Record Labels Angry That Hadopi Isn't Kicking People Off The Internet Fast Enough

from the pick-up-the-pace dept

A few months back, we noted that Hadopi, the French bureaucracy in charge of sending out "you're an infringer" notices and then kicking people off the internet under that country's three strikes plan, was receiving 25,000 notices from record labels per day (there was some confusion on that story, as I originally believed Hadopi was sending out 25,000 notices, but it was only receiving that many). Only a few months later, and the labels have now ramped it up to 50,000 per day, which was the target amount that they had set back in September. However, it appears that the record labels are upset that, while they're sending Hadopi 50,000 notices per day, Hadopi is only sending out notices on about 2,000 per day. The industry wants Hadopi to just do what I had thought they were doing originally and rubber-stamp all their notices and pass them on. It hopes to get up to 10,000, but the industry is still pushing for 50,000 per day, which is insane when you think about it.

Think about how many mistakes are being made when you're sending 50,000 notices per day. Over the course of about five years, the RIAA apparently sued less than 20,000 people -- and still made a lot of mistakes. US Copyright Group got a lot of attention for accusing a few thousand people of file sharing particular movies -- and also appears to have made a lot of mistakes. Yet, here, with Hadopi, the labels are accusing 50,000 people per day, and are upset that Hadopi isn't just rubber stamping all the notices? It appears that the record labels don't care at all about what happens if they accuse totally innocent people.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Kick 'em all off!

    "As usual the BPI only represents one side of the argument, which often makes the mistake of assuming that everything downloaded unlawfully is equal to a similar level of lost sales. However a teenager who downloads 500 music tracks is highly unlikely to ever have brought that many in the first place (no money).

    Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group UK, said:

    "The BPI are whinging that massive growth in their profits in the middle of a recession isn't good enough. But they claim that this isn't good enough, and argue for measures that would curtail innocent people's human rights in order to increase their profits. That is immorral."

    The survey also casts doubt on the effectiveness of unlawful file sharing deterrents. Just 12% of people who had stopped filesharing cited worries over being "caught". A substantial proportion of unlawful P2P downloader's also claim not to realise that their actions are wrong (44%). This rises to 56% for people downloading via direct website links and cyberlockers."

    http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/12/16/uk-bpi-claims-7-7-million-broadband-is p-customers-illegally-download-music.html

    ------------------------------------------------------- ----

    Yaaawwwn... just another one sided biased study paid for by the industry, for the industry, with only a minimal reflection of reality. Even the GAO and some judges in the US have said industry numbers are bogus.

    On a related note... things are about to get interesting in the Limewire damages trial regarding industry claims...

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/file-sharing-cost-record-companies-60837

    "The case is about to move to a jury trial that will determine what damages are owed by Lime Wire to the labels, but before that happens, record companies are going to experience some pain, thanks to a decision on Tuesday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman.

    In the lawsuit, the music companies are seeking more than $1 billion in statutory damages, so Lime Wire asked the judge to make the labels prove lost profits.

    In response, the labels offered to show "gross revenue" on the infringing works.

    That's not enough, said Lime Wire. The company insisted the plaintiffs should show actual damages, which to it means record companies should be ordered to produce information on costs such as royalty payments on the musical works alleged to have been infringed.

    That request didn't go over too well with the plaintiffs, who argued in a letter to the judge last month that it would impose a "crushing burden" on them.

    On Tuesday, Judge Freeman said tough noogies, with some interesting language written in the margins of a court-endorsed memo to the parties. She scribbled -- barely legible -- that Lime Wire should enjoy enough discovery to mount a defense on the damages issue."

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.