Sarkozy Routes Around Parliament, Ditches Net Neutrality, Forces Copyright Clauses Into All ISP Terms Of Service

from the but-of-course dept

This is hardly a surprise, given that the Sarkozy administration appears to believe that copyright is more important than all other human rights but apparently, as part of a telecom bill in France, the administration added a clause that forces all French ISPs to have clauses concerning copyright infringement in their terms of service, which also force ISPs to ignore some basic principles of net neutrality. What’s interesting here is that Sarkozy didn’t even go through Parliament to do this, but rather made use of some process called “transposition” that allowed him to add certain clauses to the Telecoms Act, outside of the Parliamentary process.

Over the summer, the French government has published its transposition of the Telecoms Package. The Sarkozy regime has used a controversial manipulation of the legislative process to get the transposition into law without going through the French Parliament. It includes provisions which contradict the French government?s stated objective of protecting net neutrality. Moreover, it includes a copyright obligation on ISPs to support France?s 3-strikes law.

Sarkozy even ignored the government’s advisory committee on the digital economy, which explicitly came out against some of the provisions that were added. Of major concern is the fact that the required terminology being forced into ISP contracts, says that ISPs will restrict certain services for those accused of infringement. As the article notes, this could include things like blocking Skype, something that would go against basic net neutrality principles, which the French Parliament has said it supports. So, in yet another effort to put draconian copyright law ahead of all else, it looks like Sarkozy has routed completely around Parliament, slipped some extra rules into a Telecoms Package, and in the process made it clear that France officially has no respect for the principles of net neutrality.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Sarkozy Routes Around Parliament, Ditches Net Neutrality, Forces Copyright Clauses Into All ISP Terms Of Service”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: damn

That is the boldest move from anyone in France since Napoleon. Now, will the people be sheep or wolves? I say rise up, rise up for you and your people. This will only be a start if you lie down and take it, it will only happen more often and eventually that wont even use lube

Hmmm… let’s see:

The military history of France:

“Gallic Wars ? Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2,000 years of French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War ? Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: “France’s armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.”

Italian Wars ? Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. Wars of Religion ? France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

Thirty Years War ? France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution ? Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War ? Tied.

War of the Augsburg League / King William’s War / French and Indian War ? Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession ? Lost. The war also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution ? In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as “de Gaulle Syndrome,” and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: “France only wins when America does most of the fighting.”

French Revolution ? Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars ? Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War ? Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk frat boy to France’s ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I ? Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it’s like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn’t call her “Fraulein.” Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II ? Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel song.

War in Indochina ? Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion ? Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: “We can always beat the French.” This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism ? France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald’s.”

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: damn

“War on Terrorism”

Sarcastic post, I know, but I giggle a little when I see people attack France like this. There’s lots to say both ways (especially from an American who has the gall to talk about surrendering to terrorism), but in response to one of those comments:

War in Indochina: Yeah, how did that work out for you guys?

Anonymous Coward says:

Well funded (self/industry/add item here) political animal subverting the will of the people in favor of:

Going against the common best use of technology. Check
Going against a common use of said technology. Check.
Going against the obvious “will of the people”. Check.

How can you say this is sidestepping legal channels. Hey, they paid for it, where is your “donation”?

Anonymous Coward says:

Legislative Capture

Has the entertainment industry ever got legislative capture! No more Mitch Glazier changing stuff in the middle of the night. Now they have the President of France, no less, changing the laws for them. Using little-known technical procedures. Without the consent of parliament as well. The overall sleaziness is just fabulous. It should be enough to get him tried for treason, but what are the chances of that happening? Has the French parliament got the guts and the determination? What do you think?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Legislative Capture

Using little-known technical procedures. Without the consent of parliament as well. The overall sleaziness is just fabulous. It should be enough to get him tried for treason, but what are the chances of that happening? Has the French parliament got the guts and the determination? What do you think?

Gee, I think it sounds a lot like Ron Wyden’s hold on S. 968, thwarting debate and democracy. I guess what really matters is what foot the shoe is on.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Legislative Capture

So a member of congress putting a hold on a bill that has only been passed by a committee in congress is the same to you as a non-legislative person creating a law without either the consent of the legislature or the people?

Are you stating that maintaining the status quo by temporarily blocking the legislature from debating a bill (and subsequently not passing it) is the same as making changes without the consent of either those who make laws or those who elected you to represent them?

I think you’re being willfully ignorant.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Legislative Capture

And I don’t think you understand the difference in what the rules of the respective political systems permit and ignore the fact that those “technicalities” have been used to the benefit of many different parties over many different administrations over many years. Moreover, there seems to be little political will in either country to change the rules of the road. I think you’re being willfully stupid.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Legislative Capture

Gee, I think it sounds a lot like Ron Wyden’s hold on S. 968, thwarting debate and democracy

What does the different rules in different political systems have anything to do with your comparison of the two? You said what Sarcozy did is the same as what Ron Wyden did. You ignored those differences as well.

Regardless of the rules of their respective political systems, what Sarcozy did was change a law while ignoring the will of the people and the legislative body, and what Wyden did was block a bill in the legislative body as a legislator which was the will of many of his constituents. Both are apparently legal in their respective political systems, but we’re not talking about whether what either party did was legal, rather whether or not it was right. You think that it should be perfectly fine for a non-legislator to change laws on a whim while ignoring the lawmakers of the land and his constituency and compare that as the same as a lawmaker putting a temporary hold on a bill still in the legislature. Which is considered a perfectly understandable view to have for a dictator or his lackeys.

Jan Paynter (user link) says:

Net Neutrality

On the subject of net neutrality, Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the UVA Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, recently said: ?It?s a debate that is going on in the Congress, and it?s really: Is the Internet going to be something that everyone has free and open access to, or, is it going to be something that is sort of controlled? What we don?t need is a lot of government control in the businesses of the internet. I think what we need is more of what we have with National Public Radio, which is a really true and balanced set of reporting that unfortunately has become politicized. What we are seeing is a shift from ?anything goes? on the Internet to a shift where major corporations are shaping the news outlets and buying up more and more of the news outlets and putting them under corporate control and one set of a small number of hands…. We need freeware, we need shareware, and we need open access. People need to be able to trust sources that they can find on the internet, rather than have them controlled in a small number of hands or by the government.? (Gibson appeared on the Charlottesville interview program Politics Matters with host Jan Paynter discussing journalism

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
More arrow