France Plans To Repeat Hadopi's Costly Mistakes By Turning It Into An Even Bigger, Even More Wrong-headed Anti-Piracy Body Called Arcom

from the will-they-ever-learn? dept

Techdirt covered the story of France's "three strikes" law, later known as Hadopi, from the body overseeing it, for over ten years. What became a long-running farce eventually cost French taxpayers €82 million, and generated just €87,000 in fines. A rational government might draw the obvious conclusion that trying to stamp out unauthorized downloads using the crude instrument of fines and threats was the wrong approach. Oddly, though, the French government has decided that Hadopi was such a stunning, and embarrassing failure, it wants to do it again, but on an even grander scale, as a story on Euractiv reports:

A new super-regulator, the Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique (ARCOM) is to be created from the merger of the Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet (HADOPI) and the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA) in order to "step up the fight against pirate sites and to include this action in a broader policy of regulating online content", according to the Ministry of Culture website.

The merger is part of a wide-ranging new law (original in French) that seeks to regulate many aspects of the online world in France, mostly in wrong-headed ways. Next Inpact has an excellent run-down on what is included in the proposed text (original in French). The main elements include tackling unauthorized downloads; propaganda aimed at convincing young people to love copyright; encouraging new services offering material (about the only sensible idea in the bill); and a mission to monitor the use of "technical protection measures" like DRM. In addition, the new law aims to combat sites with infringing material by using blacklists, to tackle mirror sites, and shut down unauthorized services offering sports content.

Given the French lawmakers' willingness to grant lazy copyright companies whatever new legal options they want, however unbalanced or disproportionate in terms of basic rights and freedoms, there seems little chance the bill will be thrown out or even substantially modified. France's Ministry of Culture is certainly fully behind it. In a press release, it went so far as to claim (original in French):

This ambitious bill is fundamental for the defense of French creativity.

It really isn't. Moreover, they said the similar things about Hadopi, and look what happened there.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: arcom, copyright, france, hadopi, piracy, three strikes

Driven Mad By Its Hatred For Big US Internet Companies, French Government Implements EU Digital Services Act Before It Even Exists

from the to-hell-with-the-consequences dept

The future Digital Services Act (DSA), dealing with intermediary liability in the EU, is likely to be one of the region's most important new laws for the online world. At the moment, the DSA exists only as a proposal from the European Commission. In due course, the European Parliament and the EU's Member States will come up with their own texts, and the three versions will ultimately be reconciled to produce legislation that will apply across the whole of the EU. As Techdirt reported last month, the Commission's ideas are something of a mess, and the hope has to be that the text will improve as the various arms of the EU start to work on it over the coming months.

The French government, however, is unwilling to wait before it can start imposing intermediary liability on the US Internet giants it seems to hate so much. It has decided to bring in key parts of the DSA immediately -- even though it doesn't formally exist -- using what it calls a "pretranscription" of the proposed EU law. Next Inpact has the details (original in French), but what matters most is the way the "pretranscription" of the DSA clashes with an important existing EU law, the e-Commerce Directive. The European Commission explains:

While the e-Commerce Directive remains the cornerstone of digital regulation, much has changed since its adoption 20 years ago. The DSA will address these changes and the challenges that have come with them, particularly in relation to online intermediaries.

The DSA is intended to update and supersede the e-Commerce Directive. But until the DSA is passed -- something that is years off -- the e-Commerce Directive remains in force, and is incompatible with France's local pretranscription. The best the politicians in France can come up with to justify this extraordinary course of action, which cuts across how the EU is supposed to work collectively to draw up laws that apply uniformly across the whole region, is that all-purpose excuse -- the threat of terrorist attacks. Even the French Senate's Law Committee warned of the "extreme legal fragility" of the government's logic here. In reality, it's just another case of the French government keen to bash Internet companies as soon as it can, and to hell with the political, economic or social consequences.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: digital services act, dsa, eu, france, internet regulation

Imminent Win For The Public Domain: Court Likely To Compel Musée Rodin To Release Its 3D Scans Of Sculptor's Works For Free

from the why-even-fight-this? dept

Back in 2019, Techdirt wrote about a fascinating case involving a bogus CC license on a 3D scan of a 3000-year-old bust of Nefertiti. The person at the heart of the saga was the artist and open access activist Cosmo Wenman. His web site has some background on what he calls his "freedom of information projects":

For more than a decade, museums around the world have been making high-quality 3D scans of important sculptures and ancient artifacts. Many institutions freely share those 3D scans with the public, allowing us to view, copy, adapt, and experiment with the underlying works in ways that have never before been possible. But some keep their scans out of public view, and I've been trying to help them see the light.

Following his success in liberating the 3D scan of Nefertiti, Wenman is now trying to do the same with 3D scans of the works of the great French sculptor Auguste Rodin. Many of these scans have been created by the Musée Rodin in Paris. There is a long and entertaining article (in the original French and an English translation - pdf) about Wenman's pursuit of the 3D scans, and of the Musée Rodin's refusal to share them. Wenman took an interesting tack, claiming that the museum's 3D scans were documents subject to France's freedom of information (FOIA) laws. It worked:

In late 2018 I sent a formal demand to Musée Rodin for access to all its 3D scans, citing French freedom of information laws. When the museum refused to comply, I brought the matter before the French government.

In June of 2019 the French government agency that oversees FOIA matters announced its first-of-its-kind opinion, in my favor; 3D scans produced by French national museums are in fact administrative documents and are subject to public disclosure. Musée Rodin is required by law to give the public access to its 3D scans of Rodin's works.

Another victory for Wenman, then, but rather a hollow one. Despite the French government agency's ruling, Musée Rodin continues to withhold the 3D scans. Wenman went on to file a suit against the museum in the Administrative Tribunal of Paris. Wenman wants the court to compel the museum to comply with the law, and to impose "significant" financial penalties for any delay. After more than a year with no response, the court directed the museum to present a defense. At the time of writing, Wenman is still waiting. However, given the unequivocal nature of the rulings against the Musée Rodin, he is confident:

Musée Rodin is going to fight, but I expect to win. The outcome will affect every national museum in France, inform policies at institutions around the world, and have interesting effects on the art market.

I’m shooting for a victory for open access, and freedom and innovation in the arts.

The knock-on effects of one person's dogged pursuit of a few computer files could have a major impact on the wider availability of 3D scans of sculptures and ancient artifacts -- a real win for the public domain.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: 3d scans, copyright, eu, france, nefertiti, public domain, rodin

The Lies Told About The EU Copyright Directive's Upload Filters May Help Get Them Thrown Out In Court

from the freedom-to-conduct-business dept

Although the main fight over the EU's Copyright Directive was lost back in March 2019, there are plenty of local battles underway. That's a consequence of the fact that an EU Directive has to be implemented by separate national laws in each of the region's 27 member states. Drawing up the local legislation is mostly straightforward, except for the controversial Article 17, which effectively brings in a requirement to filter all uploads. Trying to come up with a text that meets the contradictory obligations of the Directive is proving difficult. For example, although the law is supposed to stop unauthorized uploads, this must not be through "general monitoring", which is not permitted in the EU because of the e-Commerce Directive.

As the various countries struggle to resolve these problems, it is no surprise that they are coming up with very different approaches. These are usefully summed up in a new post on the Kluwer Copyright blog. For example, France is implementing the Copyright Directive by decree, rather than via ordinary legislative procedures. As Techdirt reported, the French government is pushing through an extreme interpretation that ignores requirements for user protections. Germany, by contrast, is bringing in wide-ranging new law that contains a number of positive ideas:

a new "minor use" exception that would legalise minor uses of third party works on online platforms.

In addition, the proposal also introduced the ability for uploaders to "pre-flag" any uploads as legitimate, protecting them from automated blocking.

It limited the scope of the requirement for platforms to obtain licences to "works that users typically upload". Platforms can meet their best efforts obligation to obtain authorisation by approaching collective management organisations and by responding to licence offers from rightsholders with a representative repertoire.

There is an irony here. One of the main reasons for introducing the Copyright Directive was to make copyright law more consistent across the EU. Article 17 is causing copyright law there to diverge even more.

The Kluwer Copyright blog has two more recent posts about Article 17, written by Julia Reda and Joschka Selinger. They look at an aspect of upload filters that could be of crucial importance in the case brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by Poland, which seeks to have upload filters removed from the Copyright Directive.

On several occasions, the CJEU has thrown out blocking injunctions for violating the service providers' freedom to conduct a business. In a recently published study on behalf of German fundamental rights litigation organization Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V., the authors of this blog post argue that when ruling on the request for annulment of Article 17, the CJEU will have to balance all relevant fundamental rights, including the freedom to conduct a business. In this blog post, we will put the spotlight on this under-examined fundamental right. In part 1, we will discuss its relevance for the court case pending before the CJEU. We will examine the ways in which Article 17 places new burdens on online platforms that are fundamentally different from the voluntary copyright enforcement schemes employed by some of the larger platforms today. In part 2, we analyse those new platform obligations in light of the CJEU case law on the freedom to conduct a business and discuss the role of the proportionality mechanism included in Article 17 (5). We find that the legislator may have grossly underestimated the impact of Article 17 on the freedom to conduct a business.

The basic argument is simple. During the debate on the Copyright Directive, its supporters were deeply dishonest about how it would work in practice. They repeatedly claimed that it would not require upload filters, and denied that it would be hard to implement in a way that was compatible with existing EU laws. Unfortunately, the politicians in the European Parliament were taken in by these claims, and passed what became Article 17 without amendments.

But the case before the CJEU gives another chance to point out the truth about upload filters. The fact that they only exist for things like music and video, not all copyrightable material as Article 17 requires; that those don't work well; and that even these flawed systems can only be afforded by Internet giants like Google. In practical terms, this means that smaller companies that allow user uploads will be unable to comply with Article 17, since it would require the use of technology that would be expensive to develop or license, and which wouldn't even work properly. As such, a key argument in the CJEU case will be that upload filters represent an unjustified interference in the freedom to conduct a business in the EU, and should be thrown out. Let's hope the CJEU agrees.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: article 17, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, france, general monitoring, germany, upload filters, user protections

French Film Company Somehow Trademarks 'Planet', Goes After Environmental NGOs For Using The Word

from the trademark-the-planet dept

We cover a great many ridiculous and infuriating trademark disputes here, but it's always the disputes around overly broad terms that never should have been trademarked to begin with that are the most frustrating. And that most irritating of those is when we get into geographic terms that never should be locked up by any single company or entity. Examples in the past have included companies fighting over who gets to use the name of their home city of "Detroit", or when grocer Iceland Foods got so aggressive in its own trademark enforcement that the -- checks notes -- nation of Iceland had to seek to revoke the company's EU trademark registration.

While it should be self-evident how antithetical to the purpose of trademark laws are to even approve of these kinds of marks, I will say that I didn't see it coming that a company at some point would attempt to play trademark bully over the "planet."

Powerful French entertainment company Canal Plus trademarked the term in France, but environmental groups are pushing back, saying they should be allowed to use the word “planet” to promote their projects to save it. Multiple cases are under examination by France’s intellectual property regulator INPI, including one coming to a head this week.

Canal Plus argues that the groups' use of the terms “planete” in French, or “planet” in English, for marketing purposes violates its trademarks, registered to protect its Planete TV channels that showcase nature documentaries.

That this dispute is even a thing raises questions. Why in the world (heh) would any trademark office approve a mark solely on the word "planet". Such a registration violates all kinds of rules and norms, explicit and otherwise. Geographic terms are supposed to have a high bar for trademark approval. Single word marks not inherently creative typically do as well. And, when trademarks for either are approved, they are typically done so in very narrow terms. That EUIPO somehow managed to approve a trademark that caused a film company to think it can sue or bully NGOs focused on environmental issues for using the word for the rock we all live on together should ring as absurd to anyone who finds out about it.

Certainly it did to those on the other end of Canal Plus' bullying, as they seemed to think the whole thing was either a joke or attempt at fraud.

The head of environmental group Planete Amazone, Gert-Peter Bruch, thought it was a hoax when he first received a mail from Canal Plus claiming ownership of the planet brand. The group plans to release a documentary in February about the destruction of the Amazon forest and activists’ fight to try to prevent it. Bruch tried to register a trademark for the name of his group before the release of the movie, which is called “Terra Libre” and was made largely by volunteers.

“I honestly thought it was a fake at the beginning. I received an email from Canal Plus and I didn’t dare open the attachment because I thought it was a virus. So I called them to ask them whether their legal affairs department tried to contact me, they said yes,” Bruch told The Associated Press. “I read the letter with astonishment," he said. “They were saying, ‘You don’t have the right to protect this brand (Planete Amazone), we are opposing it.'"

Bruch wasn't the only one. What Canal Plus tends to argue in all of its threat letters is that public confusion could arise since the nature of each entity's goods is similar to Canal Plus'. The company consists of a film and television studio and cable network that has put out movies such as Basic Instinct and The Pianist. What any of that has to do with environmental work is anyone's guess, though perhaps part of the issue is that these NGOs are putting out films about saving the planet, sometimes using that term in titles and marketing. Still, all of that is a far cry from any real concern for customer confusion.

But, as we often note, trademark bullying tends to work. Bruch's organization is hammering out a deal with Canal Plus in an effort to keep using the word "planet." That shouldn't have to occur, but it is. Other groups are waiting on a ruling from the French National Intellectual Property Institute in the hopes that someone somewhere will be sane about all of this.

If not, I guess Canal Plus gets to solely use the word "planet" on its small part of the planet. Again, if that is how this shakes out, it's about as crazy as it gets.

Filed Under: environmental groups, films, france, planet
Companies: canal plus

Five Bar Owners Arrested In France For Not Logging Internet Use By Patrons Using Bars' WiFi Connections

from the what-even-the-fuck-but-in-French dept

A seldom used mandate from France's 2006 anti-terrorism law is being wielded rather conspicuously in a single French city to lock up small business owners.

At least five bar owners in Grenoble, France have been arrested for providing WiFi at their businesses without keeping logs. The bar owners were arrested under a 2006 law that technically classifies WiFi hotspot providing establishments as ISPs, and require them to store one year’s worth of logs or connection records for anti terrorism purposes.

France has a long and inglorious history of forcing ISPs to log user activity, but this is the first time data retention laws have been used against business owners who allow customers to connect to their WiFi. In 2011, the law was expanded to demand the logging of user login info and passwords, thus ensuring service providers would always be tempting targets for malicious hackers.

The new and sudden enforcement of a nearly 15-year-old law seems pretty weird, considering it only targeted five bar owners in one city. This suggests Grenoble law enforcement might have a bit too much time on its hands. It doesn't appear to be part of a larger sweep across the country to (harshly) remind small business owners of their data retention obligations.

The bar owners -- who were all released after questioning -- said the hospitality section union (UMIH) never made them aware they needed to retain 365 days of customer internet activity, despite holding several conferences and seminars on running hospitality business. UMIH responded by saying it's not the union's fault members don't read UMIH junk mail.

Umih admitted that the training doesn’t mention WiFi logging but noted that Umih members should have known about this important requirement because it was mentioned in a newsletter.

Dystopia -- well, more of it -- has come to Grenoble, France. Five bar owners are now more than fully aware of their data retention obligations. Since these arrests have made international news, it's safe to assume customers are also now fully aware their internet activity is being logged and stored every time they connect with a bar's hotspot.

Not that staying home helps. Bar patrons face the same harvesting of data whether they stay in or go out. ISPs -- which includes anyone offering a "public" connection -- are under the same obligations. Failing to do so could net bar owners (or cable company employees) a 75,000 Euro fine and up to a year in prison.

And, in a damned if you do/damned if you don't twist, there's a good chance this kind of logging -- especially without explicit consent from patrons -- violates the far-more-recent GDPR. But few bar owners will have the money needed to challenge France's law or have the ability to run this by the EU Commission for a second look. That leaves it up to the local cops, who appear to have found a new way to make things periodically miserable for the community they serve.

Filed Under: anti-terrorism, bar wifi, cafe wifi, france, isps, logs, privacy, small businesses, wifi

In 10 Years Of Existence, The Long-Running French Farce Known As Hadopi Has Imposed Just €87,000 In Fines, But Cost Taxpayers €82 Million

from the shut-it-down dept

The French anti-piracy framework known as Hadopi began as tragedy and soon turned into farce. It was tragic that so much energy was wasted on putting together a system that was designed to throw ordinary users off the Internet -- the infamous "three strikes and you're out" approach -- rather than encouraging better legal offerings. Four years after the Hadopi system was created in 2009, it descended into farce when the French government struck down the signature three strikes punishment because it had failed to bring the promised benefits to the copyright world. Indeed, Hadopi had failed to do anything much: its first and only suspension was suspended, and a detailed study of the three strikes approach showed it was a failure from just about every viewpoint. Nonetheless, Hadopi has staggered on, sending out its largely ignored warnings to people for allegedly downloading unauthorized copies of material, and imposing a few fines on those unlucky enough to get caught repeatedly.

As TorrentFreak reports, Hadopi has published its annual report, which contains some fascinating details of what exactly it has achieved during the ten years of its existence. In 2019, the copyright industry referred 9 million cases to Hadopi for further investigation, down from 14 million the year before. However, referral does not mean a warning was necessarily sent. In fact, since 2010, Hadopi has only sent out 12.7 million warnings in total, which means that most people accused of piracy don't even see a warning.

Those figures are a little abstract; what's important is how effective Hadopi has been, and whether the entire project has been worth all the time and money it has consumed. Figures put together by Next INpact, quoted by TorrentFreak, indicate that during the decade of its existence, Hadopi has imposed the grand sum of €87,000 in fines, but cost French taxpayers nearly a thousand times more -- €82 million. Against that background of staggering inefficiency and inefficacy, the following words in the introduction to Hadopi's annual report (pdf), written by the organization's president, Denis Rapone, ring rather hollow:

Hadopi remains, ten years later and despite the pitfalls in its path in the past, the major player in the protection of copyright, so that creation can flourish unhindered.

Creation could have flourished rather more had those €82 million been spent supporting struggling artists directly, rather than wasting them on the bureaucrats running this pointless joke of an organization. Time to bring the curtain down on the Hadopi farce for good.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright enforcement, cost benefit, fees, france, hadopi