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.

“Today, it’s not possible to cut off Internet access,” she said. “It’s something like cutting off water.”

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.

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?

Filed Under: copyright, france, hadopi, three strikes

French Report Says: Kill Hadopi, But Let Its Legacy Live On

from the some-good,-some-bad dept

When Francois Hollande was running for President of France, he said that he would repeal Hadopi, the three strikes law and agency that enforces it, rolling back this effort which the entertainment industry had celebrated (France was the first to propose and implement such a plan). After elected, his culture minister, Aurelie Filippetti made it clear that she was not impressed by Hadopi and ordered a study of the effectiveness of the effort, led by Pierre Lescure -- a former entertainment industry executive -- to look at possible proposals. His report came out Monday morning and it suggests killing off Hadopi, but is still chock full of other bad ideas. Hadopi the agency would be done away with, but another agency would pick up some of the responsibilities, it's just that they'd greatly decrease the "punishment" aspect. Rather than losing internet access and having to pay up to €1,500, you'd keep your access and fines would be topped at €60.

But, on top of that, there are other policies that Lescure suggests that seem pretty bad as well, including extending the copyright levy (the "you must be a criminal tax") to cover smartphones, tablets and any other connected device. He also suggested turning search engines and ad networks into copyright cops, asking them to cut off those deemed to be involved in large scale infringement. We've discussed in the past why this is an idea that won't work and will likely stifle innovation while locking in some of the more dominant players (like Google), but governments do seem to like it.

The report does have a few good things to it: including getting publishers to finally release their content as ebooks, allowing more non-commercial remixing and such. In the end, it's a mixed bag, or as the French publication Le Point noted: l'Hadopi est morte, vive L'Hadopi (Hadopi is dead, long live Hadopi).

Of course, this is also just a report, with no binding aspect to it. The government may choose to ignore the whole thing or to pick and choose some parts to implement. Either way, it does make the key point that, for all the money the French taxpayers have put towards Hadopi, it's been a near total waste: "While illicit file sharing has dropped, legal paid services have not benefited as was hoped." It all goes back to the same point we've argued for years. The industry keeps thinking their goal is to get rid of piracy, when we've been saying that the real goal is to figure out ways to make more revenue. They -- incorrectly -- seem to feel that the first leads to the second, even as there is almost no proof to support that conjecture in the long term.

Filed Under: aurelie filippetti, copyright, copyright levies, follow the money, france, francois hollande, hadopi, pierre lescure

French Politician Wants To Limit How Cheaply Companies Can Sell Goods Online Compared to Physical Shop Prices

from the good-luck-with-that dept

A couple of weeks ago, Techdirt wrote about a store that was trying to charge customers $5 for "just looking", because it felt that many people were merely inspecting goods there before then buying them online. Guillaume Champeau points us to a French politician who is also worried about the same problem, and has proposed modifying the law governing commerce to deal with it (original in French). Here's the politician's explanation in the preamble of why it is needed:

Currently, regardless of the margin necessary for commercial activity the prices charged by distributors in town centers are often much higher than the prices charged by suppliers on their online sites.

This leads local shops to become mere showcases for products, products that consumers prefer afterwards to buy online at lower prices.

Equally, this decay of urban centers affects other sectors, such as hotels and catering.

Also, the proposal submitted to you aims to prevent suppliers from selling online at a price lower than the price at which they sell to distributors. The prices of products sold online may thus remain lower [than in physical shops], but in a reasonable and acceptable way.

The key problem with this idea is that it won't work. Even if the law were passed, people would just buy from online stores outside France, where prices will still be lower, because they would be unaffected by the new French legislation. Nor can that be stopped, because one of the impulses behind the European Union is to encourage precisely this kind of competition among companies located in different countries in order to bring about lower prices across Europe for the consumer's benefit.

The real solution, as Mike noted in the previous case, is for physical stores to become more attractive, not for governments to pass yet more clueless and ineffectual laws trying to diminish the power of the Internet.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: competition, france, internet, online, prices, retail

French Intelligence Agency Forces Wikipedia Volunteer to Delete Article; Re-Instated, It Becomes Most-Read Page On French Wikipedia

from the not-so-clever dept

Last week, we wrote about an organization that was unhappy that a Wikipedia article no longer existed. Now we have the opposite problem: an organization unhappy because a Wikipedia article does exist. And not just any organization, but the "Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intéieur" (Central Directorate of Interior Intelligence, DCRI), a French intelligence agency, which suddenly decided that an article about a military base contained classified information, and wanted it deleted. As the English-language Wikipedia article on the subject explains:

The Wikimedia Foundation asked the intelligence agency what precise part(s) of the article were a problem in the eyes of the intelligence agency, noting that the article closely reflected information in a freely available television broadcast. The DCRI refused to give these details, and repeated its demand for deletion of the article.

Wikipedia refused to delete it, and then things took a nasty turn, as a press release from the Wikimedia Foundation explains:

Unhappy with the Foundation's answer, the DCRI summoned a Wikipedia volunteer in their offices on April 4th. This volunteer, which was one of those having access to the tools that allow the deletion of pages, was forced to delete the article while in the DCRI offices, on the understanding that he would have been held in custody and prosecuted if he did not comply. Under pressure, he had no other choice than to delete the article, despite explaining to the DCRI this is not how Wikipedia works.

As the Wikimedia Foundation goes on to note:

This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices. He was chosen and summoned because he was easily identifiable, given his regular promotional actions of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in France.

This is very similar to the situation discussed last week, where Benjamin Mako Hill seems to have been targeted because he, too, was easily identifiable. As we noted then, putting pressure on Wikipedia volunteers in this way is extremely problematic, since it naturally discourages others from helping out. As Wikimedia wrote in its press release:

Wikimedia France cannot understand how bullying and coercitive methods can be used against a person dedicated to promote the freedom and knowledge. As Wikimedia France supports free knowledge, it is its duty to denounce such acts of censorship against a French citizen and Wikipedia editor.

Has editing Wikipedia officially become risky behaviour in France? Is the DCRI unable to enforce military secrecy through legal, less brutal methods

There is also the interesting question of how a national intelligence service only found out about the article now, several years after it was first added: this hardly suggests a firm grasp of what's happening in the online world. That's confirmed by the fact that the deleted article is, of course, back on line, in French and a dozen other languages. Moreover, the DCRI's ham-fisted attempt to censor an extremely obscure Wikipedia page that hardly anyone ever visited, has achieved exactly the opposite effect: in the last few days, the page has been viewed over 45,000 times. This is how the article about the not-so-secret military installation now concludes:

As a result of the controversy, the article became the most-read page on the French Wikipedia. It was translated into multiple other languages. The French newspaper 20 minutes noted it as an example of the Streisand effect in action.

Will they never learn?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: censorship, dcri, france, french intelligence, streisand effect, wikipedia

Is Google Regretting Paying Off Belgian And French Newspapers Yet? Other Newspapers Demand Their Cut

from the like-that-wasn't-predictable dept

For years now, we've talked about how various newspapers (and local governments) around the globe were arguing that Google News was somehow unfairly cheating them out of revenues (even as they sent a ton of traffic to those sites, often to visitors who wouldn't have visited the pages at all otherwise). Back in December, we saw that Google "settled" a long running dispute with Belgian newspapers, with part of it being an "agreement" to buy a bunch of advertising to effectively pay off the newspapers. Then, in February, Google did a similar deal in France, this time to the tune of $82 million. Of course, it didn't take long for people to point out that this sets an awful precedent for the internet, as these legacy publishers now believe they have a legitimate argument that sites should pay to link to them.

And, of course, newspapers in lots of other countries were paying attention. While Google has insisted that those two deals "won't be replicated" elsewhere in Europe, it appears that newspaper publishers elsewhere in Europe would like to test that claim. Media companies in Portugal are first up to the plate, demanding that Google pay up:

"Our position is that the content has to be paid for ... We showed that our focus is to be paid for Google News using our news," he said, adding that the two sides planned to continue regular meetings.

A Google spokeswoman said the company "does not comment on private meetings held by its teams".

Maybe, next time, Google should stand up for its principles on deals like this, even in the face of political pressure. Because giving in and paying up only means that pretty much every country with a struggling media business (meaning, most countries) is going to come calling before too long...

Filed Under: belgium, france, google news, newspapers, portugal

Twitter Sued For $50 Million In France For Protecting Identity Of Hateful Twitter Users (Even Though It Deleted The Tweets)

from the i-may-not-like-what-you-say,-but-i'll-fight-for-your-right-to-say-it dept

Last year the Union of Jewish French Students (UEJF) sued Twitter, because a bunch of people in France start tweeting ridiculous anti-semitic tweets as some sort of weird anti-semitic hashtag became popular in France:

Last October, the UEJF sued Twitter after the hashtag "#unBonJuif" (French for "#aGoodJew") became the third most popular trending topic on Twitter in France. With so many tweets indexed under that hashtag, many users took the opportunity to post Holocaust jokes, racially charged statements (e.g. "#aGoodJew is a dead jew"), photos of dustpans filled with dust, and even calls to kill more Jews.

Even though it's a strong defender of free speech, Twitter agreed to remove the tweets in question as offensive. As someone who is Jewish and who is quite offended by anti-semitism, I still think this was the wrong move. Censoring ignorant speech does nothing to fix things. Ignorant speech should be countered with non-ignorant speech. That said, Twitter made its decision and removed the tweets.

Turns out, that wasn't enough. The UEJF demanded the identities of everyone who tweeted such anti-semitic remarks. Twitter refused, but lost in court. Afterwards, it still refused to pass along the info, and so the UEJF has now filed a second lawsuit, seeking $50 million.

“Twitter is playing the indifference card and does not respect the ruling,” Hayoun told AFP. “They have resolved to protect the anonymity of the authors of these tweets and have made themselves accomplices to racists and anti-Semites.”

Either that or they're pushing back against a lynchmob mentality, and protecting at least some precepts of free speech and an expectation of privacy. What's incredible, frankly, is that while Europe is known to have less respect for free speech principles than the US, it tends to have greater respect for privacy rights. Apparently not in this case, however.

Twitter has put out a statement suggesting that the UEJF is much more interested in using this for publicity purposes than anything else:

"We've been in continual discussions with UEJF," a Twitter spokesperson told CNET. "As yesterday's new filing shows, they are sadly more interested in grandstanding than taking the proper international legal path for this data. We are filing our appeal today, and would have filed it sooner if not for UEJF's intentional delay in processing the court's decision."

Even more ridiculous is that it appears that it's not just Twitter being sued, but Twitter CEO Dick Costolo. If this all sounds vaguely familiar, that may be because a decade ago, Yahoo faced a similar ridiculous situation, in which both the company and its CEO were charged as war criminals (no joke!) because Yahoo's non-France websites sold some Nazi memorabilia (they blocked it on Yahoo's French sites). At some point, people bringing these kinds of lawsuits have to realize how counterproductive they are. I'm extremely sympathetic to their offense at the ignorant tweets, but their legal actions take away all of that sympathy.

Filed Under: anti-semitism, france, free speech, lawsuits, privacy, uejf
Companies: twitter

French Politicians Worry That Free Creative Commons Works Devalue 'Legal' Offers

from the what??? dept

As Techdirt noted last year, France has a regrettable habit of dreaming up really bad ideas when it comes to the Internet, most famously with the three-strikes scheme, now known there by the name of the body the oversees it -- Hadopi. Guillaume Champeau points us to a piece in the French newspaper Libération, which contains yet more appalling possibilities (original in French).

The article concerns Pierre Lescure and his team, who have been charged by the French government with coming up with ways to help the world of culture in France adapt to the Internet economy. One idea, kindly suggested by the French recording industry, is to replace Hadopi's court procedures for those accused of unauthorized file sharing with an automatic fine of 140 euros after three strikes. That is, from being guilty until proven innocent, as now, under the proposed scheme those accused would simply be found guilty without any further discussion. And then there's this:

In parallel, no de-penalization for non-commercial sharing, but a desire to "increase the value" of free licences of the Creative Commons kind. The Lescure team believes that letting works circulate freely (as they do now...) would hinder the development of legal offers, particularly VOD [Video On Demand].

Yes, apparently the way to "increase the value" is to no longer allow Creative Commons content to "circulate freely" because it might compete with other business models. Lescure has now taken to Twitter (kudos that at least he's on Twitter) to state that what was reported bears "almost no relation to what we are preparing." But he doesn't explain what exactly they are planning, nor does he deny that their plans involve Creative Commons licenses.

We shall have to wait to see what he has in mind. But it would be hard to find a better symbol of the French establishment's attitude to the Internet and its extraordinary new possibilities than trying to make people pay for works that could be shared freely (because their creators want that), on the grounds that it might hinder a service that turns the Net into television.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: creative commons, devalue, france, free, hadopi

Dirty Deeds: French National Library Privatizes Public Domain, Part 2

from the because-the-situation-hadn't-hit-MAXIMUM-UNCOMFORTIBILITY dept

Earlier in January, the French Ministry of Culture proudly announced a fresh public-private partnership between the French National Library and the privately-held ProQuest, defining how the company will digitize 70,000 books originally published between 1470 and 1700. The agreement sparked outrage among free culture defenders, who denounced a privatization of materials in the public domain:

"While these public private partnerships enable the digitization of these works they also contain 10-year exclusive agreements allowing the private companies carrying out the digitization to commercialize the digitized documents. During this period only a limited number of these works may be offered online by the BnF."

As none of the agreement partners bothered to reply to inquiries from journalists and free culture advocates, the only source of information was a press release from the Ministry of Culture mentioning an official agreement between the Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France, BnF) and ProQuest. The release was highlighting the somewhat obscure branch "BnF-Partenariats" as executives of the contract, and that this agreement is part of a wider initiative: "Early European Books."

The issue here is not commercial use of materials in the public domain but the labyrinthine logic of the agreement. This logic proposes that a client from the public sector (i.e. research and education institutions) will buy a number of works handled by another public institution (i.e. the French National Library), and the profits will reimburse money advanced by a private service provider. A painful situation for our cultural heritage, forcibly entrusted to be the square peg to get into the round monetary hole.

What is unclear, however, are the legal terms under which the digital copies will be handled. In plain English, the BnF has signed an agreement to sell access to digitized copies of books in the public domain. This makes a travesty of its official role: the BnF is supposed to grant access to these works, but the BnF-ProQuest agreement actually blocks access. In the present (whacko) case, the Library – that is, the public institution invested with the power to manage commons, – not only does what is normally the publisher's job, selling, but it also monetizes these works, thus acting as a merchant, which takes work from publishers. The larger questions this raises over exclusivity and ownership of these digital versions are very important. From what's been said to date, it seemingly implies that the digitization of those books means the outcome is a brand new production owned by the ProQuest, the digitization service provider.

Even more strange? ProQuest's agreements elsewhere are quite different, and not nearly as controversial. The BnF-ProQuest agreement is a part of the "Early European Books" initiative. In addition to the French, four other national libraries are a part of the effort: the Royal Library (Denmark), the National Central Library of Florence (Italy), the National Library of the Netherlands, and the The Wellcome Library, London (UK).

The details for each of these agreements, however, are quite different than the agreement in France. Indeed, in every other case, ProQuest digitizes, at its own expense, the works in the public domain operated by the respective partnering national library. It then offers free access to the digital versions of these materials within the country. As ProQuest needs to earn money, it sells the access to its database to other countries (through subscriptions contracted by the universities). According to the BnF-ProQuest agreement, however, no free access to the digital versions is provided other than the very limited version as described above.

Oh, and as if a national library agreeing to sell the country's cultural heritage was not absurd enough, when asked for the details of the agreement the BnF has now admitted that its contract with ProQuest has been misplaced. One might properly note that, so too, has the public domain been "misplaced" with this deal.

[Follow me on Twitter.]

Filed Under: france, libraries, privatization, public domain
Companies: bnf, proquest

HADOPI May Be Succeeding -- In Driving French Customers To Dotcom's Mega

from the don't-say-we-didn't-warn-you dept

Last week, Techdirt reported on the news that falling numbers of P2P users are being trumpeted as a victory for HADOPI's "three strikes" approach in France, but that it is a hollow victory, since sales of recorded music are still dropping in that country. The French site Numerama points out something else interesting happening there (in French), as revealed by the following tweet from Kim Dotcom:

#Mega Top 5 premium membership countries: 1. France 2. Spain 3. Belgium 4. United States 5. Germany - Thanks a lot for buying!

Now, of course, as Techdirt always emphasizes, correlation is not causation, but it's pretty suggestive that at precisely the same time that P2P use is dropping in France, its citizens should turn out to be the biggest premium users of Dotcom's Mega service. This is, after all, precisely what we and everyone else have been predicting: that people would simply move from P2P services where they can be observed, to others -- like Mega's file-hosting site -- where they cannot.

This interpretation is supported by the other notable fact to emerge from Dotcom's tweet: that after French users, it is Spaniards who are signing up for Mega's premium membership in droves -- another group who have had a punitive copyright infringement law imposed on them recently. This means that in about a year's time, we can probably expect the Spanish department tasked with implementing Ley Sinde to publish figures showing that the number of P2P users is falling -- omitting to note, of course that they, like their French counterparts, have simply moved to alternatives instead.

Now, some will doubtless use these trends to argue that Mega should be shut down just as Megaupload was. But the correct inferences to draw are that HADOPI and Ley Sinde are just an expensive waste of time, and that people don't expect to get everything for free, as the popularity in France and Spain of Dotcom's paid-for Mega service shows. It's just a matter of the recording and film industries offering the public what they want, in a form they want, at a reasonable price. Is that really too much to ask?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: copyright, france, hadopi
Companies: mega

Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'

from the of-course-that's-the-plan... dept

We were just talking about how three strikes hasn't done anything to actually increase sales. Instead, as many, many people predicted, sales have continued to decline. Of course, perhaps treating your biggest fans as criminals is not a particularly wise strategy. But, then again, the big entertainment legacy players aren't exactly known for wise or thoughtful strategies.

With France, the biggest supporters of a "three strikes (accusations) and we kick you off the internet" plan facing pushback from the government, it appears that the industry folks have hit on their latest ridiculous strategy. Rather than kick people off the internet, why not take a page from copyright trolls, and force them to cough up money. Yes, indeed, it appears that the entertainment industry is looking to turn "piracy" into a "business model" by forcing people they accuse (not convict) of infringement to pay up in large masses. Except, rather than using shady dealings via questionable court procedures, they're just hoping to roll it into existing three strikes plans:

UPFI, (Union of Independent Phonographic Producers), said that it agreed with the opinion of French music rights group SACEM that a disconnection regime should be replaced with warnings along with fines of 140 euros.

PCInpact contacted Jerome Roger, Director General of UPFI, who confirmed the group is indeed in favor of such fines.

This leaning towards cash penalties is also endorsed by Warner Music President Thierry Chassagne. In recent comments Chassange suggested that not enough punishments have been handed out under Hadopi and that a deterrent is necessary.

In other words, if kicking people off the internet isn't getting them to give us more money... how about we skip that middle step and just force them to give us money. It is, clearly, taking a page straight out of the copyright trolling handbook.

According to French publication Numerama, this new direction is basically a done deal in France. And, of course, once it shows up there, expect the same sort of things to start popping up around the globe quickly. The industry doesn't spring stuff like this in just one place alone. There's a global strategy behind it.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, education, fines, france, hadopi, three strikes