Misplaced Pages

#291708

40-876: The part of the HADOPI law that allowed for suspension of Internet access to a repeat infringer was revoked on 8 July 2013 by the French government because that penalty was considered to be disproportionate. The power to impose fines or other sanctions on repeat infringers remains in effect. In January 2022, the Hadopi agency merged with the High Audiovisual Council (CSA), to form the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication ( Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique ; ARCOM). Despite strong backing from President Nicolas Sarkozy ,

80-454: A complaint from a copyright holder or representative, HADOPI may initiate a 'three-strike' procedure: The ISP is then required to monitor the subject's Internet connection. In addition, the Internet access subscriber is invited to install a filter on his Internet connection. If, in the 6 months following the first step, a repeat offense is suspected by the copyright holder, his representative,

120-646: A fine of up to €300,000. The HADOPI law is supposed to address the concerns of the Constitutional Council of France, in addition to replacing the DADVSI law, which has yet to be enforced. On September 5, 2007, the French Minister of Culture , Christine Albanel asked the CEO of the major French entertainment retailer ( Fnac ), Denis Olivennes , to lead a task force to study a three-strike sanction, to conform with

160-526: A government council responsible to the French Ministry of Culture . The agency is vested with the power to police Internet users. To ensure that Internet subscribers "screen their Internet connections in order to prevent the exchange of copyrighted material without prior agreement from the copyright holders" (Art. L. 336-3 of the bill). HADOPI also retains mandates previously attributed to the ARMT. On receipt of

200-527: A user can upload data. The second proposed that news publishers should benefit financially when links to their articles are posted on a commercial platform. Responding to criticism, Axel Voss admitted that the law was "maybe not the best idea" but went on to support its passage and draft some of the language being used to amend Article 11. The update has been widely derided as a link tax . Its critics include German former MEP Felix Reda , Internet company Mozilla and copyright reform activists associated with

240-733: Is a directive in European Union law that was enacted to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty and to harmonise aspects of copyright law across Europe, such as copyright exceptions . The directive was first enacted in 2001 under the internal market provisions of the Treaty of Rome . The draft directive was subject to unprecedented lobbying and was considered a success for Europe's copyright laws. The 2001 directive gave EU Member States significant freedom in certain aspects of transposition . Member States had until 22 December 2002 to transpose

280-547: Is a strong lobbyist against the law. Following an open letter in the newspaper Libération signed by Chantal Akerman , Christophe Honoré , Jean-Pierre Limosin , Zina Modiano , Gaël Morel , Victoria Abril , Catherine Deneuve , Louis Garrel , Yann Gonzalez , Clotilde Hesme , Chiara Mastroianni , Agathe Berman and Paulo Branco which was published on April 7, 2009, and co-authored notably by Victoria Abril and Catherine Deneuve , an informal group has been constituted under

320-489: Is not prohibited) would have to do it themselves since no equipment would lawfully be marketed for that purpose. Under the Copyright Directive, this possibility would not be available since circumvention of copy protection is illegal. Member States had until 22 December 2002 to implement the Copyright Directive into their national laws. However, only Greece and Denmark met the deadline, while Italy, Austria, Germany and

360-630: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act , which only prohibits circumvention of access control measures, the Copyright Directive also prohibits circumvention of copy protection measures, making it potentially more restrictive. In both the DMCA and the Copyright Directive, production, distribution etc. of equipment used to circumvent both access and copy-protection is prohibited. Under the DMCA, potential users who want to avail themselves of an alleged fair use privilege to crack copy protection (which

400-450: The French code of Intellectual Property , particularly its articles L331-1 or L335-2, or limit a claimant's other remedies at law. (See CNIL opinion, below ). Since the law was approved in 2009 until abrogation of the suspension of access to a communication service in 2013, only one user has been sentenced to suspension (for 15 days) plus fined for EUR 600. The sentence never applied because of

440-630: The CSA asked the Government of France to forbid Al-Manar TV in 2005 because of charges of hate speech ; it also claimed that MED TV was close to the Kurdish PKK , on grounds not of "evidences" but of "concording elements". On 24 September 2019, Franck Riester announced that the bill relating to audiovisual communication and cultural sovereignty in the digital age examined by the National Assembly in

SECTION 10

#1732855701292

480-496: The High Authority for Audiovisual Communication, created in 1982 to supervise the attribution of radio frequencies to the private radio sector, which was judged better than allowing the anarchic creation of the radios libres ("free radios"), mainly composed of amateurs and NGOs. The CSA always acted after content was shown on a TV channel or heard on a radio, so it was not an instance of preventative censorship . Notably,

520-506: The ISP or HADOPI, the second step of the procedure is invoked. In the event that the offender fails to comply during the year following the reception of the certified letter, and upon accusation of repeated offenses by the copyright holder, a representative, the ISP or HADOPI, the third step of the procedure is invoked. Offender can seek recourse against the HADOPI, before case transmission, and against

560-512: The Internet ); replacing a previous agency, the ARMT (Regulation of Technical Measures Authority) created by the DADVSI law . The new government agency is headed by a board of nine members, three appointed by the government, two by the legislative bodies, three by judicial bodies and one by the Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique (Superior Council of Artistic and Literary Property),

600-453: The Ministry of Culture on February 14, 2009. SACEM and other entertainment industry players mounted a petition of "10,000 artists" in support of the HADOPI law. The list has been challenged on several grounds: The leading French consumer association UFC Que Choisir has positioned itself against the law and set up a website to support opposition. Digital rights group La Quadrature du Net

640-586: The Olivennes report, supported by the Olivennes agreement, in which representatives of the entertainment and media industries gave their assent to the law's enforcement procedures. Nevertheless, some companies, notably the ISPs Orange and Free , later dissented from the agreement. Owing to its controversial nature, the bill became a subject of intense campaigning in various media, which was redoubled after its parliamentary defeat on April 9, 2009. On October 4, 2008,

680-721: The UK implemented the directive in 2003. The remaining eight Member States (Belgium, Spain, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Finland and Sweden) were referred to the European Court of Justice for non-implementation. In 2004 Finland, the UK (with regards to Gibraltar ), Belgium and Sweden were held responsible for non-implementation. National implementation measures include: In 2016, leaked documents revealed that two new provisions were under consideration. The first, aimed at social media companies, sought to make automated screening for copyrighted content mandatory for all cases in which

720-568: The abrogation some days after. On 9 July 2013, the French Ministry of Culture published official decree No. 0157, removing from the law "the additional misdemeanor punishable by suspension of access to a communication service." allegedly because "the three strikes mechanism had failed to benefit authorized services as promised". The Minister explained that the stricter copyright policy of the French Government would be revised from going after

760-613: The bill was rejected by the French National Assembly on 9 April 2009. The French government asked for reconsideration of the bill by the French National Assembly and it was adopted on 12 May 2009 by the assembly, and on 13 May 2009 by the French Senate . Debate included accusations of dubious tactics made against the promoters of the bill. There were complaints that the government's official website misrepresented

800-556: The bill, that the French Misplaced Pages pages on it were falsified by the Ministry of Culture on 14 February 2009. and a "petition of 10,000 artists" in support of the bill was questioned as allegedly fraudulent. The law creates a government agency called Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Œuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet (HADOPI) (English: Supreme Authority for the Distribution and Protection of Intellectual Property on

840-473: The court. The Internet access subscriber was blacklisted and other ISPs were prohibited from providing an Internet connection to the blacklisted subscriber. The service suspension did not, however, interrupt billing, and the offending subscriber was liable to meet any charges or costs resulting from the service termination. According to the CNIL , action under the HADOPI law does not exclude separate prosecution under

SECTION 20

#1732855701292

880-503: The crime of lack of screening of Internet connections in order to prevent exchange of copyrighted material without prior agreement from the copyright holders (art. L335.12). The DADVSI law did not prescribe any punishment. It has been partially invalidated by the Constitutional Council of France 's rejection of the principle of escalation, and retains only the crime of copyright-infringement, punishable by up to 3 years' prison and

920-482: The data they transmit, even if it infringes copyright. The other limitations are optional, with Member States choosing which they give effect to in national laws. Article 5(2) allows Member States to establish copyright exceptions to the Article 2 reproduction right in cases of: Article 5(3) allows Member States to establish copyright exceptions to the Article 2 reproduction right and the Article 3 right of communication to

960-475: The digital age". The merger became effective on 1 January 2022. (as of December 2021) The following pictograms are proposed to the different TV channels. Channels are responsible for displaying the right pictogram depending on the show and its time of broadcast. Note that –18 can be either non-pornographic (like the movie Ken Park ) or pornographic. Information Society Directive The Copyright and Information Society Directive 2001 ( 2001/29 )

1000-439: The directive into their national laws, although only Greece and Denmark met the deadline. Articles 2–4 contain definitions of the exclusive rights granted to under copyright and related rights . They distinguish the "reproduction right" (Article 2) from the right of "communication to the public" or "making available to the public" (Article 3): the latter is specifically intended to cover publication and transmission on

1040-439: The end-user to taking punitive sanctions against companies who provide web hosting and telecom infrastructure services which allow copyright infringement to occur. Nevertheless, the fines against users found to be sharing unauthorized content remained standing ("up to EUR 1500 in cases of gross negligence"), and ISPs are still required to provide details to identify them. The French Culture Minister Aurélie Filippetti explained that

1080-607: The financial costs to the French Government in applying the Hadopi Law was not sound. She disclosed that it cost her Ministry 12 million Euros and 60 civil servants to send 1 million e-mails to copyright infringers and 99,000 registered letters, with only 134 cases examined for prosecution. Implementation of the European Copyright Directive resulted in the French DADVSI law which has been in force since 2007, creating

1120-470: The first half of 2020 would include the merger of the CSA and HADOPI to form the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication ( Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique ; ARCOM). The bill is put on hold until 8 April 2022 when it is presented to the Council of Ministers under the name "bill relating to the regulation and protection of access to cultural works in

1160-460: The intentional circumvention of "effective technological measures" designed to prevent or restrict acts of copying not authorised by the rightholders of any copyright, related right or the sui generis right in databases ( preamble paragraph 47). Member States must also provide "adequate legal protection" against the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertisement, or possession "for commercial purposes of devices, products or components or

1200-534: The internet. The two names for the right derive from the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (Arts. 8 & 10 respectively). The related right for authors to authorise or prohibit any form of distribution to the public by sale or otherwise is provided for in Article 4 ( exhaustion rights ). Article 5 lists the copyright exceptions which Member States may apply to copyright and related rights. The restrictive nature of

1240-459: The list was one source of controversy over the directive: in principle, Member States may only apply exceptions which are on the agreed list, although other exceptions which were already in national laws on 2001-06-22 may remain in force [Article 5(3)(o)]. The Copyright Directive makes only one exception obligatory: transient or incidental copying as part of a network transmission or legal use. Hence internet service providers are not liable for

HADOPI law - Misplaced Pages Continue

1280-552: The name Creation Public Internet . On March 12, 2009, the British Featured Artists Coalition publicised its opposition to the principle of the HADOPI law. With the exception of the French Green Party who campaigned against the law, other political groups represented in the legislative chambers were not active lobbying for or against the law, though individual members did so. The French Socialist Party

1320-497: The provision of services which": In the absence of rightsholders taking voluntary measures the Directive provides that Member States must ensure that technological measures do not prevent uses permitted under Article 5 on copyright exceptions , see Article 6(4). Article 7 requires that Member States must provide "adequate legal protection" against the removal of rights management information metadata . Unlike Section 1201 of

1360-518: The public in cases of: According to Article 5(5) copyright exceptions may only be "applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder", therefore the directive confirms the Berne three-step test . Article 6 of the Copyright Directive requires that Member States must provide "adequate legal protection" against

1400-539: The ruling of the French Constitutional Council. After consulting representatives of the entertainment industry, Internet service providers and consumer associations, the Olivennes committee reported to the Minister on November 23. The report was signed by 40 companies at the Élysée and presented as the "Olivennes agreement". It was later renamed the "Élysée agreement". The HADOPI law is the implementation of

1440-814: The then French President Nicolas Sarkozy , a personal supporter of the law, interceded with the president of the European Commission regarding an amendment to the EU Telecoms Package that targeted the HADOPI law and the lack of a judicial ruling in the original drafting of it. This was Amendment 138 to the Framework directive as adopted by the European Parliament in the First Reading of the Telecoms Package . The European Commission's response to Sarkozy

1480-708: Was a French institution created in 1989 whose role was to regulate the various electronic media in France, such as radio and television. The creation of the Haute Autorité de la Communication Audiovisuelle (High Authority for Audiovisual Communication) was a measure founded in the Socialist Party 's electoral program of 1981, called 110 Propositions for France . The CSA replaced the Commission Nationale de la Communication et des Libertés (CNCL), which itself replaced

1520-596: Was presented to the public by Minister of Culture and Communication Frédéric Mitterrand , it was revealed that the logo used an unlicensed font. The font was created by typeface designer Jean François Porchez , and is owned by France Télécom . The design agency that drew the logo, Plan Créatif, admitted to using the font by mistake and the logo was redone with another font. High Audiovisual Council The Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel ( French: [kɔ̃sɛj sypeʁjœʁ də lɔdjɔvizɥɛl] , lit.   ' Superior Audiovisual Council ' ), abbreviated CSA ,

1560-487: Was probably the most divided. While it initially favored the law (voted yes in the Senate's first reading), it was chiefly responsible for the surprise rejection of the bill after the first reading in the National Assembly, as well as requesting the Constitutional Council 's ruling. The Pirate Party (France) although not represented in the legislative chambers also campaigned against the law. Shortly after HADOPI's agency logo

1600-490: Was that it supported Amendment 138. That remained its position until the Telecoms Package was finally adopted with the so-called Freedom Provision (Directive 2009/140/EC, Article 1.3a). The French government created a promotional website in support of the country's entertainment industry. The content of the website was criticised as misleading. It was also alleged that French Misplaced Pages pages relative to HADOPI were edited by

#291708