France Passes Three-Strikes Law

from the oh-non dept

Fri, Apr 3rd 2009 9:51am — Carlo Longino

They've been talking about it for a while, now they've gone and done it: French legislators have passed a three-strikes file-sharing law. The plan is essentially the same as the one discussed before: a new government agency will be set up to to investigate file-sharing complaints made by copyright holders. If it believes there's been infringement, it will send out a first letter to the ISP account holder, warning them and recommending they make sure their WiFi is secure; a second offense within six months will generate a second letter, and if they're busted within a year of that notice, the agency can cut them off from the internet for anywhere from a month to a year. The agency has a lot of discretion on who to cut off and for how long, as apparently legislators didn't want to see businesses get cut off from the internet because of the actions of a few employees. That level of discretion is raising some eyebrows, while some speculate that cutting people off at all runs counter to the French constitution (just as the EU Parliament has said the laws violate civil and privacy laws).

One interesting aspect of the law, though, is the so-called "Hallyday Clause", named after aging French rocker Johnny Hallyday. Hallyday is a very popular and successful French musician, and he moved to Switzerland in 2006 to escape high French taxes. The part of the three-strikes bill with his name on it says that downloading copyrighted material of people who live in tax havens, or otherwise don't "properly" pay their taxes to the French government, will attract a lesser punishment than downloading the material of artists who pay up. It's a slightly amusing "gotcha" idea, but when the actual monetary losses from illegal downloads are pretty minimal at best, it doesn't seem too likely to lure tax-dodging rock stars out of their havens and back into France.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: france, hallyday clause, three strikes

27 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Beefcake, 3 Apr 2009 @ 10:11am

This is what you get...
...when we have all the laws we need, but politicians want to look like they're doing anything. They become susceptible to whatever dumb ideas come rolling in from loudmouthed organizations with an axe to grind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2009 @ 10:43am

Good for France, but only so long as real and meaningful steps are taken to assist an alleged infringer to avoid such actions in the future. Wireless connection not secure? Help them secure it. Downloads occuring because of others having access to a specific machine? Help them implement security measures to make unauthorized use of a machine less likely. Etc., etc.

Rail if you must, but I daresay that a "graduated response" looms on the horizon for freeloaders who choose to ignore the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The infamous Joe, 3 Apr 2009 @ 10:56am
  
  Re:
  Wait, it's illegal to have unsecured wireless internet in France?
  
  Being hijacked will not be an excuse in the eyes of the law.
  
  So if someon hacks into my router and downloads a song, it's still my fault?? Those crazy French.
  
  I have to admit on being ignorant to France's legal system, but shouldn't people be concerned that they can now be punished before they are found guilty of anything? I can't find anywhere a trial, or evidence, or even proof that the complaining person is the *actual* copyright holder-- it all seems very troubling and ripe with potential misuse.
  
  I also read that the way it was passed was shady, too. (via slashdot)
  
  All in all, I hope this comes back to haunt them. I know, I'm a bad person. Sue me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - alex, 3 Apr 2009 @ 11:45am
    
    Guilty until proven innocent
    France follows the Nepoleonic Code meaning you're guilty until proven innocent. The onus is on you rather prosecution to prove your case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 3 Apr 2009 @ 11:09am
  
  Re:
  "Good for France"? You've got to be kidding. So in the hierarchy crime it goes from murder, to rape, to kidnapping, to file sharing? Give me a break...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phil McCraken, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  whatever weird harold
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 3 Apr 2009 @ 10:52am

Hallyday Clause
Doesn't the Hallyday Clause just make it more attractive to download non-French material?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom, 3 Apr 2009 @ 10:52am

Take my car and won't
Seems like this ignores the core issue and due process for that matter although I'm not sure what if any the French do in that regard.

I guess no judge or your day in court to defend yourself in France?

Also seems like major issues for someone that is caught up in this but uses the Internet for their work. I can see a case where the kids in the house cause the trouble and the parents loose their ability to work.

What ever happened to prosecuting the crime (if that is what you want to call it) instead of all this mickey mouse stuff?

Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SteveD, 3 Apr 2009 @ 10:57am

Tax Havens?
Isn't that clause a little redundant given today's headlines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2009 @ 11:06am

Good Riddance. The interwebs needs to be cleaned up of all Aging French Rocker music, and replaced with various Flickr albums of free content.

May I recommend taking a look into visiting New Zealand? It's beautiful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
superdude, 3 Apr 2009 @ 11:13am

WHY?!
Don't people ever listen to me? I thought of suing the RIAA for harassment in high school. Seriously, unless I am missing a detail or two you can decide when you have been harassed. So for example, one of these strike notices or fines makes me feel harassed. There is no limit on emotional damages, so you could triple any fines and sue for that amount. I realize that I am not French, and maybe the laws are different there, but I don't see how this wouldn't work in most places. Anyone besides Weird Harold can feel free to explain to me any holes I overlooked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 3 Apr 2009 @ 11:29am

Bad Law
A thing the frogs are good at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird Harold, 3 Apr 2009 @ 11:40am

when the actual monetary losses from illegal downloads are pretty minimal at best,

Carlo, pointing at another posting on the site that points to a couple more blog style posts and opinion pieces doesn't make something a fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SPAM, 3 Apr 2009 @ 11:55am
  
  Re:
  Conversely, disputing a fact does not make it false.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weird Harold, 3 Apr 2009 @ 12:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No troll. But self-quoting and blog of a blog of a blog material is like repeating a lie often enough - people can think it is the truth.
    
    Carlo stated it as fact, and it ain't.
    
    BTW, for what it is worth, this site uses no follow tags, so all the "SPAM" links in the world won't change anything. Good try.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Techflaws.org, 4 Apr 2009 @ 3:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Carlo stated it as fact, and it ain't."
      
      Where's your proof that you are right? Some weird numbers from industry studies? Yeah, right!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2009 @ 2:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      repeating a lie often enough - people can think it is the truth.repeating a lie often enough - people can think it is the truth.
      
      That's YOUR specialty, weird one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Gresham, 3 Apr 2009 @ 12:02pm

Wow, that Hallyday clause is lousy. Assuming that this law is constitutional, justified, and provides reasonable legal protection and compensation (a fairly massive assumption) then you shouldnt lose that protection and compensation for avoiding taxes through entirely legal means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 3 Apr 2009 @ 12:03pm

Worth Noting
From what I have read elsewhere, they also debated on this for quite awhile. Once just about everybody (their legislature deal has about 577 members) had left (16 were remaining) and a little over 40 hours of debate, they voted.
Forget quarum or anything regarding what should be done. They convinced everybody that they would vote on it later, and when almost nobody was left, those remaining 16 people voted. That left 12 yea votes and 4 nay votes.
Talk about deceitfulness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2009 @ 12:12pm

Im surprised you didnt mention the way the law was passed. Apparently after the debate, when most of the legislatures had left, the Secretary of State called for an immediate vote on it, despite it being there being only 16 Deputies out of the 577 total left. It was passed 12 to 4 FYI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 3 Apr 2009 @ 12:13pm

Viva La WH!
"Carlo, pointing at another posting on the site that points to a couple more blog style posts and opinion pieces doesn't make something a fact."

Neither does screaming "THEIF! STEAL!" at someone infringing copyright make it a fact.

Nor does having a hypocritical double-standard whereby an individual downloading is a criminal (re:wolverine movie) but when its your industry butt-buddies, its "not a big deal" (re:Beatles song in a press release)

FUCK YOU WEIRD HAROLD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Weird Harold, 3 Apr 2009 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re: Viva La WH!
  your mama.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bikey (profile), 3 Apr 2009 @ 3:19pm

France's new 'law'
You people have really weird ideas about France and the Civil Code, but that being said, does anyone ever ask themselves why this, why now? Cute Carla whispered something in Nicky's little ear about her 'music business'? France doesn't even have music to protect. EPiaf is long dead and I really can't imagine it's her heirs behind this. US lobbyists need a lot more light shined on their nefarious profession. Never mind due process, the entire west left that behind long ago. And equal protection? Today it's flavor-of-the-month-offense tax avoiders who are denied protection of the 'law' - who will it be tomorrow? Pooper non-scoopers? Smokers? Very sloppy, but France is not alone. You don't hear this before the US congress because RIAA is going straight to the ISP's - through contract 'law'. Why bother with congress when you can guy your way with ISPs, and probably more cheaply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nelson Cruz (profile), 3 Apr 2009 @ 6:36pm
  
  Re: France's new 'law'
  bikey, you are wrong about France not having music to protect. They might not be successful (or even known) outside France, but there are plenty of french artists. If you go there you will notice there is a lot of french music on the radio (I believe a certain french/foreign ratio is mandated by law). And they also have a music TV channel, called MCM (available on satellite, I believe).
  
  I'm not saying I agree with this law. I totally oppose it. And this "Hallyday clause" makes me wonder if foreign artists, that never payed taxes in france at all, will get any protection under this law at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Azrael, 4 Apr 2009 @ 12:51am

Hey, they're french ! What would you have expected, that their lawmen would fight for their citizens rights ? Hey, they're french, of course they surrendered at the first sight of the enemy, especially since the enemy is already in power in their country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2009 @ 2:14pm

French Justice
Conviction without trial and selective enforcement. This is justice in France? Sounds about right, and it seems to spreading around the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
El Pollo Diablo, 6 Apr 2009 @ 2:05am

The Halliday clause is juste a smokescreen
In order for the "Halliday clause" to be invoked, all of the right-holders (label, composers, writers, producers...)of an infriged work have to live in a tax haven : it's of course almost never the case, and so the "amendement Johnny" as we call it in France can't even be invoked in the case of infrigment of Johnny Hallyday's work. That clause is just a bad PR stunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]