Sarkozy Routes Around Parliament, Ditches Net Neutrality, Forces Copyright Clauses Into All ISP Terms Of Service

from the but-of-course dept

Wed, Sep 7th 2011 7:02pm — Mike Masnick

This is hardly a surprise, given that the Sarkozy administration appears to believe that copyright is more important than all other human rights but apparently, as part of a telecom bill in France, the administration added a clause that forces all French ISPs to have clauses concerning copyright infringement in their terms of service, which also force ISPs to ignore some basic principles of net neutrality. What's interesting here is that Sarkozy didn't even go through Parliament to do this, but rather made use of some process called "transposition" that allowed him to add certain clauses to the Telecoms Act, outside of the Parliamentary process.

Over the summer, the French government has published its transposition of the Telecoms Package. The Sarkozy regime has used a controversial manipulation of the legislative process to get the transposition into law without going through the French Parliament. It includes provisions which contradict the French government�s stated objective of protecting net neutrality. Moreover, it includes a copyright obligation on ISPs to support France�s 3-strikes law.

Sarkozy even ignored the government's advisory committee on the digital economy, which explicitly came out against some of the provisions that were added. Of major concern is the fact that the required terminology being forced into ISP contracts, says that ISPs will restrict certain services for those accused of infringement. As the article notes, this could include things like blocking Skype, something that would go against basic net neutrality principles, which the French Parliament has said it supports. So, in yet another effort to put draconian copyright law ahead of all else, it looks like Sarkozy has routed completely around Parliament, slipped some extra rules into a Telecoms Package, and in the process made it clear that France officially has no respect for the principles of net neutrality.

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: broadband, copyright, france, hadopi, net neutrality, nicolas sarkozy, three strikes

32 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Brendan (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 7:08pm

or democracy.
He's completely circumvented the will of the representatives of the people. I think that alone is more alarming than the particulars of this case -- though, I don't like those much either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 11:16pm
  
  Re: or democracy.
  Where's Napoleon when you need him?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dcee (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 5:08am
    
    Re: Re: or democracy.
    He is the Napoleon of this era. Only problem, he represents the era, not Napoleon.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: or democracy.
  Polititians see the will of the people as damage and attempt to route around it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 7:09pm

There, fixed that for you...
made it clear that France officially has no respect for the principles of net neutrality.

made it clear that France officially has no respect for the principles of democracy/responsible government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 7:10pm

Vive la France!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 11:07pm
  
  Re:
  vive la guillotine!
  
  fixed that for you :)
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
resistance, 7 Sep 2011 @ 7:30pm

damn
That is the boldest move from anyone in France since Napoleon. Now, will the people be sheep or wolves? I say rise up, rise up for you and your people. This will only be a start if you lie down and take it, it will only happen more often and eventually that wont even use lube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 8:20pm
  
  Re: damn
  That is the boldest move from anyone in France since Napoleon. Now, will the people be sheep or wolves? I say rise up, rise up for you and your people. This will only be a start if you lie down and take it, it will only happen more often and eventually that wont even use lube
  
  Hmmm... let's see:
  
  The military history of France:
  
  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/letters.asp
  
  "Gallic Wars � Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2,000 years of French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian.
  
  Hundred Years War � Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
  
  Italian Wars � Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. Wars of Religion � France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
  
  Thirty Years War � France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
  
  War of Devolution � Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
  
  The Dutch War � Tied.
  
  War of the Augsburg League / King William's War / French and Indian War � Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
  
  War of the Spanish Succession � Lost. The war also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
  
  American Revolution � In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome," and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
  
  French Revolution � Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
  
  The Napoleonic Wars � Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
  
  The Franco-Prussian War � Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
  
  World War I � Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
  
  World War II � Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel song.
  
  War in Indochina � Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
  
  Algerian Rebellion � Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
  
  War on Terrorism � France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mike allen (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 1:16am
    
    Re: Re: damn
    I always thought the French had only one law of war.
    surrender at first opportunity.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 2:53am
    
    Re: Re: damn
    "War on Terrorism"
    
    Sarcastic post, I know, but I giggle a little when I see people attack France like this. There's lots to say both ways (especially from an American who has the gall to talk about surrendering to terrorism), but in response to one of those comments:
    
    War in Indochina: Yeah, how did that work out for you guys?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: damn
      Didn't the Canadians invade Washington once?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 7:38pm

Sarkozy Routes Around Parliament,
Internet routes around Sarkozy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 7:42pm

Well funded (self/industry/add item here) political animal subverting the will of the people in favor of:

Going against the common best use of technology. Check
Going against a common use of said technology. Check.
Going against the obvious "will of the people". Check.

How can you say this is sidestepping legal channels. Hey, they paid for it, where is your "donation"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 7:49pm

The Revolution is dead. Long live the oligarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 11:32pm
  
  Re:
  Oligarchy? This is a plutocracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 8:04pm

Really, no links? Who's the quote from? I wanted to FUD-check your sources, but there's no sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 8:18pm
  
  Re:
  You win. +1
  I can't tell if this is real troll or not.
  FUD-check make me think not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 2:18am
  
  Re:
  Really, no links? Who's the quote from? I wanted to FUD-check your sources, but there's no sources.
  
  Oops. Link got lost somewhere in the posting process. Added back in now.
  
  http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/france/687-france-puts-copyright-in-isp-contract
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 7 Sep 2011 @ 9:32pm

World domination
Sarkozy will begin by invading Germany...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 9:58pm

Legislative Capture
Has the entertainment industry ever got legislative capture! No more Mitch Glazier changing stuff in the middle of the night. Now they have the President of France, no less, changing the laws for them. Using little-known technical procedures. Without the consent of parliament as well. The overall sleaziness is just fabulous. It should be enough to get him tried for treason, but what are the chances of that happening? Has the French parliament got the guts and the determination? What do you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 6:33am
  
  Re: Legislative Capture
  Using little-known technical procedures. Without the consent of parliament as well. The overall sleaziness is just fabulous. It should be enough to get him tried for treason, but what are the chances of that happening? Has the French parliament got the guts and the determination? What do you think?
  
  Gee, I think it sounds a lot like Ron Wyden's hold on S. 968, thwarting debate and democracy. I guess what really matters is what foot the shoe is on.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 6:49am
    
    Re: Re: Legislative Capture
    A lot like it? Widen is stopping a law from getting changed. Sarkozy is making changes to a law, without parliamentary approval, even.
    
    Spot the difference?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 7:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Legislative Capture
      No Wyden is stopping a bill that passed unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee from being debated, amended and voted on by the overall Senate. It's a cheap parlor trick.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chosen Reject (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Legislative Capture
        So a member of congress putting a hold on a bill that has only been passed by a committee in congress is the same to you as a non-legislative person creating a law without either the consent of the legislature or the people?
        
        Are you stating that maintaining the status quo by temporarily blocking the legislature from debating a bill (and subsequently not passing it) is the same as making changes without the consent of either those who make laws or those who elected you to represent them?
        
        I think you're being willfully ignorant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legislative Capture
        And I don't think you understand the difference in what the rules of the respective political systems permit and ignore the fact that those "technicalities" have been used to the benefit of many different parties over many different administrations over many years. Moreover, there seems to be little political will in either country to change the rules of the road. I think you're being willfully stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legislative Capture
        Gee, I think it sounds a lot like Ron Wyden's hold on S. 968, thwarting debate and democracy
        
        What does the different rules in different political systems have anything to do with your comparison of the two? You said what Sarcozy did is the same as what Ron Wyden did. You ignored those differences as well.
        
        Regardless of the rules of their respective political systems, what Sarcozy did was change a law while ignoring the will of the people and the legislative body, and what Wyden did was block a bill in the legislative body as a legislator which was the will of many of his constituents. Both are apparently legal in their respective political systems, but we're not talking about whether what either party did was legal, rather whether or not it was right. You think that it should be perfectly fine for a non-legislator to change laws on a whim while ignoring the lawmakers of the land and his constituency and compare that as the same as a lawmaker putting a temporary hold on a bill still in the legislature. Which is considered a perfectly understandable view to have for a dictator or his lackeys.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- arcan, 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: Legislative Capture
  it really does not matter if they try Sarkozy has the power to dissolve parliament if he wants. and he would be the sole power until the next election cycle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 10:13pm

Its France after all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 11:48pm

In the US they give you "donations"...
In France they give you Carla Bruni...

I wonder if Biden feels a little bit shafted right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 2:03am
  
  Re:
  No, that's just the general public.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jan Paynter, 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:04am

Net Neutrality
On the subject of net neutrality, Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the UVA Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, recently said: �It�s a debate that is going on in the Congress, and it�s really: Is the Internet going to be something that everyone has free and open access to, or, is it going to be something that is sort of controlled? What we don�t need is a lot of government control in the businesses of the internet. I think what we need is more of what we have with National Public Radio, which is a really true and balanced set of reporting that unfortunately has become politicized. What we are seeing is a shift from �anything goes� on the Internet to a shift where major corporations are shaping the news outlets and buying up more and more of the news outlets and putting them under corporate control and one set of a small number of hands.... We need freeware, we need shareware, and we need open access. People need to be able to trust sources that they can find on the internet, rather than have them controlled in a small number of hands or by the government.� (Gibson appeared on the Charlottesville interview program Politics Matters with host Jan Paynter discussing journalism http://bit.ly/pm-gibson)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]