Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors

from the kicking-you-off-the-internet dept

Wed, Feb 15th 2012 6:38am — Mike Masnick

You may remember last fall's numbers concerning how many first, second and third strikes Hadopi, the French agency in charge of kicking people off the internet for possible copyright infringement, was sending out. Now come reports that France is finally moving beyond just the strikes, and has passed along info on those accused (not convicted) of infringement to "prosecutors" for the next stage, which could result in them losing internet access.

The report also notes that Nicolas Sarkozy, who was the original champion of three strikes plans, is already looking to expand the law to go after cyberlockers rather than just peer-to-peer, as is the case with the current Hadopi plan, apparently. I'm sure, in an effort to support such a move, politicians will push the misleading claim that Hadopi has actually worked, even if the actual data suggests what really worked was wider availability of legitimate services and tools.

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: disconnect, france, hadopi, infringers, prosecution, three strikes

199 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 6:52am

So wait, after all the huffing and puffing, you are saying these people are going to get due process?

Oh fuck, another Techdirt myth run over by reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 6:55am
  
  Re:
  Yes, understanding the real objections being raised is hard, especially when you can't tell the difference between proposed and implemented laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:01am
  
  Re:
  They should have had due process before they got their first strike and at each subsequent strike if the previous one was upheld.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Being very German I like this HADOPI thing. Like always, the french just lie there and surrender, and in the long run Europe will be better for it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Man, that's cold.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, considering that the French have a much better record in wartimes than both the US and pretty much the rest of non-Italian Europe, percentage-wise, there's not much room to talk.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You should hear what we say about the Scottish ... ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  While these people still do eventually get their day before a judge, there is a noticeable trend: delaying and minimizing the process, so they can do things like send out thousands of threatening letters before having to see a judge. Remember, these aren't happy little warning letters or invitations to tea at the courthouse: these are official "strikes" on your record, with actual legal significance. And yet they are applied based solely on an accusation from the aggrieved party.
  
  It's not an elimination of due process, but it is an erosion of it - and that is troubling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    So Marcus, you are so wise... exactly how do these "strikes" appear on someone's criminal record in France?
    
    Is this story not a better indication that (a) The ssytem in place is collecting evidence of wrongdoing, (b) the French government system is really "innocent until proven guilty", (c) they have gone above and beyond by also informing the law breaker each step of the way in their investigations?
    
    Wouldn't it be wonderful if the FBI has to send notices to everyone that it investigated saying "you have been investigated"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MadCow (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      they have gone above and beyond by also informing the law breaker each step of the way in their investigations?
      
      The point was, there's still no actual PROOF that they're a law breaker, ONLY an accusation. That's the problem which you seem incapable of understanding.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, let me correct the term to make you feel better.
        
        the "possible law breaker". There. Feel better?
        
        The point is that the accusation doesn't create a conviction or any legal issue as a result. It's actually nice that they are contacting people on each accusation, rather than just letting them pile up and then slamming them. It gives the future felon a chance to change their ways, and avoid any true legal implications.
        
        WAKE UP. They are doing more than they need to in order to keep people out of the legal system. They are giving them way more due process than the law requires in general.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How does this system stop actual pirates?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 1:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        More importantly, how does this system make people want to buy more content?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point is that the accusation doesn't create a conviction or any legal issue as a result.
        
        It gets your connection monitored, then gets you disconnected and blacklisted, all before you allowed to plead your case. Does that sound right to you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It gets your connection monitored, then gets you disconnected and blacklisted, all before you allowed to plead your case. Does that sound right to you?"
        
        No, it doesn't sound right, because it just doesn't appear to be the case.
        
        It seems that the third strike people aren't getting disconnected - their cases (with all of the accusations) are getting sent to prosecutors. You know, due process and all.
        
        Do you have any examples of people having their lines monitored?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        how else would they be accused?
        
        or are you trying to say the accusations are patently false?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MadCow (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So then, would it be ok for me to accuse you of murder 3 times and send what (albeit probably little to none) "evidence" to a prosecutor and get you tied up in court about this?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Umm, I hate to say it, but in the US this happens all of the time. That is why we have courts, people aren't always guilty.
        
        Sometimes people are accused of terrible crimes that they just did not commit. It's why the system is innocent until proven guilty. That is why the French government isn't just turning off people's internet connections (as Marcus and PaulT would suggest) but rather are using those 3 accusations as a basis for prosecutors to build a case for legal action - which can include disconnection.
        
        Due process. Even Mike admits they are using it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Due process. Even Mike admits they are using it.
        
        As I said at the very beginning, I am not claiming that due process has been eliminated. But it has been eroded. The burden of proof has been significantly shifted; the requirements for an adversarial hearing have been loosened; the power of the accuser has been amplified.
        
        That's troubling. Anyone living in a free country can see that - unless they are blinded by their creepy obsession with militantly opposing two strangers on the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MadCow (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's a substantial difference between the two that you're devoid of. Those accusations are made by POLICE, people who are put in place to protect actual LAW and citizens from mostly BODILY harm. The people in this case are getting accused by content owners (note I said owners and NOT creators) who are NOT police who are claiming ECONOMIC harm. Given that we have absolutely no clear proof that any infringement truly causes economic catastrophe, there's no reason to listen to a content owner who claims it's because of economic concerns when there currently are none.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        kirillian (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus responded below to your comments below with links and evidence. We're still waiting on yours. It's nice of you to come and join in the discussion as a troll, but we don't really place any sort of credence to your words without responses from you that are backed with evidence as well. Also...it's completely pointless to post in response to me. Post in response to Marcus's citation post. That way the conversation can continue rather than get lost in a deep thread.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus provided links to a guy who does computer repairs, posting his opinion of the laws. Clearly, Marcus doesn't read any french, otherwise he would realize just how fucking stupid his links were.
        
        So sorry, but Marcus's citation wasn't very strong. If anything, it shows that he is willing to take information from anyone as the truth, no matter how much it is distorted on the way.
        
        You have proven to be willing to accept things as facts from a guy who is willing to... you know the rest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you get your facts from...where, precisely?
        
        You've just claimed that Marcus gets his "facts" from people willing to deceive. That can be applied to Sarkozy, as well as the IFPI, upon whose "facts" HADOPI was introduced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I got my facts from Mike's story, and the link in it.
        
        Where did you get yours?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The same place. Odd, that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        possible law breaker
        Everyone is a possible law breaker - that just makes your statement meaningless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And the 3 strikes thing works *SO* well, doesn't it?
        
        Oh, wait, it doesn't, because all it does it put non-violent offenders in prison and people act SHOCKED when they come out as violent criminals.
        
        Hmm, maybe for non-violent crimes, we can try reform or something...
        
        Or, you know, eliminate the stupidest laws ever made...
        
        AKA copyright.
        
        Anyway, they're doing NOTHING for due process. Haven't you ever heard of "Speedy trial" before?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sounds like it's time for the french to take to the streets and shut HADOPI down anti-ACTA style.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        surfer (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        'It gives the future felon a chance to change their ways, and avoid any true legal implications.'
        
        I see what you did there, trying to raise the FUD bar. Insinuating that multiple petty infringements on copyright will at some point to lead to facing felony charges.
        
        -1/10
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Monkey with Atitude, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually it does, ask the "possible law breakers" from Duke, the accusation of breaking the law lead to many many problems, when in the end they did not get a trial, just charges dropped...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "the "possible law breaker". There. Feel better?"
        
        " It gives the future felon a chance to change their ways, and avoid any true legal implications."
        
        No I don't feel better because you still seem to think everyone who gets accused will be guilty and no one will end up paying settlement letters because its cheaper then going to court even though they have done nothing wrong.
        
        If you think this way why not skip the middle man and just accuse the whole country of being thieves? It will be way easier and more cost effective and since in your mind only the guilty will pay up and it will be so easy for everyone else to get out of it, this is obviously the best solution. Guilty unless you can afford to prove your innocence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Uh, it's certainly a better indication that the system is being used to gather ACCUSATIONS of wrongdoing, that the French govt. is levying "strikes" prior to the engagement of due process and only offering due process after the strike, and have gone above and beyond informing the ACCUSED law breaker that someone accused them and as a result some action has already been taken against them by the government (levying a strike).
      
      I'm....not quite sure you understand the difference between innocent until proven guilty, friend....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm....not quite sure you understand the difference between innocent until proven guilty, friend...."
        
        Actually, I do. It seems you guys don't.
        
        The strikes here are like complaints from copyright holders. You get 3 complaints, and they send you off for due process.
        
        The notices are only that you have been accused, not that you have been found guilty.
        
        If anything, it seems like the french system is in fact giving people 3 chances before they move towards legal action.
        
        Here's the important question: What does a strike do, in a legal sense? Do you have to declare it on a job application? Are you considered a felon as a result? Nope, none of that. It's a notification, nothing more. It seems they are bending over backwards to avoid taking people to court, to avoid actually having to take legal action.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, it's OK to accuse someone of a crime at any point, so long as there's no immediate, direct consequences to them? Hmmm...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert Doyle (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Man, I hate to do this, but yeah, it is ok to accuse someone. While his initial comments seemed off the cuff, his further comments add more perspective to it.
        
        While I will certainly not claim to be an expert on this, from what I see going back and forth, if there is no direct consequence to the accusation, it seems like a bit of ass-like system, but it could be worse.
        
        You can sue anyone for anything, and you can accuse anyone of anything. There should be some repercussions to false accusations though. If financial burden is placed on someone through frivolous accusations they should have recourse for remediation.
        
        I seem to recall reading earlier that this HADOPI thing (yeah, I'm calling it a thing because I don't really understand it well) had people getting their internet access shut off without the investigation. From what I am reading now that does not seem like the case.
        
        I would love someone to explain it a little more to me (small words, pictures appreciated).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Robert, you should not be surprised to find your post isn't getting answered. Nobody here really seems to want to address the reality, just the opinion blog scare mongering that goes on.
        
        I would love to see someone actually answer your question. But I just doubt it will happen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course accusing someone of a crime is OK. How else would justice be served?
        
        HOWEVER, you better have air tight, bullet proof evidence; NOT AN ACCUSATION
        
        An IP address is NOT that evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert Doyle (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I disagree about the air-tight, bullet-proof evidence. If that is what it took to find someone guilty of offence, we would be ill-served. There is something called weight-of-evidence, which while not a smoking gun, does add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
        
        Other AC - I often get some follow-up information to my questions - it may not happen right away but someone usually takes pity on my ignorance. It's one of the things I like about this site. I don't agree with everything, but I feel more informed about my views after. Dissenting views are incredibly important to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        then change it to just evidence
        
        the argument is still valid
        
        an ip address alone is not good enough evidence to accuse
        
        although, it sure would make it easier to convict anyone they wish.. hmmm
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Spaceboy (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one is answering his question because he didn't ask one. He asked for something to be explained to him a little more. But in fine AC fashion, you misrepresent and try to claim that no one will answer his question and try to cast doubt on the Techdirt community.
        
        So I'll ask a question of my own.
        
        Why don't you explain it to him a little more instead of making shit up? Oh, because that would take time away from whatever other blogs you patrol and Firstpost. It would also open you up to more criticism, and you just can't take that. At all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, I got confused by his use of question marks, and asking for clarification and a better understanding. Usually when people ask things, I call them questions.
        
        You have possibly identified a problem here on techdirt. Even the simple stuff seems very hard to some people. I mean, wow, I didn't realize that not all questions are questions!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here's a wiki link to the HAPODI thing page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law
        
        In a nutshell, the law allows for a 3rd party to mintor the IP addresses registered to internet customers. When one of these IP addresses is found in connection with a peer to peer service (like bittorrent or limewire), and the file being shared is one that is under copyright protection, the 3rd party notifies the ISP and the ISP sends a warning letter indicating that their IP address was used for filesharing and they have received their first strike. Once they receive their 3rd strike, their information is sent to a prosecution team that can have the subscriber disconnected from the internet for 2 months to a year.
        
        The problems posed by this legislation are many...
        
        1st issue: An IP address is not a person, nor does it indicate a guilty party. A stranger could be using your open wifi (or could have hacked your secured wifi), it could be a public terminal that anyone can use, it could be a roommate or a child, but you are punished as the bill payer with absolutely no evidence that you actually committed the infringement.
        
        2nd issue: As I understand it, the disconnection can happen before you have a chance to appeal... ie: you receive punishment before presenting your defense. This is the due process issue that many are unhappy about.
        
        3rd issue: The punishment is disproportionate. In the world we live in, many people depend on an internet connection to pay bills, to do business, and as a very important part of their personal lives. To completely remove this aspect of their lives over alleged copyright infringement is being seen by many as a human rights violation.
        
        There are additional problems, but these are the main focus, and I hope that summary helps.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thank you! I also started at the Wikipedia page, but couldn't find a clear citation on the statement that disconnection can happen before you have a chance to appeal. I wanted to be able to back that up a bit more which is why I went digging to find that Ministry of Justice newsletter. I knew that if I just posted the wikipedia link, TAM would refuse to take it seriously - little did I know that he would do the exact same with an official ministry statement...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here's the important question: What does a strike do, in a legal sense? Do you have to declare it on a job application? Are you considered a felon as a result? Nope, none of that. It's a notification, nothing more.
        
        Actually, after your first strike your ISP is required to monitor your internet connection. The third strike immediately cuts off your internet access and blacklists you from all ISPs - and only AFTER this takes effect can you contest the process.
        
        So you are monitored, then punished, based entirely on one-sided accusations - and then you get a chance to plead your case.
        
        Seems like you don't really understand how this law works. Strike one for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, again... can you please point to something that supports this? Links to Techdirt are not supporting evidence! Mostly it seems that you are spewing the party line, rather than reading the story Mike has posted.
        
        It seems that after the third strike, they aren't getting cut off, rather it is being referred to a prosecutor.
        
        Can you point to anyone who has been cut off so far?
        
        Can you point to anyone being specifically monitored at this point?
        
        Not scary stories from torrent freak either. Actual proof.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you can't use Techdirt, then what's the point?
        
        So, strike 2 for you.
        
        One more and you should be cut off from this website completely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You really must read up on the law before getting into these debates.
        
        Monitoring after the second strike is a stated part of HADOPI - they may have chosen not to do so yet, I'm not sure. But it's still a big problem with the law.
        
        And yes, they refer stuff to prosecutors, but thanks to a judicial decree in 2010 it was made clear that the judge can disconnect you from the internet without bringing you in to court. The burden of proof rests squarely on the accused party, and while their case is referred to a judge, they are considered guilty until proven innocent. That's a breakdown of due process.
        
        http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.d1-clic.com/aide- et-initiation/103-la-loi-hadopi-en-details&ei=gdc7T4v2NsPb0QGtqsyyCw&sa=X&oi=translate&a mp;ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.d1-clic.com/aide-et- initiation/103-la-loi-hadopi-en-details%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26prmd%3Dimvns
        
        htt p://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.d1-clic.com/ aide-et-initiation/103-la-loi-hadopi-en-details%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26prmd%3Dimvn s&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=fr&twu=1&u=http://www.d1-clic.com/images/tutoriaux/ha dopi-decret.pdf&usg=ALkJrhjDofwZrrh6hYh4d4hobvWJ0MI3sQ
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, yet you have stated over and over again that third strike and they get cut off without due process - yet Mike has just posted that there is due process.
        
        Are you perhaps misunderstanding the difference between "possible actions" and actual things happening? Open your eyes, your fearless leader has posted that they are using due process. Scary, isn't it?
        
        Let me say too that your "source" for information on the french law is laughable. You linked to a computer repair guy's personal site. How official is that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The first of those sources was a useful breakdown of the law, and well-cited. The second was an official newsletter from the French Ministry of Justice, which is where I dug in to follow up on the explanations offered in the first source. For a guy who has yet to provide a single link or fact in this argument, you sure are picky about sources.
        
        Once again: I never said there is no due process, I said due process has been eroded. And the law absolutely does allow judges to disconnect people before any adversarial hearing - you might be right that it won't happen, but I think that's pretty naive. Your request for people to whom it has already happened is laughable, since you know perfectly well this is the frist batch of letters that have reached this stage in the process. I guess we'll see, won't we?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, it's some guys personal blog. It's not the law, it's opinions.
        
        You really need to learn the difference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MadCow (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Once again you completely ignored the one from the French Ministry of Justice. You're also forgetting that there's still a lot of stupid people out there who don't know how to correctly configure a router. It's entirely possible for HADOPI to be accusing people of infringement and taking them to court for other people stealing WIFI.
        
        You can't sit there and say "Someone shouldn't be that stupid" or that they should learn how to do it, because I could then turn around and tell you that you need to have the equivalent education of a doctor so you no longer need to see him for any ailments. It's why we have professionals in different fields.
        
        How do you explain the risk of this happening and people being forced to go to court by accusations from CONTENT OWNERS and NOT AUTHORITY figures such as police, just so they can waste money trying to defend themselves from false accusations because they simply don't know how to secure their routers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Umm, d1-clik isn't the french ministry of justice.
        
        Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MadCow (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice job completely ignoring the other and longer point I made though. Good to know that you're trying to have a real discussion about the real issues here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you an idiot? The FIRST source was that guy's blog. It was a useful jumping point. The SECOND (I guess you don't have the attention span for two sources?) was directly from the French Ministry of Justice. Doesn't get much more official than that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry Marcus, I see two links to d1-clik.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MadCow (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right, so the second link (which is from d1) is a completely made up document that's not really from the French Ministry of Justice, is that what you're attempting to claim?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I looked that the first link, and looked around the guys site. It's a personal opinion site and sale pitch for a local computer repair guy. I don't trust it to be a good source of information.
        
        I didn't visit a second link to the same site, as it's not a trusted source of information. If Marcus wants to link to a government document, perhaps he can just link to the government site instead of sending us on a wild chicken chase through someones personal blog.
        
        As a side note, he probably shouldn't send us through the incredibly slow system of google translate. We all know how to translate stuff if we can't read it. Things generally make much more sense in their native language, especially for those of us who can read them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MadCow (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you admit to not even checking the second link then, even though it IS a French Ministry of Justice document. Well done. Just because a document is posted on an opinion page doesn't mean it's not official. That's like saying if the RIAA posted a document from congress it's ok for me to completely ignore it because the RIAA website WILL be an opinion website.
        
        I also note that you're still responding to these message about the sources but you're completely ignoring my issue about wireless router WIFI implications. You've had several minutes to explain how that is supposed to work and you've tactfully ignored it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hahahaha wow you are DESPERATE. Who gives a fuck whether i linked to Google Translate? Is that seriously the best you have left as a counterargument? Grow up dude.
        
        The second link is an official Ministry of Justice news release. Go read it. If you can't be bothered, I guess you're admitting you shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can't be bothered to deal with links to personal opinion blogs. If you are going to post a link, point it to something official.
        
        You lose credibility when you can't even source stuff properly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You lose credibility when you can't even source stuff properly
        
        And you don't have any credibility to begin with when you have never offered a single source at all.
        
        C'mon man, this is getting sad - you realize I'm right and your last desperate option is to try to cast vague doubt on one of my sources because it was hosted on the wrong server. Grow up and move on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Logician (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I still await your response, Blue AC. Your continual evasion speaks very loudly that you know you are incorrect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MadCow (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm still waiting to hear his response about the implications of unsecured WIFI infringement as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Monkey with Atitude, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        please remember his only "trusted" source of information come from Music corps/RIAA/MPAA... Anything else is a Google driven scam..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They get cut off from the internet without any chance to defend themselves...
        
        Until they get to court.
        
        Also, you rejected proof again.
        
        So, guess what?
        
        That's strike 3, get off the net until I send a court order to your house to see a judge.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MadCow (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm willing to bet good money that it wouldn't matter what sources were linked, you'd find a reason to claim they don't count.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure it would - if the sources were actually sources, and not more personal blogs and opinion.
        
        How about a news report like "French ISPs set up monitoring on 20,000 accused file sharers" or "350,000 french people lose their internet connections because of HADOPI"?
        
        There aren't any that Marcus is able to find, it seems. So he is stuck putting up people's interpretations of the law, and acting like those are facts.
        
        Hey, if you believe him, he probably has some entirely original music to sell you too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really?! No shit.
        
        "Now come reports that France is finally moving beyond just the strikes, and has passed along info on those accused (not convicted) of infringement on to "prosecutors" for the next stage"
        
        Don't worry, the articles are being written as we speak.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yup. The frnech government is moving forward with due process.
        
        Amazing story, isn't it? Can you explain it to Marcus now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, Google Archives only goes backwards - I don't currently have any sources from the future.
        
        Now, do you have ANY facts of your own, or points to make? Or do you think the fact that you can point to certain gray areas in my argument completely invalidates all of my concerns?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Facts of my own? No, see, that is where you and I differ. I don't make up "facts". I am working from your darling leader's post, which makes it clear the French government is moving forward with due process, and that nobody has been cut off for a third strike.
        
        It's up to you to give some sort of proof that this is not true, to support your ravings. I am only agreeing with Mike.
        
        Are you suggesting Mike is wrong?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Facts of my own? No, see, that is where you and I differ
        
        Hahaha. Well said.
        
        I am working from your darling leader's post
        
        So I'm the one doing research from multiple sources, and you're the one sitting and staring at one blog post - and somehow he's my darling leader? You're the one with the obvious obsession, buddy.
        
        which makes it clear the French government is moving forward with due process
        
        I'll state this, one more time, though I know you won't listen: I never said there is NO due process happening here. But the nature of that due process is very one-sided, contains a lot of loopholes, and generally seems to barely qualify as due process. Freedom-loving people consider the gradual erosion of due-process a red flag and a trend to be prevented. I guess you don't.
        
        Are you suggesting Mike is wrong?
        
        I don't see where in this post Mike states whether or not he believes this is sufficient and appropriate due process. If he does, then yes I think he's wrong - if he doesn't, then I guess we're in agreement...
        
        Once again, you're the only one here who defines everything through the lens of how it relates to Mike...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You want to contradict what Mike has posted, you get to do the work. It's the same thing you dump on me every time you don't like my opinion.
        
        I am agreeing with Mike's story here. Due process is being used, nobody is getting disconnected without it.
        
        It's up to you to prove otherwise, not me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you are playing silly games, and only you are stupid enough to think they are working.
        
        You are calling something "due process" that many of us do not feel qualifies. Mike doesn't explicitly say whether he thinks it qualifies in this post, but as you yourself have pointed out in this very thread, we already know where he stands on the isssue.
        
        I have also said multiple times that I am concerned by the erosion of due process, even though I know it has not been eliminated. Due process is not a simple yes-or-no - and of course you know that, but digging into that side of the discussion would require you to actually think for ten seconds, find some actual facts, and make a real argument. We all know you're not going to do that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you really expecting to see a news report on these kind of issues?
        
        That's very naive from you, considering that there are many other similar situations that have proven on a simple fact... the news outlets won't cover anything copyright-related unless it's way too easy for anyone to notice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 11:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A source does not lose reliability just because it is two clicks deep. If you 'can't be bothered,' then you should probably give up right now, because your arguments are just opinion with no weight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        wrong! you are accused of wrong doing but it hasn't been proven that it was you who was doing wrong. all that is used for the accusation is an IP address. no one was standing behind you watching what you were doing. you have been found guilty using this flimsy piece of 'evidence' because you have received 'warnings'. the next step, having already been found guilty (how can a person prove it wasn't them? jump into the water. if they drown, they am innocent, if they float, they am guilty?), is for the authorities to decide on how stiff will be the sentence you get.
        
        if 'innocent until proven guilty' was being used, there would be specific, definitive proof that you were doing wrong, used against you and handed to the court and the defendant, not what is used atm that amounts in reality to nothing more than 'hearsay'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It gives the future felon a chance to change their ways, and avoid any true legal implications."
        
        "Are you considered a felon as a result? Nope, none of that."
        
        Oh, ok buddy. Which is it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To him, everyone's a future felon, but not a felon.
        
        Yeah, he's a complete and utter moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ahh, fuck off you turd. You aren't adding to the discussion, just give it a rest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        well which is it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You could start by adding something useful to the conversation yourself.
        
        Or, in your own words...
        
        "fuck off you turd"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They are future felons if they keep breaking the law.
        
        How hard is that to understand?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But why should they become so on the basis of a law based entirely on fauly data, at which no-one outside certain industries has had access to the methodology of?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        if by breaking the law, you mean committing felonies
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Answer this, if you can:
      
      I go to court and someone says "I have here proof that the IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx did [insert something bad]". How can I defend myself if I am innocent? How can we be sure that the alleged proof was not forged somehow?
      
      Anyone can produce a text file with IP address, but how does that translate to irrefutable proof?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Short answer: it doesn't.
        
        Long answer: without corroborating evidence (File+metadata and checksums from the accused's PC etc, as well as MAC address timestamping), it's about as useful as Clippy from MS Office.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You leave poor Clippy out of this!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 11:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just a clarification: Marcus did not say criminal record, you did. Thank you for inserting words to twist the discussion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:17am
  
  Re:
  Justice delayed is justice denied.
  
  Due process my foot!
  
  The accused are in the "system" and now being processed, months, years, decades after.
  
  Moreover, since each strike wasn't provided due process, can the accused ever go back to a zero strike status? If not, then there's another serious flaw with this policy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:22am
  
  Re:
  If you call a judge taking a look at a paper with a hundred names on it and rubber stamping it to disconnect all of those people without them having the chance to prepare or do anything due process yeah.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Do you have any proof that the due process will be a rubber stamp? Or are you just making shit up because you don't know?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nah, he has one accusation.
      
      We need two more to have proof.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:41am
  
  Re:
  You must be confused.
  
  Due process presumes that you are innocent before proven guilty. Here they presume that you are guilty, but are giving a chance to prove that you are not.
  
  Big difference.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    You are bang on there - that is the point.
    
    "Real" law enforcement in the computing domain is completely different from this.
    
    Information harvested dynamically by software would never be acceptable.
    
    The process of evidence gathering has to be repeatable if at all possible - any steps that are not have to be audited and carried out in controlled conditions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Whoops - that one was meant for your earlier comment that said
      :
      "Anyone can produce a text file with IP address, but how does that translate to irrefutable proof?"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Richard, as an example: Let's say someone gets three strikes under HADOPI. They are using an ISP that requires a log in, the IP used is different on each connection, and it is assigned to a given logged in user. In all 3 cases, it's the same user.
      
      Do you think this would be enough probably cause for a search warrant? I do. Not enough alone for prosecution, but likely enough to merit a warrant to search computers (and perhaps burned CDs / DVDs in the house / location to find the content in question, example.
      
      dynamic harvested information isn't proof - but it would appear to be enough to trigger probably cause.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Logician (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And what happens with an ISP that does not require a login? Even in your example, how do you tie multiple IP addresses to a single user? What is the exact mechanism? And how can you be certain the individual on the other end is the same in all three instances? An IP address links to a machine, not an individual. And even then it is very possible to randomize them or spoof them, to use an IP address other than the one that is assigned by login. So your tracing method fails.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You cannot get an IP without a MAC address.
        
        For users that are connecting from home (which is generally what HADOPI addresses), they are also hardwired to a limited connection pool (gateway, DSLAM, or other technology) which means that only a very limited number of end users could have connected at that point.
        
        If the IP address is hardwired to the unit (older style cable modem networks) you are left with an even more solid point of contact.
        
        For all the randomization and spoofing, remember that your connection is still there, still fixed. The data still flows though a given point. Sorry charlie.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Logician (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You also fail to understand that MAC addresses, too, can and are often spoofed. Simply do a Google search on "randomizing mac addresses" and many such generators will appear. For every access point, there is a workaround and a means of preserving true anonymity. Therefore, accusations based on such access points are invalid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I understand that mac address can be spoofed. However, in situations that require no logon, generally the MAC address is that of the modem provided by the internet company, which almost nobody will modify without risk.
        
        So you could spoof the MAC address, but you would have to be in the same network segement, and so on. It's pretty much a non-issue.
        
        Basically, you will never have 100% proof of anything ever. However, the information would be more than good enough on it's face for a search warrant, as an example. It might even be enough, based on the network architecture, to point to a single connection point.
        
        Remember, there is no such thing as 100% proof. That is why the justice system is on reasonable doubt, not absolutes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I note that you ignore the possibility of software errors here. Such errors are not a remote possibility - they are the third certainty in life - along with death and taxes.
        
        Remeber that the mechanisms for logging IP addresses do not have to work for the network to function - therefore they are pretty much untested.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Remember, there is no such thing as 100% proof. That is why the justice system is on reasonable doubt, not absolutes.
        
        When you are sending out a million letters the criteria for reasonable doubt are scaled by a factor of a million.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Logician (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 7:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What you still fail to acknowledge, AC, is that an IP address does not link to a person, but to a machine. Anyone can be on the other end. There is no way to prove who it was, only a remote possibility of which machine it may have been. And even then, the media industries have a long and well-known history of erroneous accusations over the years, accusing laser printers, the dead, elderly people with no computers at all, and more. The methodology is too unreliable to use. And you have yet to demonstrate why it is even necessary. Failure of a business model is not sufficient cause for criminalizing the population. And it is not wrong to ignore a bad law, which copyright law in its current state most certainly is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        a username alone may be acceptable for probable cause.
        
        an ip alone? NO!
        
        6,000,000,000 human beings could be sitting behind a single ip
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 1:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        as an example: Let's say someone gets three strikes under HADOPI. They are using an ISP that requires a log in, the IP used is different on each connection, and it is assigned to a given logged in user. In all 3 cases, it's the same user.
        
        That would be a proper way to proceed (and it was roughly how the RIAA proceeded when it first tried lawsuits against individuals) however that is NOT how the HADOPI process works.
        
        In the HADOPI process the first event triggers a warning letter. The warning letter makes a search warrant pointless - since it would trigger all but the stupidest infringer to destroy any real evidence that might be found.
        
        A proper search process to find real evidence is very expensive - and so the powers that be don't want to do that.
        
        What they want to do is send out a cheap, automated, warning letter to scare people. However they have a problem. If all they ever do is warn people then after a while they will be seen as the boy crying wolf - and so will be ignored.
        
        So they have to punish a few people (pour encourager les autres - always an immoral concept in my opinion) - but now they have another problem. By the time they have sent out THREE letters (to cut the numbers prosecuted - and hence the cost) the chances are that any real infringer will have destroyed the evidence and so their chances of getting a conviction will have shrunk to near zero if the usual legal rules are applied. So they suspend the normal legal rules and you have a readymade recipe for injustice based on software errors, or the hijacking of connections via hacked wifi or modded connection boxes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ah, the old Assyrian method.
    
    You're guilty no matter what and you have to convince me otherwise.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:21am
  
  Re:
  So wait, after all the huffing and puffing, you are saying these people are going to get due process?
  
  Oh fuck, another Techdirt myth run over by reality.
  
  hahahahahahaha..... how true
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 6:55am

Isn't forcing the MAFIAA to get convictions the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:04am

what the French people need to remember, with elections coming up, is exactly who is behind this (Sarkozy) and whether they want their rights eroded even further by the plans that are in store. those that are standing for election in opposition to Sarkozy, need to think about their stance on this and other privacy and freedom issues too if they want a chance of wining!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:12am

Uneven Punishment
The three strikes laws are harrowing in their example of how uneven punishment is on-line vs. the real world.

Basically someone could be caught by a three strikes law for stealing 3 songs (value $3.00) and for that they could lose their internet access forever. In the modern day world that is a huge penalty.

Just look at the Arab Spring and how important it was to the tyrants in power to remove internet access. I am willing to go out on a limb here and say that internet access IS now a part of free speech.

Removing someones internet access is IMHO morally wrong.

And as for you "Anonymous Coward" (note I'm speaking to the AC that's using profanity in this thread, the trolling shill we see so often around here), you should be very thankful that Mike agrees with me and allows you access to post to this site. Because even though it violates the principles I'm espousing in this post, if I ran Techdirt, I'd be very very tempted to block all your posts.

But, you do such a great job of illuminating the stupidity of the Copyright Maximalists. So your posts at least have that value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:23am
  
  Re: Uneven Punishment
  Basically someone could be caught by a three strikes law for stealing 3 songs (value $3.00) and for that they could lose their internet access
  
  I have solution for this dilemma: don't steal music.
  
  See? That was easy. You're welcome.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:25am
    
    Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
    I have solution for this dilemma: don't be accused of stealing music.
    
    FTFY
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
      I accuse you of stealing music!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
    I accuse you of stealing music 3 times. Now gtfo the internet. No, you don't get a defense or to plead your case. You were accused 3 times, that's good enough.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:48am
    
    Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
    "I have solution for this dilemma: don't steal music."
    
    I don't. You accused me of it anyway and now I stand to lose my home business if you manage to tie an IP address I once used to some kind of infringement, just to save your own outdated business.
    
    Thanks!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
      Paul, do you honestly think people are there just randomly spewing out addresses and trying to tag people for fun?
      
      You are a twit sometimes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        "Paul, do you honestly think people are there just randomly spewing out addresses and trying to tag people for fun?
        
        You are a twit sometimes."
        
        Sigh. Laws should not be considered dangerous when they ARE successfully abused, they should be considered dangerous when the potential for abuse exists.
        
        Jesus, how is this difficult?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        DH, let be fair here.
        
        Go back and read the various HADOPI posts here on Techdirt. Mike has ranted, raved, and slobbered all over himself about how this was bypassing due process, how this was some sort of affront to the legal system.
        
        Yet, it turns out that the information collected is being forward to prosecutors, who will take legal action, which might end up with disconnection. It's sort of weird that we are suddenly talking about due process, rather than just the arbitrary actions, don't you think?
        
        The potential for abuse exists in any law. Your local police officer could look up your license plate number in there system, and write you jay walking tickets for a street corner near where your car is parked on a give day. Is your solution to eliminate jay walking laws, because they could be potentially abused?
        
        Taken more to an extreme that Americans will understand, should guns be outlawed and illegal because there is potential for abuse (and plenty of well documented actual abuse)?
        
        All of the potential abuses of HADOPI that have been spewed here and in other places seems to come to naught. Due process is happening. Where are the abuses, exactly?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Go back and read the various HADOPI posts here on Techdirt. Mike has ranted, raved, and slobbered all over himself about how this was bypassing due process, how this was some sort of affront to the legal system.
        
        Funny, I just had a look through those posts. Out of nearly 40 of them, I found a grand total of three that say anything about due process. The rest all focused on other aspects of HADOPI, such as instances of hypocrisy surrounding it, its political rammifications, its questionable efficacy, etc.
        
        Ranting, raving and slobbering about "due process" indeed...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Yup... read carefully the worlds of Darling Leader:
        
        "Read that bold part carefully. What this is saying is that despite the fact that you can be kicked off the internet based solely on accusations, not convictions, and despite all of the problems with false accusations and the fact that an IP address alone does not accurately identify an individual, and despite the fact that the massive number of notices being sent out mean that there will surely be false positives, the only people reviewing these notices to make sure they're accurate will be employed by the agent hired by the copyright holders themselves. Due process? It's dead."
        
        Yet, here we are, with exactly the opposite of his rant coming out.
        
        Are you not willing to admit he was wrong before?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Logician (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Are you, AC 113, not willing to admit that these people should never have been accused in the first place? Nor that action should never be taken merely upon accusation, and only upon conviction?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Nobody here except you considers this to be appropriate due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        So now the goalposts are uprooted and planted in front of appropriate due process? What do you want numb nuts? Evidence of illegal activity has been forwarded to the prosecutor who will then either act or not act in accordance with French law before a penalty is enforced. That's still not good enough?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Mr. Future Murderer and Rapist Felon, you seem to be confusing "going to court" with due process. You can be jailed for 10 years with no proof, for the murders and rape you might have commited, that doesn't mean that trying to prove your innocence and finally managing to get to court is "due process", except in your imaginary world (where you keep all your imaginary property).
        
        Due process is not being subject to punishment before (valid, not IPs and not hearsay by a biased party) evidence AGAINST you being correctly provided AND properly judged in court, ALLOWING you to defend yourself, BEFORE the actual punishment is dealt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        So now you're an expert on French jurisprudence or are you trying the case in the US?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Well, it worked for the MAFIAA...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        hahaha your sense of humor is beyond reproach. Can you remind me of the accusations made of murder and rape against me, and notified to me by a government agency? Nope. Sorry sucker.
        
        "ue process is not being subject to punishment before (valid, not IPs and not hearsay by a biased party) evidence AGAINST you being correctly provided AND properly judged in court, ALLOWING you to defend yourself, BEFORE the actual punishment is dealt."
        
        Read the original post. That is exactly what is happening. They are not disconnecting anyone, they are taking them to court.
        
        PLEASE READ THE ORIGINAL POST.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        They are not disconnecting anyone, they are taking them to court.
        
        Forwarding information to prosecutors is not the same as taking someone to court. Especially not when it has been established that the prosecutor can see the judge without the defendant, and the judge can disconnect them before they get to plead their case.
        
        Maybe it'll turn out that you're right - maybe all these people will get their day in court before being disconnected. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it - if it turns out you're wrong, you'll hide behind anonymity and deny ever having said anything, as you have in the past. We'll just have to wait and see.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        We'll just have to wait and see.
        
        It's a shame you didn't have that epiphany before you put on the chicken costume and hysterically screamed about the sky falling....again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        what do you think the outcome of all this would have been if the french government and Big Content had been allowed to continue their backroom deals?
        
        i believe mike's articles/posts have a major impact on waking people up to the depravity of Big Government and Big Content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        TAM, do you honestly think that there is no potential for abuse and injustice in this system?
        
        You are a twit allthetime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Marcus, if I got my world view only from people's personal blogs and bad google translations, I might think so too.
        
        But thankfully, I understand that laws can be misapplied, but that remarkably, we have these things called justice systems, and they allow for reasoned appeals, reviews, and consideration.
        
        Thankfully we don't live in your world, where everything is some sort of bizarre absolute supported by opinion blogs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        "Thankfully we don't live in your world, where everything is some sort of bizarre absolute supported by opinion blogs."
        
        Nor your world, where you claim to know the exact thought process and education of everyone you blindly attack online.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        [citation needed]
        
        And remember, I am posting as anonymous. Are you suggesting that you are able to determine, with absolute certainty, the identity of a given poster, and attribute words to them directly, accurately, and without error?
        
        All that, and you are claiming IP addresses aren't accurate?
        
        Yes, you can pull your head out of your ass now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Oh TAM, we all know who you are. In fact, you swore you were leaving techdirt forever at new year's - whatever happened to that?
        
        Can we "determine, with absolute certainty" that you are who we think? Nope - that's why it's a good thing we aren't judges making legally binding determinations about you.
        
        Instead, we're just people - people who can clearly recognize the same idiot who has been trolling Techdirt to feed his weird obsession on-and-off for years. Your AC label allows you to retain a tiny sliver of culpable deniability, but I'm afraid nobody here is buying your game - and we are under no obligation to play along.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Who is TAM again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Yeah, nice try.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        So you are saying that you are much more accurate that even IP addresses would be? You have some magic way of knowing exactly who each poster is, with total certainty?
        
        ... and to think you laugh at HADOPI. Holy crap, you are an endless source of humor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        I am saying that individuals in their personal lives are not held to the same standards as a courthouse. Do you not understand that?
        
        Like I said, we all know who you are. Should that be legally binding? Hell no. Can we make our personal decisions based on our personal assessments and opinions? Hell yes.
        
        You really do hate freedom, huh? Everything you say seems to hint at your desire to live in a fully totalitarian society...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        the call is coming from inside the house
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 12:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        No, I'm suggesting that you're one of the trolling idiots who repeatedly posts as anonymous. At this point, I don't even care which, you're all guilty of the same tactics, one of which is to launch personal attacks on people you have never met.
        
        "All that, and you are claiming IP addresses aren't accurate?"
        
        No, I'm claiming that IP addresses do not identify a person, and they can easily be faked. These are verifiable facts, something that you rarely seem to have a passing familiarity with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        +1 for having PaulT writhing in the crushing grip of reason.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2012 @ 1:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        "Reason"?
        
        It took you 6 months to come back with that, even after I responded with my actual point (which your AC counterpart then proceeded to ignore)? Damn, I hope people aren't actually paying you guys...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Logician (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Unfortunately, AC 81, your faith in the justice systems you mention is misplaced, as such systems are often coopted and abused by those whose interests lie in protecting corporations over human beings. You also fail to accept that traditional, legacy news outlets are no longer as reputable a source for information as they once were, and that blogs often do better fact-checking than official publications even on the scale of the New York Times, as has been documented by Techdirt on more than one occasion. Blogs are quickly becoming a legitimate source of news, and often the primary source of the technologically-savvy. There is no need for gatekeepers of any kind for either news or content, and I believe that frightens you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        My opinions are based on information from a wide variety of sources - you just like to cherrypick it, as you have demonstrated quite clearly in this very thread. Your opinions, on the other hand, seem to be based on the conviction that you know everything about everything, and never have to do any research or cite any facts or sources whatsoever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        So Marcus, you gave up debating the points where it turns out that your sources are questionable, and you are down to personal insults?
        
        Look, I called you out because your sources suck, plain and simple. Man up and admit it. Perhaps you can even admit that you are shocked to see due process in action here.
        
        You know, you could be the bigger man here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Excuse me while I laugh my ass off. Your very first response to me on this thread sarcastically opened "So Marcus, you are so wise..."
        
        You are the one who immediately results to personal insults.
        
        My sources include official statements from the French Ministry of Justice. Your sources do not exist.
        
        I don't need to be the bigger man here - I'm the only man here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        "Look, I called you out because your sources suck, plain and simple. Man up and admit it."
        
        Please, roll out some links to industry studies on financial losses for us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        i've been thinking lately how hilarious it would be if anonymous took this action by targeting government and Big Content computer systems
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Unable to make even a single criticism without the childish insults or thinking about what's been said many times before, huh?
        
        Anyway, if you haven't cottoned on, here's a small list of the bigger problems: IP addresses don't identify individuals, and most people don't know how to truly secure their equipment. The addresses can also be easily spoofed. ISPs have made mistakes before, fingering innocent parties, some of whom cannot possibly have committed the action they're accused of. The RIAA's cronies have also mistakenly identified perfectly legal files as being infringing.
        
        That's just for starters. But, yeah, because your masters accuse someone, they must be guilty, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        "Paul, do you honestly think people are there just randomly spewing out addresses and trying to tag people for fun?"
        
        well, receiving a settlement letter for something you never knew of, downloading it at a time when nobody was at home with a client you never installed on any machine tends to do that to people...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Almost Anonymous (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:49am
    
    Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
    Oh noes! Someone is stealing all the musics? Then there will not be musics for the children. Won't you music stealers please think of the children???
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:50am
    
    Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
    I have solution for your dilemma too: stop molesting children, you sick fuck.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
    I have a better solution!
    
    Get rid of this law!
    
    See? That was even easier.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
    I have solution for this dilemma: don't steal music.
    
    How do I desist from the impossible?
    
    You might as well say don't eat prime numbers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
      You bastard! You ate that last pi didn't you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
        Nah, that was me, I was hungry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:24am
  
  Re: Uneven Punishment
  French people should make sure to Vote out these Asses who support the Censorship of the Internet and the Control of the Internet.
  Speak with your Votes in your next Election.
  MAFIAA Go To Hell !!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:16am

The problem with Nicolas Sarkozy stems from his "Short-man" condition.

The poor fellow needs boosters to speak at podiums and press conferences. Naturally, this leads to his aggressive and destructive attitude to the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:24am

"..even if the actual data suggests what really worked was wider availability of legitimate services and tools."

I hope you aren't referencing your previous post:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/06152417600/iphone-data-debunks-recording-industr ys-report-how-french-three-strikes-law-increased-sales.shtml

Increased iPhone sales does not indicate a "wider availability of legitimate services and tools". It would indicate greater adoption of smartphones.

You're always saying that the way music companies should combat piracy is to make music available cheaper and easier. But if your logic is correct all they have to do is get more people to buy iPhones.

However, I disagree with your assertion and that of Le Monde. I believe the notices were effective and have reduced piracy though probably not to the degree reported by the industry numbers. But the assertion by Le Monde that the only reason for the increased sales was because of new iPhone launches and Christmas shopping seasons completely ignores the probability that some people stopped pirating music because of the notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:49am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, but you have to remember, Mike doesn't like the notices system, so any benefit generated by this type of early warning system to potential law breakers is totally, utterly discounted. There is absolutely no way that this system, which has reached out to tens of thousands of French citizen, could in any manner at all of had any even minor effect on the behavior of any of them, ever.
  
  Denial. It's Mike's friend.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hyperbole seems to be your friend too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, I think you're in denial, or at least deliberately ignoring the actual objections.
    
    It doesn't matter whether there are 3 strikes or a million. They are still mere accusations, made either with no proof or based upon faulty, inconclusive evidence, and made by agencies with a poor record of accuracy when it comes to their assertions. Actual due process is on hold until I get a chance to defend myself against the accusations.
    
    Real "pirates" will merely go further underground or use tactics that shield them from the force of the law completely (such as hacking a neighbour's WEP key so they get the blame). Innocent people will suffer consequences for things they haven't done, and the process is so ineffective that most will just ignore it anyway.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Paul, the same old tired saw.
      
      I am not ignoring the actual objections. People ranted about a lack of due process, yet we clearly have due process.
      
      People ranted about how it was not effective, but when there is a big shift in the market after HADOPI was introduced, people work hard to tag it to Iphone sales.
      
      What I see are people trying to cover up that their future forecasting was more than a little off, that HADOPI has, in some manner, contributed to changes in the way people look at things, and that due process is occuring.
      
      As for "real pirates", all I can say is that people who are determined to do something, no matter what the laws or risks involved will always do it. Changes in the law will not change the action of people who choose to be outlaws.
      
      "Innocent people will suffer consequences for things they haven't done, and the process is so ineffective that most will just ignore it anyway."
      
      Citation needed. How many innocent French citizens are currently suffering consequences? Are you using facts, or just your crystal ball? Considering you and many others were on the "no due process" bandwagon, and yet we are here looking at due process, don't you think you should give the old ball a retirement party? It's clearly no longer working for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Logician (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you still have not answered my question, AC. When will you admit that the accusations should never have been made in the first place, and that action should only be taken upon conviction? Also, that the unreliable nature of IP addresses makes them invalid as a form of evidence?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And you still have not answered my question, AC. When will you admit that the accusations should never have been made in the first place, and that action should only be taken upon conviction?"
        
        Ummm, accusations can always be made. What is the problem there?
        
        Are you not reading that they are taking legal action, you know, due process, before anyone is disconnected? You know, a conviction?
        
        " that the unreliable nature of IP addresses makes them invalid as a form of evidence?"
        
        A single point of data is almost always unreliable. But I doubt that a single point of data is doing the deal. They would put together things like MAC addresses, connection points, which network border area they connected through, the number of potential customers who could use it, etc... and perhaps even records that show the user logged in, the amount of time logged in, the data moved on that given date, etc... all things that the ISP would know as part of their normal business.
        
        The point is they are doing due process, they aren't removing anyone directly without it, so why are you still illogically stuck on that idea?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Logician (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Legal action should not be taken at all, until conviction. That is what you do not seem to understand. Anything else is an erosion of due process. Due process includes taking no action of any kind merely upon accusation, not even legal action. Also, you are under the illogical assumption that all accusations made by HADOPI personnel are accurate, when in fact, it has been proven that they are not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So nothing should happen until a conviction? An arrest is not a violation of due process, do you advocate people shouldn't be arrested before conviction? Should criminals not be jailed until posting bail? What about those denied bail? All consistent with due process. What about contraband? Can guns, explosives, drugs, millions in currency be seized before a trial?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DinosaurHunter (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude, you're racking up the overtime on this topic!
        Or are you payed per post?
        Either way this is a bonanza for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 12:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I am not ignoring the actual objections. People ranted about a lack of due process, yet we clearly have due process."
        
        Due process has just started. Whether or not people get a real day in court and get faced with not only true due process but actual evidence that they have infringed is yet to be seen. Even so, most of the objections you're referring to relate to the large number of similar schemes that you people keep trying to pass (even having 3 strikes was only reluctantly done - you people wanted cut-offs after a single accusation), not HADOPI specifically.
        
        "People ranted about how it was not effective, but when there is a big shift in the market after HADOPI was introduced, people work hard to tag it to Iphone sales"
        
        There's been no evidence that the law had any effect, just a correlation that had many other potential causes. There's too many factors to be able to say "yes HADOPI and HADOPI alone caused the shift", but you conveniently ignore all other data. You're the one grasping at straws here.
        
        "As for "real pirates", all I can say is that people who are determined to do something, no matter what the laws or risks involved will always do it. Changes in the law will not change the action of people who choose to be outlaws."
        
        Then what's the frigging point of these laws you keep trying to force on those who don't?
        
        "How many innocent French citizens are currently suffering consequences?"
        
        Oh, so because nobody is suffering *yet*, it's OK? Sorry, I don't wait until people start to suffer before I raise objections.
        
        "Are you using facts, or just your crystal ball?"
        
        I'm using the long history of the RIAA and your other cronies and the many, many mistakes, false accusations and other distortions they have made that have caused many innocent people to suffer. I'm using the long history of faulty data, where people who don't even own computers have been threatened. I see no reason why this won't be different.
        
        "Considering you and many others were on the "no due process" bandwagon"
        
        I'm fascinated. Link to a comment I posted that specifically objected to HADOPI due to that reason. Not something complaining about other factors. Not something about another hare-brained scheme. Something that specifically objected to this law for that reason, because I don't recall doing so.
        
        I'll wait.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    What we see here is the authorities adopting tactics previously used by scammers and extortionists like ACS law - who have now been disqulified from legal practice and condemned by the courts.
    
    The ends do not justify the means.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:30am
  
  Re:
  So you are saying that the iPhone is not a "legitimate services [or] tool"? That is the only conclusion I can come up with based on your comment.
  
  Now the question remains, if those people stopped infringing music copyright as a result of the notices, did that create an equal increase in legitimate sales? That is the true success of HADOPI and similar laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka, 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:39am

These organizations better be careful because this is going to backfire in a huge way. So far, consumers haven't been pushing back against the entertainment industry but eventually everyone is going to start pushing back.

The MPAA, RIAA, Hadopi and the rest of these governments, organizations and the copyright industry are going to find out the hard way. And, it's not going to be Anonymous who does it, it'll be consumers, music fans, movie fans and it won't be a few but it'll be a mass effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  Like Black March?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 10:46am
  
  Re:
  "These organizations better be careful because this is going to backfire in a huge way."
  
  For the past couple years I have been saying the same thing. I am very glad other people are finally beginning to see this. It will start small, then become a meme, and then it will spread.
  
  Whats funny is there are so many small variations of this same theme coming together at once, homeland security abuses (ICE, FBI, etc), government over spending, government spying on its citizens, regulatory capture, pharma cost, insurance cost, telecom access costs, etc all based around businesses seeking to become monopolies and get government handouts. Add to that every national government in the western world ignoring what their citizens are saying, and we have one hell of a shit storm on the short term horizon.
  
  May we live in interesting times...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
V (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:44am

Too bad...
Sadly, the French do have a documented history of rolling over and taking it... until they finally, finally, finally have had enough.... in which case they start the decapitations.

Viva La Revoluci�n!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:07am
  
  Re: Too bad...
  So you are saying that when they have had enough, they start talking spanish?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:14am
    
    Re: Re: Too bad...
    Isn't that term French?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Too bad...
      "Vive la Revolution!" is the correct term. However, ti's still apropos due ot the legislation slowly working its way through the Spanish Parliament.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - saulgoode (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re: Too bad...
    "So you are saying that when they have had enough, they start talking spanish?"
    I would've said "german".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 11:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Too bad...
      We would say Schadenfreude. I love the french ... so amusing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MM_Dandy (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:25am

When accused...
The less technically capable may just opt to discontinue their internet service rather than risk further accusations, and eventually prosecution. There's no incentive for them to legally purchase music or movies; only incentive to prevent getting more notices.

Pirates will realize that they may have been detected and so improve their techniques to avoid future detection.

So, I'm not sure what this system accomplishes besides keeping the technically inept off the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:32am

Sarkozy, meet guillotine. Guillotine, meet Sarkozy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:37am
  
  Re:
  Very insightful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:35am

Soon, they'll want electronic psychological exams for all people of the world, so that they can determine who *might* "steal data" in the future, so they can prosecute them before they commit a crime.

And no doubt, that process will have been stolen code from someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:36am

It'll only take a few million french people to successfully sue the entertainment industry for slander and libel over false accusations in order to make HADOPI completely irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 15 Feb 2012 @ 8:55am

The law is inherently flawed
Whatever laws were written or "influenced" by private corps are phony laws and therefore should be terminated from the books with due speed. Nobody should feel obligated to comply.

If the internet presented such a huge threat, the various industries would've already collapsed long ago, yet they haven't. Whenever the government does the private corps' bidding by censoring the internet, they are doing violence to the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:01am

Government expanding it's programs...well that's certainly something new :-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:05am

Human Rights Abuse
I am doubtful that anyone will have their Internet connection disconnected.

1. The UN has already classed Internet disconnections as a Human Rights violation.

2. The European Parliament has already considered the matter and banned 3-strike laws except for countries that already had it namely France and the UK. They were however absolutely clear over disconnections being banned.

3. In light of all evidence the European Court of Human Rights would have an easy job to overturn any disconnection rulings.

In all I am going to love hearing all the excuses these people claim and how these will be batted away by the Hadopi side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:13am

I have to admit, its fun watching TAM have a meltdown in articles such as these. Oh but wait, he does get paid to do this does right? Otherwise he's providing us with..GASP..FREE ENTERTAINMENT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:19am
  
  Re:
  He doesn't get paid. Reports of "shills" are exaggerated - I'd honestly be surprised if any of the trolls here were on payroll. These are just people with mild personality disorders that become unhealthily amplified when they develop an obsession with someone online. Sadly, it seems that they need a "nemesis", someone to disagree with on every topic, because they derive a great deal of their identity and self-worth from that.
  
  Who would be stupid enough to think TAM is worth money?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TDR, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    Who would be stupid enough to think TAM is worth money?
    
    Chris Dodd
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 9:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    I see, I guess that explains the psychopathic Mike obsession he has then.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 11:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Some are people with personality disorders, the rest are industry types that read techdirt and are having their beliefs challenged.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 10:32am

Now come reports that France is finally moving beyond just the strikes, and has passed along info on those accused (not convicted) of infringement to "prosecutors" for the next stage, which could result in them losing internet access.

Ummm, Mike.... it's fairly common to pass along to prosecutors people suspected of wrongdoing who are "accused (not convicted)". What would be the point of sending someone already convicted? Your derp is showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 15 Feb 2012 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  And in the vast majority of those cases, it's to decide who to prosecute, and moreover, you are under caution on suspicion of actually committing a crime.
  
  These accusations are NOT made by the Police; they are made by a private company using unscrutinized techniques (which, I may add, may not even be legal under French law) and an unscrutinized methodology fir acquiring the data.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2012 @ 1:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So what? Cases are referred by private companies all the time. Wall Street, accounting firms, banks, Fedex, telco's, whistleblowers, snitches, etc. The authorities rely on information from the public (including companies) to initiate many of their cases. Face it, you wouldn't give a shit if it weren't being cast at your fellow thieves.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 6:52am

Clearly, the shills have never heard of Sophisticated Jane Doe or any possible instances of people being falsely accused.

Or, they probably have, and have their heads in their asses to avoid acknowledging the existence of such errata.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]