France had this awful law on the books for a while, the three strikes law, that worked as follows: if you were accused of copyright infringement three times, you lost the right to go online. We thought this was exceptionally draconian, especially as the accusers did not ever have to prove anything happened. Now France’s Constitutional Council has somewhat redeemed the law, though the impact that this new version will have is still up in the air.
Upon your third accusation of copyright infringement, the Hadopi agency will turn over your case to a court, where a judge will finally determine your fate. If the judge decides that you’re guilty, then he can fine you up to 300,000 euros, send you to jail for up to two years, or just disconnect you from the internet. Presumably, some Hadopi people will present the judge with evidence, leaving the decision up to him. So if a bunch of really liberal judges oversee these cases, the law is essentially off the books.
I can’t help but feel that the new version of the three strikes law is still bogus, and here’s why: where is the representation for the defendant? Unless there’s something that I’ve missed (and I really hope there is), an agency working for someone’s conviction just presents evidence to a judge. That’s it. There’s no chance for you or anyone representing you to say “I downloaded files that are made available to me under Creative Commons,” or to use one of several other viable explanations.
The new bill is yet to be adopted, so there’s some time before the National Assembly actually puts it into law. That provides a chance that some French politician will try and add something to protect internet users. Then again, this is the same National Assembly that passed the three strikes law in the first place.
