France Ready To Shut Down Hadopi As It's 'Incompatible' With Digital Economy
from the well,-duh dept
It's amazing how frequently we still hear from entertainment industry folks or politicians pointing to Hadopi as an example of "success" in a three strikes program. Of course, the reality is that it has been a colossal failure by nearly every measure possible. The industry has had to seriously massage the statistics, but they can't deny the simple fact that it hasn't helped drive sales, which really seems like the key metric. In fact, the latest reports show that music sales -- including digital sales -- have continued to drop. Even more telling: the decline in sales in France has outpaced the decline elsewhere. In other words, nothing about Hadopi worked.Even when Hadopi finally "convicted" someone, it was someone that everyone agreed didn't pirate songs. In the meantime, French users for services not tracked by Hadopi have skyrocketed. It was only a matter of time before politicians began questioning why they were spending so much money on a system with no real benefit. The result, as we noted a few weeks ago, was a recommendation to kill off Hadopi, though potentially to replace it with other bad ideas.
Either way, it looks like it's almost guaranteed that Hadopi is going away, a failure on nearly every level. What struck me as most interesting, however, is the reasoning given by the politician in charge of internet policy in France:
Fleur Pellerin, the French minister in charge of Internet policy, said during a recent visit to a high-technology complex in Sweden that suspending Internet connections was incompatible with the French government’s hopes of spurring growth in the digital economy.Well, duh. And while that's true "today" that was also true when Hadopi was put in place, and many, many people explained that to French officials. So we've got the French government recognizing that the program was a complete disaster. It cost too much, it shut off internet access which goes against any hope of "spurring a digital economy," it put guilt on innocent parties and it did nothing to help sales.
“Today, it’s not possible to cut off Internet access,” she said. “It’s something like cutting off water.”
Given all of this, why is it that politicians still take the same RIAA/MPAA ideas seriously when they propose their latest braindead scheme to try to pretend they live in a different, non-digital era?
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: copyright, france, hadopi, three strikes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Braindead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Braindead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Braindead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Braindead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally...
It may have taken something monumentally stupid, but it seems governments are slowly starting to understand that the net is too important these days to just unplug.
As was said on Cracked.com awhile back, "it's like when the telephone was first introduced. Everyone knew that it would soon be expected for you to have one in your home. You weren't going to do all your work over the phone, just like no one expects you to do all your work over the internet, but you were expected to have one anyway."
The internet is the norm for most people these days, not the exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally...
I miss cable.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HADOPI vs Six Strikes
And then there are treaties...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HADOPI vs Six Strikes
After all, it's a violation of innocent till proven guilty. And if they just send your name to companies that want to sue you for law breaking, that's a violation of your right to privacy, and therefore an illegal search and seizure in a way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But then the very article he cites says: "A study by researchers at Wellesley College near Boston and Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh that was published last year showed that the threat of disconnection was directing more French Internet users toward Apple’s iTunes store, a licensed source of digital music. Separate studies, commissioned by Hadopi, have shown a decline in illegal file sharing."
Nothing dishonest about this. Not at all. Mike's the most honest person there is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here is the thing, even if true and Hadopi really direct more people to iTunes, it also created a climate where people felt not like buying anything from the stupid people who were hurting them in one way or another, the fucking net result is negative sales numbers even with increase of use of legal channels.
Do you fucking get it now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you not read the part you're quoting. Mike is right! He says "Nothing worked". Cites an article, which admits that Hadopi commissioned studies, showing that such studies would be useless, being biased in Hadopi's favour by the very fact that Hadopi commissioned them.
This isn't the first time you've done this. This isn't the first time you've tried to paint Mike wrong, only to end up quoting something that actually proves him right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Until your last paragraph, which just makes you sound like an unimaginative 4 year-old. Why should anyone respond to your jackassery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well the net effect seems to be that eventhough sales of iTunes grew, in the whole they just stopped buying more and started spending LESS!
So really how do you defend that kind of crap?
Heck in the US the RIAA stopped suing people directly because the industry monies got halved, that should be a very clear sign that if you bite the hand that feeds you, you get nothing and still the morons tried and tried and failed, now the studios want to go on the same route.
Make no mistake, people are not stupid, you can try to hide yourself and use others as proxies but this is not the 80's, people can and will find out who is responsible, they all know from where the pain is coming and they will act accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Possible correction: many bought the same (or even more), but they spent less money in order to do so. They bought the 99c track they wanted instead of the $20 CD that used to be the only way to get it.
This argument's never been resolved until the recording industry's lapdogs start realising that unbundling and competition from other media are at least as much to do with their problems as any pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They were very fortunate to produce a study which supported their own position, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... so much so that sales are on the decline, huh?
decline in illegal file sharing
How is that a success if revenue doesn't increase? Seems like a blatant failure to me. Decreasing infringement without any corresponding increase in sales seems like a horrible failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*cough* BULLSHIT *cough*
Sorry, I had to clear my throat for a second....
We all know that they are mainly (if not only) interested in making a profit and this shows that always fighting piracy does not make them the biggest profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week- techdirt.shtml#c1210
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. I don't see how that makes any logical sense at all. If the end result is *less money* being made and less people exposed to your work, doesn't that mean everyone's worse off?
I have difficulty seeing how a situation in which everyone is worse off is a good outcome.
I also am confused as to how arguing that a situation where everyone is worse off is a bad thing makes me a "scumbag."
I'll clarify things for you, since you seem permanently and monumentally confused by your weird obsession and hatred for me. I don't "love" piracy. But I don't see any benefit to situations where everyone is worse off, and prefer scenarios where everyone is better off. I recognize that you have self-confessed a total ignorance of economics, but even the worst student in a basic econ class understands that making everyone worse off is bad.
So why do you support such an outcome?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, if the guy feels that he is selling soul, we are dealing with someone in the paradise lost sphere of blind belief.
I must stop writing here since I cannot come up with more references to certain works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because it's *YOU* deciding what's supposedly "best" for everyone. Why are you anti-choice? Why do you feel people should be denied the right to make their OWN decisions, hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is rich coming from the guy trying to defend a granted monopoly LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's funny. You're the ones who regularly defend an industry that blocks free international trade (region coding & windowing), block choice of format & devices (DRM, DMCA clauses that stop people legally decrypting CSS on Linux, etc.) and regularly work to block legitimate competition in the marketplace, especially those that work to the benefit of consumers.
Why are YOU anti-choice, hmmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that's AJ for you. It doesn't matter if copyright enforcement actually harms copyright holders, so long as their "rights" aren't "violated."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why do you support such an outcome?
I'd love to discuss this with you in depth, but past experience shows that you'd just run away and dodge the difficult questions. When you're ready to actually have the conversation, you let me know. I'll be there. But you and I both know that you don't want to have the conversation. Nothing scares you more than discussing your beliefs directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And this is why you simply have no place in these discussions. You're an immature child trying to be heard by the adults. It'll never work; no matter what you say nobody will take you seriously when you post crap like that.
"... but some people believe that a decrease in piracy is a good thing, because, you know, it means that less people's rights are being violated."
The true basis of the anti-piracy crusade has never been about "violating rights", only 'lost' or 'stolen' income. If anti-piracy efforts do not result in more income to artists (not just copyright holders) then they are a waste of time and money, and don’t come near justifying the negative consequences.
"I won't run away like a coward and make all sorts of excuses and pretend like I can't answer your questions."
Why not? You do every other time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You do realize that your comment here is a response to Mike DOING JUST THAT, don't you? What, do you also yell at people to check for traffic after they've crossed the road when the traffic light had turned green, while their heads were turning from side to side?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
some people believe that a decrease in piracy is a good thing, because, you know, it means that less people's rights are being violated
How so? The Bill of Rights, which says we're innocent till proven guilty is being ignored to shore these grifters up.
As for discussing your beliefs on the merits, from what I've seen in your comments you believe that Mike is "just a pirate-loving scumbag." Where's the merit in that?
You also believe that "piracy" violates people's rights. Where's the merit in that?
And that is why your comment got reported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You omitted the two paragraphs following that quote:
Nothing dishonest about this. Not at all. You're the most honest person there is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple
They're paid to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple
This.
It is all about the Benjamins (or in this case, the hundred Euros.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're switching to fines instead of strikes.
A little factual information for those that are interested in the truth instead of Masnick's usual piracy cheerleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Jebus, can you honestly try just a little bit harder please when it comes to your attacks? Instead of proving Mike as an intellectually dishonest slimeball, you've just proven yourself as a severely intellectually challenged slimeball, one who doesn't bother to read things over before making an attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The activities they (and others) engage in are nothing more than legalised extortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
Anyway, going after the pirate sites and file hosts directly is better in several ways. -- Of course Mike is even more against that, though he admitted to the figures here:
Study: Megaupload closure boosted Hollywood sales 10%
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/08/megaupload_piracy_study/
Mike pretends he lives in an academic study, where you can "give away and pray" yet get paid for entertainments, and corporations are all beneficial, especially Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
Get some new schtick please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2229349
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
And about this.
Valve.
Hats.
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
Again with that false study that ignores the recession the U.S. and Western Europe was in thanks to Wall Street and the banks?
Again with the false study that ignores how the economy in the U.S. only just started to slowly recover just before the SOPA/PIPA protests?
Fact: Megaupload was shut down.
Fact: Movie sales jumped 10%
Conclusion: OMG! See! Megaupload was taking money from the studios!
Facts that are ignored...
Recession, home closures, job losses, money being funneled to Wall Street banks and helping the rich out instead of helping those who need it.
Hmm...
I think that those ignored facts are probably the reason that the studios got a 10% income buff, not megaupload.
Correlation does not equal causation, ootb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
I don't think your 'study' proves much really, & seriously - how many people pirate movies via storage lockers? it's counter-intuitive - p2p is the way to go, ala bittorrent etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it runs up against the need for monitoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Storage Lockers vs P2P
Maybe if you use a VPN or Proxy (TOR, etc) system you could avoid having your download tracked... But you could P2P through a VPN just as readily.
In addition, many locker sites require login for download as well as upload. Even that aside, an ISP could monitor any download that isn't encrypted and search warrants (or warrantless searches) will reveal visitor IPs to the web server.
I download TB/mo and upload even more. I've had one DMCA notice for a file I never had, two years ago.
(If you have a problem with something on the Internet I suggest you stop looking at it, as it isn't going away or conforming to your deluded preconceptions of propriety any time soon.)
Bottom line: Use a basic ad-block. Use HTTPS everywhere. Avoid using trackers in P2P. Set Encryption in your torrent client to Forced and disable Legacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (You)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Storage Lockers vs P2P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Storage Lockers vs P2P
Even Megaupload did it and their efforts in trying to help out law enforcement where used against them in a court of law.
Business don't have the luxury of saying no to law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A quote from Upton Sinclair in re these politicians
Thus endeth the lesson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A quote from Upton Sinclair in re these politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A quote from Upton Sinclair in re these politicians
Ohhh...you're implying that Mike somehow earns money from the continued existence of copyright infringement. Uhh...no. Not at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A quote from Upton Sinclair in re these politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having worked with many lawyers for many years, and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DEA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they proved that with a lowered salary, they could do more.
No surprise that the usual trolls aren't smelling the bullshit, though. If more money gets funneled to the RIAA and its international clones who cares what the money is used for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]