annoying popups, OVGuide is a huge portal to thousands of movies, TV shows and general video. With the assistance of the DivX plug-in, most content can be streamed directly in compatible web-browsers.

Music fans who don’t mind to stream tracks in their web browser actually have a few dozen legal alternatives. Grooveshark is one of the most elaborate music services. It holds more content than the average download store, supports playlists and it will roll out an iPhone app.

Premium options

Overseas MP3 Sites

Just over the English Channel from France lies the UK. Research carried out there recently by the BPI indicated that usage of MP3 pay sites had increased by 47%. While users do have to hand over money to use these services, at a tiny fraction of prices they would pay in their homeland they prove attractive to those on a tight budget.

Newsgroups

Using Usenet, or newsgroups as they are commonly known, is one of the most secure ways of downloading movies, TV shows, music and video games.

While the learning curve on Usenet is considered by many to be quite steep, once an individual discovers .NZB files – the .torrent of the newsgroup world – everything is hugely simplified. Within seconds of starting a transfer, the user’s connection will be completely maxed-out.

On a practical basis, and certainly as far as Hadopi is concerned, paying a few euros each month for a decent newsgroup account means that French citizens need never fear being disconnected from the Internet. Indeed, not even the first warning email will arrive.

Anonymous VPN

While the above options require that Internet users modify their behaviors, by spending a few euros a month on an anonymous VPN account they won’t have to change any of their habits at all. They can continue to use BitTorrent, eD2K or any other P2P method of file-sharing.

Once subscribed to a service such as Netherlands-based ItsHidden (who also offer a free, but speed-limited service), Hadopi file-sharing investigators will believe that the user behind that IP address is from another country and simply move on.

As the failed and now largely abandoned campaign against file-sharers in the United States proved, scare tactics simply don’t work. There are millions of file-sharers in France and many will simply carry on their activities in the belief that the odds of being caught are extremely slim.

And they would be absolutely right.

Source: Six Ways File-Sharers Will Neutralize 3 Strikes

On July 8th, a modified version of the bill was accepted by the Senate following reassurances that any final decision to disconnect an Internet user under a 3 strikes regime would be handled by a judge.

Last week French legislators voted on this compromise bill. In the National Assembly it passed with 285 votes in favor and 225 votes against. This acceptance signaled the bill would move to the Senate for approval.

The bill, which has received strong support from President Nicolas Sarkozy and musican first lady Carla Bruni, was passed yesterday in the joint legislative committee of the two houses by 258 votes in favor to 131 against.

Under the law, once an individual has been warned about a third online copyright infringement, he or she will enter a mechanism which will see them reported to a judge. After a hearing the judge will have the power to cut the individual off from the Internet, and issue a range of other penalties including fines.

Reporters Without Borders referred to the legislation critically, saying it was “..alarmed that the alleged offender will not be given details of the illegal download when the disconnection order is issued. This recalls the censorship methods in force prior to the 1881 press freedom law, when the censor did not have to tell offenders why they were being censored.”

The bill now requires Nicolas Sarkozy’s signature to become law, but even this will face dissent.

The opposition Socialists, who were responsible for taking the earlier version of the law to the constitutional council, immediately announced that they will mount another challenge.

Source: French Opposition to Challenge 3 Strikes in Court

On July 8th, a modified version of the bill was accepted by the French Senate after assurances were made that the final decision of disconnection under a 3 strikes-style regime would be passed to a judge.

The new structure is suggested as follows. Once an individual has been warned about a third online copyright infringement, he or she will enter a mechanism which will see them reported to a judge. After a hearing the judge will have the power to cut the individual off from the Internet, issue a fine of up to 300,000 euros, or even hand out a 2 year jail sentence.

Furthermore, innocent ISP account holders who find themselves accused over the infringements of a 3rd party could be found guilty of “negligence”, risking a maximum 1,500 euro fine and a 4 week disconnection.

Today French legislators voted on the new compromise bill. In the National Assembly it passed with 225 votes against and 285 votes in favor. The bill (now known as Hadopi 2) will now move to the upper house (the Senate) for approval. It will then be signed into French law.

Source: France Passes New 3 Strikes Anti-Piracy Bill

A modified version of the bill, which passes the ultimate disconnection decision to a judge, was accepted July 8th by the French Senate.

Now, according to a report, the Ministry of Culture has decided that a company called Extelia – a subsidiary of the post office – will be made responsible for administering identification information and sanctions under the so-called Hadopi legislation.

Extelia will be responsible for processing the IP addresses provided by the rights holders and collecting subscriber information from ISPs. The company will then send out emails and letters advising allegedly infringing recipients of their obligations under the law. It will also manage the issuing of sanctions, the monitoring of their implementation and connection restoration following the dreaded 3rd strike.

Extelia will conduct a trial period of 10 to 12 months beginning this fall, to be financed by the Hadopi agency from its annual budget of 6.7 million euros (apprx $9.5m).

To begin, around 1000 semi-automated warning emails will be sent out per day, which is just one tenth of the proposed output when the scheme is up to speed.

The outfit that will actually carry out the monitoring of suspected infringers is yet to be decided. However, Marc Guez CEO of music collection society Civil Society of Phonographic Producers (SCPP) – which works with the likes of EMI, Warner, Universal and Sony BMG – said that two companies are in the running, Advestigo and TMG.

Lawmakers in the lower house of parliament will start debating today on the modified bill. However, the opposition Socialists are threatening to refer the bill back to the Constitutional Council after loading more than 700 amendments, apparently in an attempt to slow down parliamentary debate.

If the bill successfully passes the lower house, it will next be examined by lawmakers from both the upper and lower houses and submitted to a new vote in both houses of parliament, before eventually becoming law.

Source: 3 Strikes To Be Administered By Post Office Subsidiary

They had taken a similar stance to that of the European Parliament, deeming the proposed “3 strikes” regime for dealing with illicit file-sharers unconstitutional. They said that individuals must have a fair trial and striking an individual from the Internet is something only a judge can do after a hearing.

So now in modified form the bill is back. Moving the decision to disconnect file-sharers away from the Hadopi agency to the courts, the new version of the law addresses the objections of the Constitutional Council by presenting “3 strikes” cases to a judge, who will fast-track decisions in around 5 minutes per case.

The new structure is as follows. When an individual is warned about an infringement for a third time, the Hadopi agency will report the offender to a judge. After a hearing the judge will have the power to cut the individual off from the Internet, issue a fine of up to 300,000 euros, or even hand out a 2 year jail sentence.

ISP account holders who find themselves accused over the infringements of a 3rd party could be found guilty of “negligence”, risking a maximum 1,500 euro fine and a 4 week disconnection.

The revamped bill was adopted today by the French Senate and in the next few weeks will head to the National Assembly for its adoption.

Source: French Senate Adopts Revamped “3 Strikes” Anti-Piracy Bill

Back in 2006 the police, who were conducting a search linked to an unrelated fraud case, stumbled across the man’s sizable pirate media collection which included 12,591 MP3 files, 426 movies, 16 full TV-series and dozens of items of pirated software.

During the April hearing the retired IT expert said in his defense that it took him a whole year to accumulate the collection by using eMule on the eD2k network, but it was intended for private, not commercial use. He also told the court that he believed he had been acting within the law.

Unfortunately for the man, the legal system wasn’t sympathetic. A court in Vannes has just handed him a 2 month suspended jail sentence coupled with 33,000 euro (apprx $46,200) in damages.

Lawyers for 19 plaintiffs including the National Federation of Film Distributors, Sony, Paramount, Sacem and SCPP demanded between 1 and 2 euros compensation for each illicit MP3 and between 7 and 12.50 euros for each movie. It is believed that SCPP will collect the largest share of around 17,000 euros.

In a statement the man’s lawyer said: “There is stuff like this on all kids’ computers right now,” while pointing out that many of the files had been downloaded by the defendant’s children.

In January 2007, a court in Nantes also sentenced a file-sharer to two months suspended prison sentence for being caught in possession of 400 downloaded movies.

Source: P2P Collection Costs Man Huge Fine, Suspended Sentence

After condemning the wearing of burqas by Muslim women in France and labeling it a “sign of subservience,” he moved on to HADOPI – France’s controversial anti-piracy law which aimed to implement “3 Strikes” for alleged pirates.

Earlier this month the Constitutional Council, France’s highest legal authority, deemed Internet disconnections unconstitutional, and stopped the law.

Speaking to both the Senate and the National Assembly in a joint session at Versailles Palace just outside of Paris, Sarkozy was clearly undeterred. During a 45 minute speech, he turned to the issue of Internet piracy, stating;

“How can there be areas of lawlessness in areas of our society? How can one simultaneously claim that the economy is regulated but the Internet is not so? How can we accept that the rules that apply to society as a whole are not binding on the Internet?”

Sarkozy went on to say that by championing HADOPI, he’s not just protecting artists.

“By defending copyright I do not just defend artistic creation, I also defend my idea of a free society where everyone’s freedom is based on respect for the rights of others. I am also defending the future of our culture. It is the future of creation.”

In pressing for HADOPI, Sarkozy said he will “go all the way.”

Source: Sarkozy Says He Will “Go All The Way” With 3 Strikes

The law goes much further than disconnecting alleged file-sharers though. In addition it is now possible to take “any action” in order to put a halt to copyright infringement. For example, websites can be blocked without having to provide hard evidence that they are engaging in illegal activities. The Pirate Bay has already been mentioned as one of the sites that could be easily taken out under the new law.

This afternoon the National Assembly passed HADOPI with 296 votes in favor and 233 against. The law was already supposed to have passed in early April, but at the time the Socialists block turned up unannounced, outnumbering the deputies from the UMP. The law will now be voted on in the Senate tomorrow after which it will be final.

As with most technical issues, the people who had to decide on the law have no clue about file-sharing at all. As we reported earlier, many of the politicians don’t know what BitTorrent is, or how it works. Yet they get to decide the fate of millions of Internet users.

HADOPI goes against the Telecoms Package of the European Parliament which aims to protect European citizens against such disproportionate legislation because it violates the rights and freedoms of Internet users. A few days ago HADOPI already claimed its first victim, the head of web innovation at the largest TV network in France who criticized the law in a letter to his MP. More victims are likely to follow in the months to come.

Update (May 13): The Senate passed the new law with 189 votes in favor and 14 against.

Source: France Passes “Three Strikes” Anti-Piracy Law

The new law has been criticized by the majority of the French public, with many of them believing it will fail to reduce piracy. After the parliament voted in favor of the law, no one doubted that it would be approved by the senate and National Assembly as well. As expected the law was indeed ratified by the senate this morning, but to everyone’s surprise it didn’t make it through the National Assembly.

After a two hour discussion, the law was rejected by the National Assembly with 21 votes against and 15 votes in favor. According to early reports, the Socialist deputies changed their initial position and decided to vote against the law after witnessing the mass opposition from the French public.

“There was a wind of revolt in the country, which engulfed the Assembly and made us move from opposition to the majority,” a Socialist member said in a response, adding “The government is now in trouble.” France’s Minister of Culture Christine Albanel was shocked by the rejection and said it was a “trap” set up by the Socialist opposition.

Unfortunately the law is not completely off the table. It is likely to be voted on again on April 27 according to members of UMP, one of the supporting parties. However, failing to get it passed through the National Assembly the first time is clearly a huge mistake that is almost amateurish, and public opinion is not likely to change anytime soon.

Last month the European Parliament indicated it was opposed to “3 strikes” legislation when it defined Internet access as a “fundamental freedom.”

Source: France Rejects 3 Strikes Anti-Piracy Law

The new ‘HADOPI’ (Creation and Internet) law introduces unlimited options for copyright holders to go after individuals and sites that are alleged to have infringed copyright, without having to actually prove that the accused are categorically guilty. Now, a new survey by French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP) for LeJdd shows just how (un)popular this so-called ‘graduated response’ is with the public.

From a survey of 1004 individuals representative of the French Internet user, 60% of respondents said they were not in favor of the law (42% were strongly against), with a third saying they support it “somewhat”. Only those respondents over 65 years old showed greater support, with 53% in favor and 41% against. Despite this, 64% of the respondents in this category felt that the graduated response wont be affective at all.

Interestingly, there was no difference between the different age groups in the expected effectiveness of the new anti-piracy legislation. Overall, the majority responded quite negatively. Just 24% of respondents said that they felt the ‘graduated response’ would be “very” or “somewhat” effective, with a huge 69% believing it will fail.

As in most countries, illegal file-sharing is widespread in France. One in four of the respondents admitted that they downloaded copyrighted music or movies regularly. There is a clear generation gap here, as 40% of those younger than 30 years categorized themselves as active downloaders opposed to 6% in the 65 years and older group.

Not not everyone is sceptical of the scheme. While repeating the IFPI nonsense that 95% of all music is pirated, U2 manager Paul McGuiness writes that not only is the Creation and Internet law “the right solution to an enormous problem” but also “a fair and balanced solution” that “will work in practice.”

Clearly not everyone agrees. The full survey is available in French here (.pdf)

Source: French Anti-Piracy Law Doomed to Fail

One of the biggest problems with the new law is that copyright infringers will be identified only by an IP-address, which will undoubtedly lead to many false accusations. Those who want to prove their innocence have only one option, namely, to install a spyware application that will monitor their every move on the Internet and report it back to the authorities. Hardly practical.

The law goes much further than disconnecting alleged file-sharers though. In addition it is now possible to take “any action” in order to put a halt to copyright infringement. Minister of Culture, Christine Albanel, explicitly named The Pirate Bay as one of the sites that could be easily blocked under the new law.

Thus, without having to provide evidence that a website is engaging in illegal activities, it can still be blocked. Potentially this could mean that access to BitTorrent sites is disallowed in France, as well as access to sites like YouTube or perhaps even Google.

In summary, the new law introduces unlimited options for the copyright holders to go after sites and people that may or may not infringe copyright, without having to actually proove that the accused are guilty. To date, this is by far the most aggressive and unbalanced piece of copyright legislation that we’ve seen.

Even more so, only last week the European Parliament spoke out against such disproportionate legislation by adopting a report that aims to protect the rights and freedoms of Internet users and excludes ‘three strikes’ as a punitive sanction. Unfortunately, members of the French parliament completely ignored this.

What struck us most is that the people who get to decide on these issues have no clue about file-sharing at all. Many of them don’t know what BitTorrent is, or how it works. Yet, they decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of Internet users.

Source: France to Block The Pirate Bay, Disconnect File-Sharers

In order to clamp down on piracy the French have proposed a new law that requires Internet service providers to cut off Internet access for persistent offenders. Under the new law ISPs have to warn alleged copyright infringers, and if they they ignore these warnings their Internet access is terminated for up to a year.

The public has actively opposed the law, claiming it restricts their freedom and privacy, while deeming the measure to be ineffective. In a recent poll 90% of the people spoke out against the legislation. Despite this protest, the law is backed by a majority in the French parliament and is expected to be adopted quite easily in the beginning of April.

However, do the politicians that will vote on the law have any clue what they are dealing with? Are they aware that the evidence gathering against alleged infringers is far from accurate, and that it’s not unusual for the wrong person to be accused? Or do they even know what BitTorrent is?

In order to test their knowledge on the subject, a reporter from Hebdo Cinéma questioned some of the politicians. They were asked what they thought was a bigger threat – BitTorrent or P2P. The results were quite revealing, and almost none of them could come up with the right answer.

Most politicians have simply no idea what they are talking about, with Herve Mariton commenting “It is beyond my skills, I admit.” Arnaud Montebourg used his trip to Washington as an excuse for not answering the complex question. “Give me a minute, because I am not aware of the details of the last amendments,” he added.

Patrick Ollier on the other hand, didn’t even understand what was said and asked the reporter to repeat the question in French. Maxime Gremetz’ response wasn’t any better, “I don’t know, I am not a technician,” he told the journalist. Interestingly, Georges Tron said that P2P was more of a threat than BitTorrent, although his explanation for it was utterly vague.

Claude Bartolone was the only one who made sense really. “From a technological point of view, I think the consequences would be the same,” he said, adding “From a consumer point of view it’s always more pleasant to listen to whatever you want whenever you want.”

The lack of knowledge demonstrated by these lawmakers signals a major problem. They are clueless about file-sharing technology and how it works, and oblivious to the potential negative consequences of the new law. Their main advisers are fed dubious and one-sided information from the entertainment industry, while the people on the streets seem to be ignored. Sad but true.

Source: Lawmakers Clueless About BitTorrent and P2P

Today, in 2009, the situation is moving quickly. In common with situations in many countries around the world, the entertainment industries have all but given up chasing down individual file-sharers, declaring that their new focus will be on ISPs, who they will pressure to clamp down on pirates on their behalf.

In October 2008 a technical roundtable got underway in Italy which promoted collaboration between the music, movie and ISPs. In basic terms, in part it was a discussion about the mechanics of implementing a ’3 strikes’ or ‘graduated response’ to deal with piracy on P2P networks.

France has one of the toughest approaches to the ‘problem’ in Europe, so it will be of concern to many Italian citizens that their country appears to be taking the lead from Sarkozy’s vision of copyright enforcement.

According to a THR report, yesterday Italy’s Ministry of Culture signed an agreement with French officials to cooperate on anti-piracy issues. Furthermore, in an indication of how Italy sees its legislation progressing in the future, Minister of Culture Sandro Bondi said that Italian laws will “follow the French model” in providing strict protection and controls for copyright works.

As we previously reported, plans for a “3 strikes” regime had already been touted in Italy by the movie industry during meetings in Venice, with the MPAA’s President Robert Pisano stating: “Maybe the first couple of times they get a warning e-mail, then perhaps the speed on their account is reduced, and if they keep doing it then maybe their account is closed.”

With this announcement that Italy will follow the ‘French model’ and Sandro Bondi previously going on record saying that the fight against piracy is a priority for the government, it looks like the entertainment industries are getting closer to their aims, not just in Italy but in countries around Europe, and others across the world.

Source: Italy to Follow French 3 Strikes Model for P2P

SACEM, the French association for music producers and SCPP, which represents record labels including Universal, EMI, BMG, Warner have filed a complaint against the filesharing application.

The industry bodies argue that Soulseek, an application created by former Napster programmer Nir Arbel, is designed to permit unauthorized access to copyrighted works. According to a French law adopted in 2006, distributing such software is an offense that can lead to a 3 year jail sentence, as well as a fine up to 300,000 euros.

While Soulseek can be used to share any type of file, it is almost exclusively used to share music. Soulseek has a multitude of sub-communities, each dedicated to their chosen musical genres. The members can be incredibly passionate and many of them are experts in their field. Although mainstream music is available, the majority of the files shared on the network are underground independent music.

On the Soulseek website, it is clearly stated that the intention of their application is not to infringe copyright. Instead, it aims “to help unsigned and/or independent artists find a place in the ever-growing music industry, in a place where discussion and the creation of music can take place.”

Similar to other music sharing communities such as the BitTorrent sites What.cd and Waffles.fm, many members are artists themselves, who share their music freely. True to this spirit, members of the Soulseek community founded Soulseek Records (or SLSK Records), a non-profit netlabel where artists publish their music for free, under a Creative Commons license.

Instead of supporting this creative platform, the French music industry continues its witch-hunt, effectively killing their own business. If they are successful, this case, or the lawsuits against the other four p2p clients, will undoubtedly impact other filesharing applications.

Source: Music Industry Takes Soulseek to Court

The record labels argue that the Vuze and the others are knowingly distributing software with the purpose to permit unauthorized access to copyrighted works. In essence they are saying that everything, or every application which allows a user to share files, will be indeed used for illegal purposes. In contrast, in the US, companies that don’t encourage their users to commit copyright infringement with their applications, are not acting illegally.

SPPF had already sued the various companies and organizations last year, but until now it has been unclear whether the US based companies behind the applications could be prosecuted under French law. A French court has now ruled that this is indeed possible, which means that they can proceed to court.

Recent French legislation which inspired the labels to go after the P2P companies, suggests that all P2P applications must have a feature to block the transfer of unauthorized copyright works. The clients that are sued by SPPF obviously don’t have such a feature. In fact, it is questionable whether it would be technically possible to develop such a filter. Nevertheless, SPPF demands it, and is claiming millions of dollars in damages for lost revenue.

Vuze CEO Gilles BianRosa stated in a response to TorrentFreak, “While we appreciate the intent of the new French law, we believe SPPF’s complaint is misguided. Vuze is dedicated to the distribution of legitimate content using new technology. In that sense, our interests are aligned with the interests of all content owners, including SPPF’s members, against piracy.”

“We are disappointed that SPPF has taken this approach, given that our business is dedicated to the distribution of legitimate content,” BianRosa added. “SPPF’s claims against Vuze are simply wrong. The Vuze business complies fully with both French and American law. The recent ruling of the French Court was solely on a jurisdictional issue, not on any merits, and we believe it is in error.”

Interestingly, SPPF is also going after Sourceforge, the open source development website, because it hosts the P2P application Shareaza. Putting aside the discussion on the responsibilities of application developers for their users activities, the decision to go after SourceForge for hosting a application that can potentially infringe, is stretching credibility beyond all bounds”

Meanwhile, Vuze has appealed the decision. Separately, the company is suing SPPF for defamation based upon several false and harmful statements made by SPPF about Vuze. A different French Court has denied SPPF’s attempt to derail those claims recently , and is allowing the defamation lawsuit to proceed.

If SPPF succeeds in their case against organizations running the four P2P applications, FTP software and Internet browsers might be next, if they don’t go after Ubuntu and other operating systems first. Perhaps it is even better to shut down the Internet entirely.

Source: Record Labels to Sue Vuze, Limewire and SourceForge

According to the poll of 2,011 people over 15 years old, the French use a diverse range of digital media to store or play pirated content. Of those questioned, 34% said their media players contained pirated files, with 20% admitting they go as far as using external hard drives to store illicit content. The USB storage key was used by 8% of respondents to shift illegal content, with 7% admitting to using mutimedia-capable cellphones.

Although the piracy ‘problem’ seems to be massive in France, it is certainly not limited to that one country. Just over the English Channel from France lies the UK, where an estimated 6 million people engage in online piracy – roughly 10% of the population. Across the pond, in the United States, a 2007 study found that 18 percent of the total US online population downloaded at least 1 movie from the Internet, illegally.

The French survey shows that the ‘problem’ is not limited to the younger generation, as is often assumed – it affects the entire population. The report further suggests that the actual numbers might be much greater than reported, but with news of draconian measures to deal with online piracy making headlines regularly, just how many people are prepared to be honest about their piracy habits?

Source: Online Piracy Becomes a ‘National Sport’ in France