Copyright

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
france, hadopi, statistics



France Three Strikes Law Suggests A Huge Percentage Of French Citizens At Risk Of Losing Internet Access

from the yeah,-that's-not-going-to-play-well dept

When you have a law that a huge percentage of the population violates, you have to wonder if the law is just. The first data is out about the French 3-strikes HADOPI program, and apparently copyright holders have sent in notices claiming 18 million incidents of unauthorized file sharing. The Torrentfreak article suggests that it's 18 million individuals, but I think that they really mean 18 million incidents, which could include some repeat offenders. Still, it suggests a large number of people in France have engaged in file sharing... Of course, HADOPI, much to the chagrin of the entertainment industry, only sent out 470,000 "first strike" notices, 20,000 second strike notices, and just ten third strike notices (which are being reviewed by judges, but no one has been disconnected yet). It'll be interesting to see if there's any noticeable impact on purchases in France. Other reports have already suggested that a mere 4% of unauthorized file sharers in France said they were changing their behavior because of this. Many others were simply shifting to encryption to keep their activities away from prying eyes. Still, the bigger point is that when you have so many people violating the law, perhaps the problem is with the law, and not the people violating it...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 8:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This leads to an interesting conclusion about Hadopi

    I don't know how else to explain that if the government chooses to send out its legal notices to people via email, it's not spam. Just because there's a large number going out at once doesn't make it spam. By that logic, if local municipalities chose to send Red-light Camera tickets in a mass-sending (bulk) via email, they would be spamming... which is not true.

    Give you another example. I work tech for insurance agencies. One of the things they can do is send late-payment reminders to their customers via email (assuming they have the email address). If they get 50 clients in a single day who missed a payment, and they send 50 form-letter emails saying "hey, don't forget your bill! they are NOT spamming.

    And that's what the government in this case is doing... they have a large number of emails to send out to people for a transactional purpose (issuing a legal warning).

    I think one of the biggest differences here is that spam applies to commercial email, and I don't think you'll see anyone enforce that these government notifications qualify for that definition.

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
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

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.