French National Assembly Votes (Sorta) To Finally Kill Its Three Strikes Hadopi Program

from the interesting-move dept

Remember Hadopi? Back when the legacy copyright players were totally focused on kicking individuals off the internet via a “three strikes” program, France and its former President Nicolas Sarkozy, married to a musician, was the first to embrace the idea of kicking casual file sharers off the internet (we’ll leave aside the fact that Sarkozy was a mass infringer himslef). The program that was built up around the plan was eventually called Hadopi, and created a big bureaucracy to send out threat notices. The program turned out to be a complete disaster. It issued many notices, but really had to massage the numbers to make its activities look reasonable. Even when people did lose their internet access, there were problems. A detailed academic study of Hadopi found that it was a miserable failure that actually resulted in an increase in infringement.

When a new administration came into office, they made it clear that they were not impressed by Hadopi, and intended to cut its funding. And while there were efforts to kill it entirely, the government basically just gutted the system and let it live on as a shell of what it once was.

However, it looks like there’s been a renewed effort to kill Hadopi completely, and it actually passed a vote in the National Assembly — but with some caveats.

In a nearly empty chamber, the French National Assembly voted to end the Hadopi institution and law in 2022, Next Inpact reports. What?s noteworthy is that only 7 of the 577 Members of Parliament were present at the vote, and the amendment passed with four in favor and three against.

The decision goes against the will of the sitting Government, which failed to have enough members present at the vote. While it?s being seen as quite an embarrassment, the amendment still has to pass the senate, which seems unlikely without Government support.

In other words, Hadopi will likely still live on to see another day, despite its already diminished state. However, the folks who put together this bit of a publicity stunt say that they’re calling attention to the fact that the government has called in the past for the end of Hadopi, and they’re just trying to get the government to commit to something:

?Related Greens? MP Isabelle Attard says that it?s time to end the ?schizophrenic? behavior of the Government on the matter. ?A choice has to be made at some point. We can?t call out Hadopi as useless and, years later, still let it linger on,? she says.

While it?s doubtful that the amendment means the definite end of Hadopi, it certainly puts it back on the political agenda. Whether this will lead to actual change will become apparent in the future.

For all intents and purposes, Hadopi is a shell of what it once was. It’s also a standing monument to the stupidity of three strikes/graduated response plans. The government should kill it off, but while it lives on, it’s a demonstration of how demands by legacy copyright industries to push for ways to protect legacy business models can create truly wasteful government spending that serves no legitimate purpose.

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 “French National Assembly Votes (Sorta) To Finally Kill Its Three Strikes Hadopi Program”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
12 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

HADOPI isn’t a shell of its former self – it’s a shadow of a shell of a shell’s shadow. Consider that it burned through millions of dollars in taxpayer money, resulted in thousands of notices being printed out, led to the conviction of one person (who was the person paying the ISP for service, not the actual infringer involved). What was accomplished? None of the money involved made it back to artists, the supposed beneficiaries of IP enforcement.

HADOPI is a fart that someone popped in the midst of a tornado.

Anonymous Coward says:

“we’ll leave aside the fact that Sarkozy was a mass infringer himslef”

You know Masnick is seriously frothing at the mouth when he types so quickly that he can’t even spell “himself”.

And we’ll leave aside the fact that for more than a decade, Masnick has never proven he’s paid for any content, and that he isn’t actually the sleazy pirate he’s been accused of being for years.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

And we’ll leave aside the fact that for more than a decade, Masnick has never proven he’s paid for any content, and that he isn’t actually the sleazy pirate he’s been accused of being for years.

Huh? I pay for a ton of content and I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t download any works that are infringing, because I don’t.

I currently buy a ton of books on Amazon. For music I have a paid Spotify account and I also support artists directly via crowdfunding or similar efforts (Kickstarter, Patreon, Bandcamp, etc.). I basically don’t watch any TV/movies currently because I don’t have any time, so I don’t have a Netflix account. I had Amazon Prime for a year but didn’t use it enough so I don’t have it any more. I might change my mind on both of those in the future though if I ever have more time for watching TV/movies.

I’ve said most of this before. Not sure why you claim I haven’t.

I also don’t have bittorrent software, because I never actually use it (to be honest, I’m not even sure what software to use for it because I never have).

Wendy Cockcroft (user link) says:

Yes, I know I'm harping on...

You know how the “small government” brigade are always saying that the government should only exist to provide national defence and to protect private property?

Well the Incumbent Protectionism Regulations brigade are always framing IPR as a property right, aren’t they?

And I’m sure you’ll agree that they’re trying to frame it in terms of being “private property” and accorded the same treatment under law, i.e. “infringement = theft.”

This is why they’re unwilling to accept that any amount of money spent on protecting their business model, which they also deem a property right, as a waste, even if it’s ultimately ineffective. The way they see it, Hadopi was enforcing the law, so what is needed is Hadopi 2.0, the effective edition. That such a system can never be effective is not the point, it’s about the principle, so you can expect to keep on having to deal with crap like this till we have successfully re-framed the argument as “copyright = temporary monopoly privilege.”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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...
Loading...