Marseille edit
The bill "Creation and Internet", or " Hadopi Law", was presented on Wednesday by the Council of Ministers. "Gradual Retort ", “High authority": it is sowed with several more or less obscure terms. What do they mean and which measures are registered in the project? Explanations.
Why is the name of "Hadopi"?
The "Hadopi bill" takes the name of the High Authority for the works’ distribution and the rights’ protection on the Internet (Hadopi) which will be established. This Hadopi will check and punish if necessary the Internet users who are engaged in the illegal downloading.
The text had previously been nicknamed "Olivennes bill", because it arises from Elysee agreements, signed on November 23rd, which lean on Denis Olivennes's report. The ex-CEO of Fnac and the current editorial director of Nouvel Obs carried out a mission on the fight against the illicit downloading and for the development of the legal cultural offer on the Internet last autumn. He had then auditioned all the sector actors to reach this agreement.
The bill presented on Wednesday, June 18th by the Council of Ministers is finally baptized "Creation and Internet ".
What does this bill consist of?
The future law aims at checking the illegal downloading of music and/or movies. To do it, the text establishes a mechanism of "gradual retort ", under the leadership of the High authority.
When an Internet user will download illegally a musical or film piece on the Internet, he will call in to order, at first by sending warning mails, then in case of second offense, a registered letter, and finally by the suspension, even the termination of the Internet subscription.
What are the advantages of the "gradual retort"?
According to the Ministry of Culture, the transfer of responsibilities of filtering and penalty in Hadopi will allow a faster location of the Internet users in breach. Previously, only the judge could decide on a penalty against the hackers.
Furthermore, the fact of receiving calls to order would allow, always according to the ministry, to stop the behavior of occasional hacking. According to one of Christine Albanel's councillors, "the future law leans on the successes which were already noticed in the United States and in Great Britain (...) In these countries, a great majority of hackers stop the illegal downloads after two or three warnings".
Who is against?
The opponents include: associations of Internet users, citizens, European and French Members, lawyers... SVM magazine has also launched an on-line petition against the text.
The European Parliament voted, from the part, on April 10th of this year for a resolution which "invite the Committee and State Members to avoid taking measures which enter in contradiction with civil liberties and human rights and principles of proportionality, efficiency and dissuasion, such as the interruption of the Internet access."
In France, the CNIL and the Arcep also pronounced against this bill. Arcep deduces that the principle of "gradual retort" has placed Internet service providers (FAI) in contradiction with several existing texts (obligation "to guarantee a continuous access to the emergency services" for example).
Cnil, considered that, legally, this law would raise a problem of "proportionality between the privacy invasion (collection of mass of IP addresses, cut of the Internet access) and the respect for the property right (the interests and right-holders)."
Why does the text stir up controversy?
The suspension measure of the Internet access concentrates on the criticisms of the text opponents. The latter actually judge this "disproportionate" measure, because it would involve an "electronic social death" of the Internet user targeted by the penalty.
Another problem, is the fact that the location of hackers is made by private companies. It is in fact the right-holders and the producers will target the Internet user offenders on the Web, which they will indicate in Hadopi. Such inquiries will be a matter of the judicial competence.
The third point of the tension, the future law is going to give to Hadopi, purely administrative authority, judicial powers. Nevertheless, constitutionally, the judicial authority is the only one who is capable of educating and of judging in criminal matters. Actually, the hackers who download illegally risk up to 300,000 euros of fine and three years in prison.
Additional obstacle, and not the slightest, at the level of the technique this time, is that: the Internet service providers (FAI) are not, for the moment, in capacity to filter the whole network. Nevertheless, it is with FAI that Hadopi will get back the hackers’ contact details.