Slashdot Mirror
French Three-Strikes Law Ruled Unconstitutional
An anonymous reader was one of several to write with this news: "The French 'Conseil Constitutionnel' just ruled that the recently voted 'Hadopi' law, which enforces a 'three strikes and you're out' system, is actually unconstitutional [article in French; here's an English-language article at Ars]. They mainly make two points: 1) They argue that removing Internet access is equivalent to hindering a person's freedom of speech, and as such can only be decided by appointed judges. This removes all punitive power from the administrative body supposed to enforce the three-strikes rule; all it can do now is warn you that 'they're watching you.' 2) When illegal filesharing is detected, users have to prove their innocence. This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence."
The French "Conseil Constitutionnel" is a joke compared to the US Supreme Court, but for once they made the right decision.
At a minimum, the right to defend yourself and face your accuser was sorely lacking from the "3-strike" legislation. The French legal system already has the equivalent of the US small claims court, so there was no reason for the ISPs to become judges.
The other good news is that the court is basing its decision on the fact that a right to communication (speech, really, if you translate into US constitution lingo) includes the right to access the Internet. That's pretty cool potentially!
--
pour les developpeurs qui n'habitent pas dans la Silicon Valley: FairSoftware
Excellent. Yet more proof that p2p users have the weight of ethics on their side.
With this and the Pirate Party winning and EU seat, great news. Bad week if you are trying to force your failing business model to stay relevant like the RIAA (Sony, Warner Bros, Universal, and EMI).
Sorry Big Media Companies (tm), find another (legal) way to protect your dying business model. Or, better yet, adapt to the new reality...
It sort of makes sense, when you think about it. Why should the courts cede power to a non-judicial "administrative body" to rule against people. Stands to reason the courts would like a monopoly on those types of judgements.
This space left intentionally blank.
When a 3 strikes law passes here in the US, I wouldn't expect such a good result from our courts. The first problem is that freedom of speech in America doesn't guarantee you access to a forum to be heard. Second, there is no presumption of innocence in our Constitution. The closest we get is a right to trial by jury, but that only applies in criminal proceedings.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What I find interesting is the spin on privacy. Here in Canada, our privacy law is one of the reasons why file sharing has been hard to crack down on. The ability to remain anonymous and retain your privacy rights blocks most ISP's from packet-sniffing on behalf of 'special interest groups' - it also requires a court order: the judge will ask 'what proof do you have' and then ask these groups to explain how the gathered that proof without violation of Privacy laws. Even the current 'throttling' may be violating my privacy of internet usage as it would prove my ISP is scanning and reading my traffic information - which is a violation of my privacy rights of internet usage.
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
Ah well, I can't say I'm surprised that several people have been faster than myself to submit that story.
Anyway, since I'd be offtopic if I posted just to say that, here's a link to the reaction of the association "La Quadrature du Net", spearhead of opponents to the law: Hadopi is dead: "three strikes" buried by highest court. They deserve credit for their hard work.
There's nothing like $HOME
"They argue that removing Internet access is equivalent to hindering a person's freedom of speech"
I would much appreciate if US Congress took this to heart and forced ISPs to stop the anticompetitive behavior. Sure, if these corporations really want to charge exorbitant amounts for their top-tier services, that's their right as a business. But there is little reason to have such price gouging and consumer-abusive practices and horrible, out of date service. Yes, we have disadvantages like large rural expanses and suburban sprawl, but I would like to finally see some legal teeth put in place to get this country to where it should be.
My webcomic
Vive la France!
There isn't a presumption of innocence.
There isn't quite a presumption of guilt either. As the wiki says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code
The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries. However, the legal proceedings certainly did not have de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror's oath explicitly recommended that the jury did not betray the interests of the defendants, and took attention of the means of defense.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Welcome to cricket...
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
In many locations, the only high speed ISPs are those who have public utility status and therefore have access rights that get past some of the technical restrictions barring competitors.
Who does the blame lie with for these circumstances? The ISPs, or the city government? Who is enforcing the monopoly? Should a company be forced to comply with government requests because the government is withholding property for its own purposes and creating the monopoly?
The solution is not to regulate the ISPs further, but to get rid of the regulation preventing competition from existing.
Let's say you wanted a "speech code" law overturned. The only way to do that, other than lobbying for the legislature to repeal the law, is to break the law by speaking in an illegal manner, and getting arrested. At this time, you now have recourse to try to get the law overturned.
And that puts you at risk: You have to carry through and win - which may take years and millions of dollars. Unless you win (and UNTIL you win) your rights are reduced because of the accusation of lawbreaking and the ongoing legal proceeding. And if you lose (or drop out) you also have a penalty applied for your "criminal behavior" in breaking the law in order to obtain the standing to argue for its unconstitutionality.
Not only that, but you have to take it all the way to the supreme court to make it stick nationally (or you and others have to take it to the appellate level in all of the federal circuits). And you have to LOSE at the trial level (and either lose at the appellate level or win but have the prosecutor appeal your win) to get to the supremes. And you have to have the prosecutor keep pushing rather than throw in the towel on your PARTICULAR case - something he may not do if you're fighting back and have a good point. And at the appellate level it may take two passes - once with a three-judge subset, a second time with the full set. Also: Once you've lost at the appellate level there's no guarantee that the Supremes will agree to hear the case - and they usually won't unless there are divergent rulings on two near-identical cases in two appellate districts.
To get through that process you need some people typically more expert in law than you to think that you're wrong. So that means your case has to be iffy. Which means you might not win even if you navigate the maze correctly and the Supremes deign to spend time on you. You're playing "court roulette" with only one empty chamber in the revolver.
I think this is one piece of politics/law where the French have a better idea.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
No need. They're already on strike.
In many cases, the ISPs. Most phone companies (DSL) and cable companies (cable Internet) would only run service in an area on the condition that the government would grant them exclusive access to the right-of-way for that kind of service.
What right does the government have to enforce such a condition? If I tell the mafia that I'll only deal with them if they exclude my competitors from their black market, am I to blame for the black market, or is the mafia?
Of course, if a community of property owners all agreed and signed a contract permitting exclusivity on their properties to one ISP, then they should be bound to that contract. It would have been foolish of them to sign such a contract without some exceptions in case the ISP tries to screw its customers or otherwise degrade service.
Yes... because regulations are the only barrier to entry.
It's the only force-backed barrier to entry, yes.
Given that nobody has a right to internet access, there can be no compelling an ISP to offer services in any area where it doesn't want to offer services.
To be fair to the submitter, the phrase "three strikes and you're out" has been used for a while to describe this law. I'm not sure who started to.
There's nothing like $HOME
"tout homme etant presume innocent jusqu'a ce qu'il ait ete declare coupable..."
Oh, and /.: IMPLEMENT UTF-8
Since when has France moved away from the "guilty until proven innocent" stance?
Apparently, from doing the unthinkable (reading TFA), since "the Declaration of 1789". I'm going to have to go to wikipedia to see when that was passed.
Not believing that there is a god is different from believing that there is no god. The latter is atheism, the former is 'not believing in God(s)'. So no I'm not saying that that is a religion. That is, in fact, agnosticism.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.