French Culture Minister Unilaterally Tries To Change Hadopi Rules To Close Loophole
from the that's-how-democracy-works? dept
We recently wrote about how the French ISP Free was using a loophole in the Hadopi "three strikes" rules to protect its subscribers. Basically, the law says that ISPs should pass along the notices, but does not have any penalties if the ISP does not pass the notices along to users. So Free simply chose not to pass along the notices, even if it did send user info to the agency. But the problem is that the law says that users can't be cut off unless they've been notified, so without the notification, there can be no kicking people off the internet, which was the entire point of Hadopi.In response, it appears that French culture minister Frederic Mitterand decided to unilaterally decided to issue a "decree" clarifying Hadopi and extending the fines for not handing over info to not passing along the notices. Of course, that raises all sorts of questions about the French lawmaking process, and Free is insisting that such a decree, issued quickly with no review or vote is simply not legal. Also, it's been pointed out that EU law requires that members notify the EU regulatory bodies of any new laws that would punish ISPs if they don't comply -- and clearly this didn't happen in this case.
As Zeropaid points out in the link above, it is pretty clear that Free is playing a semantic game, and it's likely that the law will be changed eventually to close that loophole, but that certainly doesn't mean it's okay for the French culture minister to unilaterally change a law without any review or oversight, just because the original law makers left a loophole in.
Filed Under: france, frederic mitterand, hadopi, loopholes, three strikes
Companies: free
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wut?
This sentence made me cry....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You name the position or the agency after the thing you are undermining or circumventing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
laws are made of words
It's called law. The french legislature passed a law that was poorly thought out and badly written (irrespective of whether it was just or wise). Free chose to obey the letter of the law but not its spirit, which is their right; Mitterand is trying to assert power in a way that went out of style in 1789.
At least this dispels the old stereotype of French politicians: they are not all spineless. Foolish, clumsy, incompetent, arrogant and autocratic maybe, but not spineless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: laws are made of words
Exactly. Isn't including a punishment for something that you're prohibiting Lawmaking 101? The makers of this law are not just sort-sighted, but also incompetant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are modern governments so corrupt that they can't adhere to the laws they themselves write?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@12
and i mean then we cna see whom is corupt and go burn there houses and restart a revolution to take back democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]