10 June 2009 - 17H00
Top legal body strikes down anti-piracy law
The French Constitutional Council has blocked the key provision of an Internet piracy law after ruling that "access to public communication services on line" was a human right, and that a only a judge could cut off an individual's Internet access.
What do you think of the Constitutional Council’s decision? Do you think the anti-piracy law will still be applied one day? Or should it be re-examined from scratch? Send us your comments by clicking on “React”.
AFP - France's highest legal authority on Wednesday struck down a key provision of a contested Internet piracy law that set up a new state agency to cut off offenders from the web.
The ruling is an embarrassing setback for President Nicolas Sarkozy, who championed the adoption of the tough new legislation last month.
The Constitutional Council ruled that "free access to public communication services on line" was a human right, and that only a judge should have the power to strike an individual from the Internet.
Council members, who include former French presidents, based their ruling on the preamble to the French constitution, which lists freedom of communication and expression as a basic human right.
France's opposition Socialist Party had asked the Council to rule on the constitutional legality of the bill, which won final parliamentary approval on May 13.
One of the toughest ever drafted in the global fight against Internet piracy, the law would punish those who download music and film illegally by shutting down their Internet access for up to a year.
The law approved the set-up of of a state agency known by the acronym Hadopi to track and punish illegal downloaders, serving as a go-between for content providers and Internet service providers.
Under a "three-strikes" system, offenders would first receive an email warning, then a letter and finally lose their Internet account for up to a year if they are caught a third time.
The bill enjoyed broad support from the music and film industry in France and abroad, but was fiercely opposed by consumer groups, the Internet industry and the left-wing opposition.
Opponents said the bill failed to give alleged offenders enough recourse to challenge accusations and argued that web innovations would make it possible for downloaders to avoid detection.
Related Content
Egypt vs. Algeria 'hate match' already kicked off online
Stay tuned
Comments
People should be presumed innocent until shown guilty
It is not fair if someone disregards the right of the artist to demand payment for his art whenever he wishes. But it isn't fair either that someone be punished based only on alleged commision of a crime.
If you're found guilty, you're bound to be punished; but keep in mind that it is a fundamental principle that people be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
What About the Rule of Law?
When somebody steals, he is caught and brought in front of a court. But in the "far west" where the antipiracy lobbies wish us to live, there will not be any rule of law, just powerful private players delivering justice.
Everybody has the right to access the internet. This is a fundamental right. When people break IP law, they should be brought to justice, trialed properly and receive the punishment that the law prescribes. Cutting internet access for one year is a punishment that does not fit with the rule of law and the respect of basic rights. And IP protection is not the ultimate right in the human civilisation, superseding everything else.
Freedom to steal?
The constitution grants free access to public communication services on line, but does that mean people have the right to steal? Surely no freedom is total. Freedom has to be exercised within the bounds of the greater good of society, and if creators are not paid for their creations they will stop creating, so depriving society of innovation.