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: copyright, france, hadopi, piracy, three strikes


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2016 @ 4:37pm

    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.


    Wow, do they not have ANY rules regarding a quorum? There's a reason most places have those rules, and this is it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    monkey of surrender, 3 May 2016 @ 9:00pm

    well the french are like the brits

    like the nsa all violent sociopaths are the same

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2016 @ 11:42pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 12:26am

    "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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 1:49am

      Re:

      And you've never proven you're not a child molester. And you've never proven you don't have the clap. So put up or shut up. Or just go on being a punk ass bitch, your choice.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 2:16am

      Re:

      Like your good friends darryl and Technopolitical?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 5:59am

      Re:

      I must applaud you for such a thoughtful, well considered, articulate and concisely stated achievement of persuasive logical reasoned argument. Well done.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 7:58am

      Re:

      You fogrot to metnion Marcus' terribel musical career. But I still gave you a funy vote.Congartulations!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 9:58am

      Re:

      Wow, you're really scraping the bottom of the bottom of the bottom of a barrel that has sunken to the bottom of the ocean.

      It would be embarrassing if you were capable of feeling shame.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2016 @ 11:26am

      Re:

      I have new for you, there is a lot of legal free content out there on the Internet. So much that nobody can find, never mind listen/watch or read everything that they would find interesting or entertaining.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 4 May 2016 @ 3:51pm

      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).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 6 May 2016 @ 5:56am

    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."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
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.