French & German Courts Disagree Whether Internet Companies Need To Filter

from the still-not-clear dept

Recently, Techdirt reported on the ruling by a German court on the issue of filtering -- whether Internet sites have a responsibility to block files continually if they have been notified about infringing materials once, sometimes called "Notice and Stay Down". The German court basically said they do, but the highest French court has taken a different view (French original.)

The Court of Appeal in Paris had ruled that Google had a duty to make sure that an unauthorized copy of a film was not re-posted to YouTube after it had been removed following a complaint. However, the Court of Cassation, the court of final appeal for civil and criminal matters in France, struck down this judgment. Its logic was as follows: if a Web site were expected to take down every future copy of a file that had been removed following a complaint, but without being told exactly where the new copies were located, the only way it could achieve that was by constantly monitoring all users to check that they were not uploading that file. That, the Court of Cassation ruled, was not proportionate and, furthermore, forbidden by European law (presumably a reference to the SABAM ruling from earlier this year.)

That's the good news. The bad news is that HADOPI threatens to rear its ugly head here. According to the same post on the French PC Inpact site, Article L336-2 of the HADOPI law introduced an extremely broad duty to do everything possible to stop copyright infringement. Quite what that means in practice has never been tested, but following the Court of Cassation's rejection of filtering, it seems likely that we shall find out soon enough.

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

Filed Under: copyright, filters, france, germany

Who's Running A Big Counterfeit Ring For Hermes Bags? Apparently Hermes Employees

from the is-that-still-counterfeiting? dept

There are significant reasons to question the actual impact of any counterfeiting that goes on, as multiple studies have shown that (a) it's not nearly as big as various reports claim and (b) most people buying fake products know they're buying fake products, and they often later buy the real ones. However, there's no doubt that counterfeiting exists, and it's understandable that there are efforts to crack down on pure counterfeiting: cases where someone is selling a knockoff good, claiming to be the original.

Still, it's a bit of a surprise to find out that, as part of an effort by French law enforcement to break up a ring that was counterfeiting Hermes bags, they discovered the whole thing may have been run by Hermes employees -- at least two of whom have been arrested (and fired). Of course, perhaps it's not so strange. When it comes to copyright infringement, it's pretty common to find out that early leaks are "inside jobs." Still, it does raise questions about whether those "knockoffs" were really of lesser quality... It reminds me of the story of a firm that created its own "counterfeit" line to compete, but that was "authorized." This just sounds like some rogue employees, trying to cash in.

Filed Under: counterfeit, france, knockoffs, luxury goods
Companies: hermes

Google Works Out Deal Concerning 'Jew' Suggestions In France

from the what-kind-of-deal? dept

Back in May, we wrote about a ridiculous lawsuit in France, where Google was being sued because when people searched on the names of certain famous people, sometimes Google's autocomplete feature would show the name with the word "jew" or "jewish." Of course, if you understand how Google works, you'd know that this is because a lot of people were searching for the names of those individuals along with the keyword jew or jewish. Those individuals doing the searching may or may not have been doing so for anti-semitic reasons, but it seems ridiculous to blame Google because of what its users were searching for. Also, I'm still at a loss as to why appending the suggestion of "jew" to someone's name is anti-semitic (and I say that as someone who is Jewish). The specific issue in France is that it's apparently "illegal to record someone's ethnicity in a database." But, of course, that wasn't what Google was doing either.

Either way, it appears that the lawsuit is being dropped after some sort of "agreement" was reached, though no one seems to want to explain what the agreement entails. The AFP article notes that searches on famous people still do seem to be returning suggestions that include "jew," so it doesn't sound like Google manually changed its results, which is a good thing. Instead, the only thing that's mentioned is that the parties "identified areas of useful cooperation in the fight against racism and anti-Semitism that put an end to the dispute." While the details may matter here, hopefully it just involves providing more information to people in an effort to fight ignorance, rather than trying to hide information. The fact that people are searching for names along with "jew" may be an indicator that those individuals are anti-semitic, but the way to do deal with that is by confronting ignorance, not hiding it.

Filed Under: autocomplete, ethnicity, france, search
Companies: google

Press Tries To Pin High Profile Killings On The Web & World Of Warcraft

from the not-this-again dept

And, here we go again. The press and "cultural commentators" absolutely love to blame new technologies for someone who does something bad. The latest is that in response to the crazy Luka Magnotta case (involving the guy in Canada who killed and dismembered someone, filming the whole thing, eating some pieces and sending others to politicians) a "cultural critic" in France is arguing that without the internet, Magnotta would not have committed his crimes.

Without the web, “the butcher of Montreal would not exist,” Mr. de Boni concludes. “This killer character is a narcissistic and deviant avatar, one of many virtual identities he invented in order to create celebrity.”

Because, of course, prior to the internet and Facebook, there were no such things as psychotic people who killed others and ate them. While the internet may have influenced the specifics of how Magnotta went about his crime, it seems ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that absent the internet, none of this would have happened. Magnotta was clearly a very sick individual. If anything, it's worth pointing out that unlike the other examples I linked to in this paragraph of sociopathic killers who dismembered and ate their victims, Magnotta was actually caught after just the first victim -- in part because he provided all sorts of evidence of his guilt online.

Meanwhile, over in Norway, where the trial of mass murderer Anders Breivik is going on, we had already noted that the press was having a field day with the claim that Breivik played a lot of World of Warcraft. That seems pretty silly considering the millions of people who play the game. However, bizarrely, the prosecution has brought it up in the trial, letting the press grandstand on the issue yet again. Even Breivik found that line of questioning to be stupid, declaring (correctly) that "it is not relevant to this case whatsoever."

But it is relevant to reporters who want to build a story about those crazy video games...

Why is it so hard to believe that there are psychotic/sociopathic people out there who do harm, and that's got nothing to do with their internet or gaming usage? These things aren't "triggered" by surfing the web or playing games. I recognize that people feel the need to look for a "reason" that these people exist and do such horrible things, but it should be pretty clear that it's a problem with them -- not their use of technology.

Of course, if we should be concerned about video games at all in the Breivik trial, perhaps it should be over the fact that a judge in the case was spotted playing solitaire on his computer during the trial:

Filed Under: anders breivik, france, luka magnotta, norway, video games, world of warcraft

French Film Exec Insists That Anti-Piracy Efforts Made Sure No French Films Were Downloaded For 7 Months

from the this-is-called-denial dept

We've certainly seen the entertainment industry continually try to pretend that Hadopi's clear failure is a success story. However, sometimes it seems to go from just massaging the numbers into outright denial. That seems to be the case with Nicolas Seydoux, who is both the president of a French film company and the head of the local anti-piracy organization, ALPA.

In a recent statement, Seydoux insisted that the "methods developed by ALPA" (going beyond just Hadopi) made sure that not a single French film was downloaded between May 15th and December 15th in 2011:

“Between 15 May and 15 December 2011, no French film has been downloaded from the Internet,”

Oddly, he doesn't even seem to distinguish authorized online movie services from unauthorized. He just insists that no films have been downloaded. At first, I thought that perhaps he really meant that no new French films had been leaked online, but that's not what he says. He literally claims that zero French films were downloaded during those seven months. I guess he's declaring victory for his anti-piracy organization, but it's impressive how the pure bubble he's living in does not even come close to reflecting reality.

Filed Under: alpa, france, hadopi, nicolas seydoux, piracy

French Court Says Google Not Liable For Infringing Works Uploaded To YouTube

from the makes-sense dept

In a case that appears to parallel the Viacom/YouTube case in the US, French TV network TF1 sued YouTube/Google (and competitor Dailymotion), claiming that those sites were liable for infringing videos uploaded to the site. However, in a new ruling, a French court has dismissed the case. As with other, similar cases, the French court found that Google had made "sufficiently adequate efforts" to takedown infringing content when it found out about it. More specifically, the court properly noted that users were responsible for content uploaded, rather than the site.

"The defendant is not responsible in principle for the video content on its site; only the users of the site are," the decision reads.

"It has no obligation to police the content before it is put online as long as it informs users that posting television shows, music videos, concerts or advertisements without prior consent of the owner is not allowed."

The case went so poorly for TF1 that it was told to pay Google's legal expenses. TF1 has suggested that it will appeal, calling the ruling "surprising."

There have been a series of similar lawsuits filed around the globe, with mixed results, but hopefully we're reaching an era where courts (and companies) finally understand that a platform should never be directly liable for the actions of its users.

Filed Under: france, liability
Companies: google, tf1, viacom

What Does The Election Of France's New President Mean For European Copyright?

from the keeping-everyone-happy dept

Whatever you might have thought of his policies, Nicolas Sarkozy probably had more impact on European copyright policy than any other EU politician. He consciously tried to the lead the way in bringing in more extreme copyright enforcement, most notably with the "three strikes" HADOPI law.

That alone makes his defeat in the recent French presidential elections significant: there are no signs that his successor, François Hollande, will take anything like the personal interest in copyright that Sarkozy did. But that also makes it very hard to predict what effect Hollande's election will have on the French and European copyright scene. Nonetheless, the French site Numerama has published an early attempt to lay down some rough ideas of what happens next (original in French.)

Things are complicated by Hollande's shifts in position on this issue. That's because in the run-up to the election he attempted to sweep up the anti-Sarkozy voters who hated HADOPI without alienating the creative industries who were all for strict enforcement of copyright. The result is a series of vague promises and pronouncements without much in the way of concrete plans.

For example, as Numerama explains, starting on 3 July there will be a "post-HADOPI reflection," led by a government commission that will draw up new measures forming what Hollande has termed "Act 2" for French culture. That commission will have the unenviable task of trying to keep everyone happy -- and probably end up pleasing no one. Meanwhile, it seems, the HADOPI machine will rumble on: Hollande has not announced any plans to suspend the system while the commission draws up its response. That's regrettable, since it implicitly accepts the validity of the "three strikes" punishment system.

However disappointing Hollande's vague policies may be for those looking for a clean break with the past, there is always the hope that now that he is elected, he may bring in bolder measures that restore some balance to copyright in his country. In any case, the fact that France is now taking its time to re-consider copyright and creativity altogether, rather than simply continuing to charge down the road of harsh enforcement, is likely to have a positive knock-on effect in the European Union. With Sarkozy gone, the copyright maximalists there have undoubtedly lost their most outspoken and powerful ally.

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

Filed Under: europe, france, francois hollande, hadopi, nicolas sarkozy

Google Sued Because Some People Wonder If Jon Hamm Is Jewish

from the they-should-just-ask-adam-sandler dept

We've written about a bunch of court cases around the globe, in which Google was sued (and often found liable) for the results of its autocomplete feature, which suggests popular searches based on what users have typed. For reasons that still are unfathomable to me, courts seem to think that Google should somehow be considered responsible for displaying what its users are searching for. These kinds of lawsuits appear to be particularly popular in France, and the latest one seems especially silly. Apparently Google is being sued because autocomplete sometimes shows the name of famous people with the keyword "jew" after them. This includes such non-Jews as Rupert Murdoch and Jon Hamm.
The lawsuit is being fought by a group, SOS Racisme, which claims to "fight discrimination," but if that's the case, then one hopes that racism has all but been obliterated in France, since the group has moved on to fighting ridiculous cases like this one. All that Google autocomplete is showing is that a lot of people (potentially ignorant ones) have searched for these names, along with the keyword "jew" or "jewish" to determine if the individual is Jewish. The fact that users search for something and Google displays that isn't something Google should be liable for. Why blame Google for the actions of its users?

But, more to the point -- and I say this as someone who is Jewish -- what the hell is anti-semitic about doing such searches in the first place? I'm really at a complete loss to understand why this is so horrible. Yes, the reason behind the searches may be ignorance (and some of the results may point to pages that spread ignorance), but the group bringing the lawsuit seem to be suggesting that this is an absolutely horrible thing that people may be prompted to do searches on whether or not non-Jews are really Jews. The only way this story makes any sense is if all real racism and anti-semitism and other forms of ignorance and bigotry have all been eradicated in Europe. Assuming that's not actually the case, perhaps it's just one clueless group overreacting.

Filed Under: autocomplete, france, jon hamm, rupert murdoch
Companies: google

French Tweeters Get Around Ban On Tweeting Election Results Using WWII-Era Codes

from the gouda-cheese dept

Last week, we wrote about how French Twitter users were being warned not to use social media tools like Twitter to reveal local polling or election results before all the French voting booths closed in the Presidential election. We pointed out how silly this was, and it appears that folks in France used a simple mechanism to get around the rules: using WWII-era coding techniques to share information in the same manner that the French Resistance used:

As a result, incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy became either Tokaji wine which, like his father, comes from Hungary, or Rolex because of his perceived "bling-bling" lifestyle.

His Socialist opponent Francois Hollande was either Gouda cheese (from Holland) or a soft, sweet "Flanby" caramel desert -- an old and unforgiving nickname for the portly frontrunner.

Far-right candidate Marine Le Pen was associated with the names of totalitarian regimes or rodents and Communist Party-backed Jean-Luc Melenchon was either a rotten tomato or something linked to the former Soviet Union.

From there, it sounds like people just had fun with it, figuring out all sorts of ways to obliquely refer to the different candidates and how well they were doing without directly referring to any of them. Once again, the internet views censorship as an obstacle, and routes around it, through a rather creative form of "encryption."

Filed Under: code, election, france, social media, world war two

RIAA Keeps Trying To Spin Hadopi's Clear Failure Into A Success Story

from the how-sad dept

It's one thing to make bad predictions or be focused on the wrong thing -- but to totally spin the data to pretend you were right all along when it's pretty clear you were wrong... well, that's just delusional. And that appears to be the situation the RIAA is in. You may recall the fact that despite Hadopi trying to declare success because unauthorized file sharing appeared to have dropped off considerably, it was pretty clear the program was a failure because music sales continued to drop. And if the point of this kind of crackdown is to help the industry, then it seems like a pretty big failure. But, in the RIAA, apparently "failure is not an option" -- so they just take a clear story of failure and pretend it's a giant success , because there was a boost in digital sales and subscriptions -- even if overall revenue is down.

But this argument makes no sense. You can't just ignore the part of the market you don't like when it's inconvenient. The RIAA tries to get around this solely by focusing on growth within digital (and ignoring the continued free fall in analog sales). But if we're talking about the overall music market, shouldn't that be seen in how the impact is measured? Besides, as Saskia Walzel rightly points out, it appears that the growth in digital services that the RIAA trumpets as proof that Hadopi worked were seen in other countries as well -- including countries without such a draconian three strikes policy. So, while there may be a correlation between three strikes and people paying, the evidence of any sort of causal relationship is totally missing. The RIAA can't just pretend that the changes in France were due to Hadopi when the evidence suggests otherwise. At least someone should call them out for the claim.

Filed Under: file sharing, france, hadopi, piracy
Companies: riaa