First French File-Sharer Sentenced To Disconnection Under Hadopi; But Judgment May Be Unenforceable
from the talk-about-waste-of-time dept
As we've noted before, Hadopi has been a colossal failure on just about every metric, and now seems on the way out. But French taxpayers' money is still being wasted on the scheme, which continues to send out huge numbers of warnings. Ironically, given its imminent demise, Hadopi seems to have finally claimed its first disconnection victim, as PC Inpact reports (original in French.) The person involved has been sentenced to disconnection for 15 days, and must pay a €600 fine. Strangely, it seems that he or she shared only a couple of works, so even that brief period seems harsh. However, there is still scope for an appeal, so the sentence is not yet definite.
And as PC Inpact explains, even if it is confirmed, it may be unenforceable: although access to the Web can be cut, Hadopi's rules state that the filtering must not affect email, private messaging, telephone or any associated TV services. Since these are typically all provided together, that may be tricky, or even impossible. Hadopi says it only hands out suspensions: it doesn't concern itself about how -- or even if -- they can be implemented.
So after years of operation, all that the three-strikes approach has to show for the millions that have been spent, are a handful of convictions: one where someone was fined but innocent, and another where the person involved probably can't be disconnected anyway. Great work, Hadopi.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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, disconnection, france, hadopi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My understanding is that Bit Torrent has a fairly characteristic traffic signature. The connections and timing are reportedly distinctive.
Think I could dig up a paper on that somewhere, but that might take a bit of searching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Deep packet inspection is horseshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't there used to be a service that would copy web content accessable via http into email for transit over uucp?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What kind of hardware are they running on?
Main thing I remember is getting a document �one that I really wanted� using up most of my quota on the other end of, oh, trying to think� a 9600? bps connection.
It was probably some kind of specification or something, and pro'lly �what� a megabyte? Hell, I don't remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What do you mean? The hardware they're running on doesn't matter to you.
These services all do the same thing. You send them an email with a URL, and their servers read the web page and email it back to you. Some services let you adjust what you get (receive it as an HTML email, or just plain text, for example).
You can easily find an assortment by searching for "web via email", and I'm sure you'll find one that meets your needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would if we had to port the code to a new platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't live in France.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HADOPI may be breaking EU law anyway...
According to the above atricle..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HADOPI may be breaking EU law anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HADOPI may be breaking EU law anyway...
Btw. HADOPI has probably been one of the best things for people against these overreaching programs since it has highlighted so many problems in the way it was handled that not even many of Sarkozys conservative bretherens in EP were defending it in the end...
It was such a clear failure politically (Even disregarding its complete lack of results) and a hefty bucket of icecold water in the face of the protectionist lobbies that they are getting a harder time convincing politicians in the future!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This whole thing is used as a talking point, a bullet point for the next power point slideshow.
It's used to convince people that it's a real enforcement as something is being done, even if it's not currently effective; and because it's not effective they should implement something else and spend even more money!
It can also be used as a legal strong arm for any new innovative start-ups that might depend on anything remotely related to something covered by this law. Even the threat that a start-up might be illegal can cause it to stall as they look into the details.
Hadopi might be a failure when compared to it's written objectives but it's a complete success story for all the unwritten ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta make sure those eyeballs can still receive those advertisements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought that the Internet was a lawless sea of pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not true, he was guilty. You just don't actually need to infringe on any copyrights or do anything wrong to be guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know the Techdirt/Copyhater view is that HADOPI is dead/dying, but I don't think that view is accurate. See, e.g., http://copyrightandtechnology.com/author/technologyofcopyright/ Thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only thing that made Hadopi different/controversial is the threat of suspending internet, which your article says is going away. That was the stick.. What else is left? Three strikes and then more strikes? The core of Hadopi was the suspension, not the strikes.
It also says that the Hadopi agency is being disbanded and they are going to dump whats left of it on some existing agency to do in their spare time.. Not exactly what I would call thriving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- The success rate of the "strikes" system in France is extremely questionable;
- HADOPI (the entity) is a dead man walking. It will eventually be killed replaced by another entity;
- They will no longer disconnect people. There will only be a system of (much lower) fines;
- They are considering extending the "you must be a pirate tax" to devices such as smartphones and computers;
- They want to introduce something called "Act 2 of the Cultural Exception" which, from what I could understand, is a tax on service providers.
So the whole things is being gutted, with a few terrible ideas thrown in for balance. I still don't see how this is helping anyone. At least it will be (allegedly) cheaper to implement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glyn,
How is a negligent person "innocent"? They are liable precisely because they were negligent. I don't get it. Seems dishonest to say what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> How is a negligent person "innocent"? They are liable precisely because
> they were negligent. I don't get it. Seems dishonest to say what you're saying.
How is a innocent person "negligent"?
I don't get it. Seems dishonest to say what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry about the questions. I forgot that you NEVER discuss anything you've published. Why is that? It's right out of the Techdirt Playbook, that's for sure. What a shame that you can't be bothered to defend anything you publish. That says it all about you, unfortunately.
Toodles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Glyn normally doesn't frequent the comments here. I don't know why and, frankly, I don't care. I presume that he has better things to do than to waste his time with ACs in general, and with that AC in particular.
I also presume that Glyn doesn't have an aching necessity to "win" an argument like the AC above seems to have (just go over the comments from articles from last week and see for yourself what I am talking about).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's published 547 articles on Techdirt, yet only made two posts. You can do your own math, but that to me says that, like Pirate Mike, he's not willing to discuss what he publishes. What is it about TD? I've never seen a site so opinionated yet so scared of discussing the issues. Truly remarkable. Hey Glyn, if I negligently run over your family, killing them, would you say I was "innocent"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you know that WAP can be cracked in seconds?
WAP 2 is being replaced by WAP 3 and all of that in the space of a couple of years do you understand what that means?
It means having to buy expensive hardware all again to keep an industry secure, telcos don't do that, they are using the same encryption protocol from the stone ages that has been broken by everyone else why should normal people be responsible for things that are beyond, way beyond their control?
Now tell us how do you secure you network stupid.
Did you set up your IDS already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WAP 2 is being replaced by WAP 3 and all of that in the space of a couple of years do you understand what that means?
WEP or WPA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that would be 'Manslaughter' which is specific crime. I don't believe there's a law anywhere stating that not realizing someone was using you wifi to infringe on copyrights (which is what I believe you are meaning) is a crime.
Bad analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is all we get from copyright supporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not a crime, but a tort, and the very person we're talking about was found liable for just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you can be negligent when repairing a bridge, or at doing some medical stuff, or feeding your children, or any other job where your bad decisions can cause property or health damage, but ONLY if done badly, lazily, etc, not merely because you didn't make the perfect choice.
Calling anyone negligent for not doing something you WANT them to do but that they have no responsibility whatsoever for, that's just twisting words, which you're not even very good at (and not for a lack of trying).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hope you meant alleged copyright infringement.
That is far worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hell, I'd post more often if I wasn't busy working. But I'm paid to work for the company I'm employed by, not for commenting on TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that you feel fully entitled to an author's time and attention says a lot about you. You have an unrealistically high impression of your own worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://torrentfreak.com/hey-hadopi-youre-breaking-the-law-we-made-three-strikes-illegal-across- all-europe-130616/
In 2009, the European Union made 3 strikes disconnections illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HADOPI:
- Took 4 years to convict one person, who didn't even actually download the files in question.
- Took 4 years to disconnect one person.
- Cost millions of dollars in taxpayer money.
- Was threatened to have its funding cut, possibly inhibiting its ability to send out warning letters.
- Responded to the above when put in practice by sending out EVEN MORE letters despite supposedly have said ability reduced by reduced funding.
Aside from making the government richer, exactly how was HADOPI beneficial for music and artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Took 4 years to issue a disconnect order that they do not know how to enforce to 1 person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]