Information AboutDadvsi |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT DADVSI | |
| french law | |
| copyright legislation | |
| copyright laws of the european union | |
|
DADVSI (generally pronounced as ''dadsi'', in rights and related rights in the Information Society "). It is a Bill reforming French Copyright Law , mostly in order to implement the 2001 European Directive On Copyright (known as EUCD), which in turn implements a 1996 WIPO Treaty . The law, despite being initially dismissed as highly technical and of no concern to the average person, generated considerable controversy when it was examined by the French Parliament , between December 2005 and June 30 , 2006 , when it was finally voted through by both houses. Most of the bill focuses on the repression of the exchange of copyrighted works over Peer-to-peer networks and the criminalizing of the circumvention of Digital Rights Management (DRM) protection measures. Other sections deal with other matters related to copyright, including rights on resale of works of art, copyright for works produced by government employees, exceptions to copyright for education and the handicapped, among other issues. The law was highly controversial within France for it could significantly hamper Free Software , and also may significantly restrict the right to make copies of copyrighted works for private use. Some amendments to the bill, not present in the original version, might require manufacturers to share their proprietary digital music formats with other software developers. Because of this, a controversy arose with Apple Computer and associated US industry groups, who loudly protested in the US press; therefore, the DADVSI bill was sometimes referred to as the ITunes law or ''' IPod law''' in the English-language press (see '' Interoperability And Apple Controversy ''), although the law is not referred to in this way in France. LEGAL BACKGROUND The title of the DADVSI law refers to ''droit d'auteur et droits voisins'' (authors' rights and related rights). Authors' rights, in French law, have two components:
This concept is reflected in the Berne Convention On Copyright . '' Copyright '' is a related concept, but pertains to Anglo-American Common Law ; one notable difference is that copyright does not generally involve moral rights. The legal clauses governing authors' rights and related rights form the first book of the French Code of Intellectual Property (CPI). This article will thus refer to articles from this code as CPI L''nnn''. The notion of author extends to that of composer (of a music), playwright, painter, photographer, etc., though the law makes it a requirement that the work should be original (or show some supplemental originality, in the case of a derived work) in order to be protected. In practice, often, authors cede their rights to publishers, which then enforce the "exclusive right"; sometimes, authors are members of societies enforcing their rights on their behalf. The latter is '' De Facto '' nearly compulsory in case of authors of musical works, almost all of whom are members of Sacem . Performers and publishers of audio records enjoy "related rights". These follow different rules, and have a shorter duration than the rights of authors. In practice, often, performers cede their rights to publishers, or have them enforced by societies. The exclusive right of the author is not absolute. According to WIPO treaties, local legislation may make exceptions to exclusive copyrights only if these exceptions fulfill a " Three-step Test ": limitations and exceptions
This is how, for instance, the US doctrine of '' Fair Use '' is justified with respect to copyright treaties. The 2001 European Directive on Copyright proposes a list of 10 exceptions to copyright that member states can choose to implement or not to implement, in addition to one whose implementation is compulsory (which makes an exception for temporary technical copies, meant to address Web Caches and similar systems). Exceptions to copyright in French law are defined in CPI L122-5. Among them is the notable exception for private copy: French residents may freely make copies of works (except software) for their private use, and freely display those works within their family circle (which is interpreted to include friends), without the agreement of the copyright holder. However, French law includes a "tax on private copy" meant to address the losses incurred by copyright holders; this tax is levied on blank media (audio and video cassettes, CD, DVD, as well as memory and hard drives in portable media players). Normally, taxation is reserved for legislation, which is normally voted by the French Parliament, but a statute endowed an ad hoc commission to set the rates and conditions for this tax. European directives are generally not directly enforceable in EU member states. They first have to be transposed into local law, generally by an act of the legislature of the member state. While they give a general framework and impose some options, they may leave significant leeway; in the case of EUCD, for instance, the directive gives a list of ''optional'' copyright exceptions, and mandates ''appropriate'' legal protection for DRMs, without defining what constitutes an appropriate protection. Member states have to transpose directives within reasonable delays, or they face action by the European Commission . There may be subsequent litigation before the European Court Of Justice if a transposition is deemed to be inadequate. In March 2006, the Cour De Cassation , France's highest court in civil and criminal matters, ruled in a decision nicknamed '' Mulholland Drive '' (from the name of a DVD involved). It quashed a decision by the appeals court of Versailles that ruled that Digital Rights Management techniques that contradicted the "right to private copy" were illegal. Legal scholars noted the following:
In response, an amendment was added to the DADVSI law by the National Assembly, which established a "right to the exception for private copy." However, the scope of this right is unclear, since it was to be decided by a "college of mediators", but it was suppressed from the final text of the law. The crux of the discussion on private copy is the nature of this so-called "right". One can interpret it weakly, as an exception to the general possibility for copyright holders to prevent any unauthorized distribution of their work, or strongly, as a prohibition for copyright holders to use technical means for preventing private, legal, copy. The "three-step test" was also copied into article "1 bis"The article numbers refer to the numbering of the draft text. Because new articles were inserted, some article numbers are somewhat complex: "12 bis" refers to a new article after article 12 but before 13; "12 ter" appears after "12 bis" but before 13; "14 quater" appears after "14 ter" but before 15, etc. Following the vote, the articles were renumbered using strictly positive integers. of the draft law, which updates CPI L122-5. See '' Copyright Exceptions ''. POLITICS The DADVSI law unexpectedly rose as a somewhat well-publicized topic in national French politics in December 2005, with the vote of the so-called "global license". Two major presidential candidates personally intervened in the controversy, while others made declarations. Legislative process The initial draft of the law was proposed in 2003 by then Minister Of Culture Jean-Jacques Aillagon ( UMP ). Due to various circumstances, including the replacement of Aillagon by Renaud Donnedieu De Vabres (UMP), the bill was presented very late to the French Parliament , and was initially to be examined in the National Assembly on December 20 , 21 and 22, 2005, just before the Christmas holidays. The government (the cabinet of ministers, as represented by the Minister of Culture) had declared the law to be urgent, which means, under the Constitution Of France , that the law would be examined only once by each house of Parliament; the reason given by the minister was that France was threatened by the European Commission with sanctions if it failed to implement the directive. Despite being initially presented as a technical text, the law became hotly controversial, being perceived as criminalising Internet users for sending files of copyrighted works to each other, as well as being a threat to for the private use of the owner of the record, which is currently authorized by CPI L122-5. On March 14 , 2006 , on behalf of the National Assembly law commission, deputy Christian Vanneste (UMP), took out the only amendment which would have permitted to copy at least once, for private usage, work which had been legally acquired (CD, videogram, etc.) This withdrawal of the amendment was presented to be in accordance with a recent court decision from the '' Cour De Cassation '' stating that copying DVDs for private use is not an automatic right; this decision cited the not-yet-transposed directive and the "test in three steps" from the WIPO treaties. A "college of mediators", composed in part of judges, will examine each issue on a case-to-case basis. See 1 . The examination of the draft law by the National Assembly, initially seen as a quick matter preceding the Christmas break, was marred by several incidents, the best known being the vote of the first amendment of the "global license" (see below). Supplemental sittings of the Assembly had to be allotted in March in order for the law to be fully examined. An important factor is that the schedule of full sittings of the Assembly or the Senate is almost entirely decided by the executive. Prior to the examination of the law by the assembly in session, the draft bill had been sent to the Commission of Law, without any review by the Commission of Cultural Affairs, as would have been expected of a text presented by the Minister of Culture and pertaining to artistic works; this procedure was deplored by some deputies. Deputy Christian Vanneste was commissioned to report on the law. Deputies from the opposition ( PS , PCF , Greens ) as well as the junior majority coalition partner UDF deplored that such a highly complex law was being rushed through Parliament. On December 21, they supported a motion for sending the draft law back to examination in parliamentary commission. However, the Minister of Culture opposed the move, stating that he hoped that the "solid parliamentarians from UMP" would not vote the motion {Link without Title} — a move interpreted as a quasi-order to the deputies from his party not to vote the motion. An amended draft law was approved by the National Assembly on March 21 , 2006 , by 296 votes for against 193. The UMP (right-wing), which has the Absolute Majority at the National Assembly , voted in favour, while the left voted against it. MPs of the center-right UDF voted either against the text or Abstained 2 . The Senate sent the bill before the Commission of Cultural Affairs, which commissioned Senator Michel Thollière to report on it; the Commission heard Minister de Vabres on April 4 and recommended a number of amendments. The Senate examined the law in session on May 4, 9 and 10, 2006, and adopted a number of amendments. There was still considerable uncertainty on the future of the bill. Prime Minister Dominique De Villepin had the choice between: letting the text go back before the National Assembly, then before the Senate for another round of examination; or maintaining that the text is urgent and sending it before a mixed commission from both houses of the French Parliament, which would draft a compromise version to be sent to both houses to be voted upon, with the Assembly being able to have a final say. Minister of Culture Donnedieu de Vabres had promised that he would have the law sent for another reading by both houses if the differences between the texts adopted by the Assembly and the Senate were too great. He contends that those differences between the texts are small enough that the text can be sent before a mixed commission; however, some members of Parliament disagree. The bill was rumored to be scheduled to be examined by the mixed commission on May 30, but in the end was not. On June 15, 2006, despite the request by 20 UMP deputies that the text should be sent to the National Assembly again, the government announced that it would send the bill before the mixed commission on June 22. {Link without Title} {Link without Title} The text will then be sent before both houses for final approval. On June 22, in the morning, the mixed commission met. However, the Socialist members soon quit, claiming that the commission was a parody of democracy after discovering during the meeting 55 amendments hardening the Senate text. {Link without Title} Both houses of Parliament finally approved the bill on June 30, the last day of the Parliamentary session. UMP voted in favour, the Communists and Socialists against, and UDF split over it between those voting against and those abstaining from voting. Socialist deputy Patrick Bloche defended a motion of inadmissibility, claiming that the law was unconstitutional and thus that the Assembly had to refuse it ; Communist deputies and president of the UDF François Bayrou announced that they supported the motion. The motion was voted down, predictably because the UMP ruling party has an absolute majority in the Assembly. On July 7, 2006, the Socialist deputies, 3 Green deputies, 4 Communist deputies, 2 UDF deputies ('':
After the decision of the Constitutional Council the law was submitted to President Jacques Chirac for signature on August 1, 2006. Political importance , but the music stops when a glitch causes it not to recognize the correct DRM key for lullaby #31]] At first sight, the DADVSI law was not meant to be a disputed legal text: it deals with fairly technical legal points. It was, however, turned into a political hot topic featured in major newspapers and national television. The first draft of the DADVSI law criminalized peer-to-peer exchanges of copyrighted works (or, more precisely, copyrighted works whose licenses did not allow such exchanges). The case was made in Parliament that millions of French Internet users, especially among the young, currently traded files on computer networks and that it was thus unrealistic to turn them into felons. Since subsequent reading coincided with the examination of a controversial youth workforce clause known as the CPE , the opposition argued that the government was at war with the youth. The DADVSI law was used as a platform for various groups or parties for demonstrating opposition to the government policies:
Since Bayrou, Dupont-Aignan and Boutin are probable contenders in the 2007 Presidential Election , one may argue that DADVSI was one of the first rounds of the presidential campaign. Lobbying Some members of the French parliament, as well as other observers, publicly decried intense lobbying on the part of various groups and industries. Alain Suguenot , a supporter of the global license, UMP deputy for the Côte D'Or département, hinted that some groups or societies supporting events had threatened to withdraw their support for events in the constistuencies of deputies voting in favour of the global license; Suguenot, who is also mayor of the town of Beaune , indicated that his town would no longer support a cinema festival and would replace it by something related to computing and Internet technologies. Minister of Culture Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres was criticized for being too close to some industry groups.
Some amendments to the law (150/151, 267) were called by some parliamentarians, as well as some other observers, the " Vivendi Universal amendments", because they were allegedly inspired by the entertainment giant. The free software advocate group EUCD.info denounced the fact that the lobbyist for some industry group was allowed into the "four column hall", a room in the Assembly building whose access is normally restricted to deputies and journalists. Confusion Minister Donnedieu de Vabres was criticized by parliamentarians for lack of preparation. For instance, François Bayrou , head of the center-right UDF party, criticised how the minister submitted a last minute pair of amendments of seven pages completely changing the criminal penalty system applicable to illegal copies of copyrighted material, and for creating a de facto "police of the Internet". He pointed out that modifications of such an importance should be examined in commission. On January 3, 2006, in his yearly speech of wishes addressed to the President Of The Republic , president of the National Assembly Jean-Louis Debré (UMP) denounced the usage, by the government, of the procedure of urgency, which he claimed was used excessively often. He also denounced how the government frequently sent hastily redacted draft laws to Parliament, then had to send amendments in order to correct its own texts; specifically mentioning DADVSI, he deplored that the government had sent two four-page amendments in the middle of the examination of the text, alluding to the same amendments that Bayrou had denounced. {Link without Title} In its March 15, 2006, edition, the '' Canard Enchaîné '' investigative weekly reported that Debré had complained that Donnedieu de Vabres was "a zero, who put us in the shit and, from the start, dragged us into an adventure". Protests and Internet actions The EUCD.info group ran an Internet Petition , which, as of June 2006, garnered more than 170,000 signatures. {Link without Title} Groups opposed to clauses in the law organised a variety of protest actions. The StopDRM group organised on May 7, 2006, as the bill was at the Senate; the March ended with flowers being laid in memoriam of authors' rights. On June 9, 2006, a delegation including Richard M. Stallman , president of the Free Software Foundation , went to the Hotel Matignon to meet prime minister Dominique De Villepin ; however, the prime minister and his advisors refused to meet them. The delegation protested the fact that they were turned away while business leaders such as Bill Gates from Microsoft got official reception. They laid down the list of 165,000 signatories of the EUCD.info petition in the gutter, as a sign of what they see as contempt for the concerns of ordinary citizens. speaking against DADVSI at ''Paris, capitale du libre'']] On June 26, Stallman spoke against DADVSI at a free software business meeting organized by the City of Paris ('' Paris, capitale du Libre ''); on June 28, he met presidential candidate Ségolène Royal . [http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/29754-Rencontre-entre-Richard-Stallman-et-Segolene.htm] The Odebi league campaigned against politicians who they claim supported the positions of the "major" record corporations. A campaign of Google Bombing was made against Minister Donnedieu de Vabres: searching Google for ''ministre'' (minister) or ''blanchisseur'' (launderer) resulted in a news article about the conviction of Donnedieu de Vabres for money laundering. REPRESSION OF INTERNET COPYING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS The DADVSI law contains a number of articles meant to repress the copying of copyrighted music or videos through Peer-to-peer networks over the Internet . The initial version of the bill punished most acts related to illegal copying of copyrighted material, including working around anti-copy systems, as felony''s, such as Theft , punishable by prison sentences not exceeding 10 years, but not including petty crimes counterfeiting, with a maximal sentence of 3 years in prison and/or a 300,000€ fine. However, a number of parliamentarians contended that this was equivalent to criminalizing millions of Internet users, especially the young, and Minister Donnedieu de Vabres immediately introduced amendments known as " Escalation ": peer-to-peer users who copy files illegally would first be warned, then would be fined, and more strongly punished if repeat offenders. Finally, the choice was made to criminalize authors and publishers of software capable of unlocking copy protection system or copying copyrighted works over the Internet, while users would receive much softer punishments. Sharing of copyrighted works over peer-to-peer networks In the current state of the law, CPI L335-2 and L335-5 punish as Counterfeiting the act of publishing copyrighted works without the authorization of the rights holders, with a maximum sentence of 3 years in prison and/or a €300,000 fine. Whether or not sharing files over a Peer-to-peer network falls within the scope of this prohibition has been controversial. Some groups, such as the Audionautes, have contended that the act of receiving copyrighted works from Internet sites or peer-to-peer networks is an act of private copy, which is a valid exemption from copyright rules following from CPI L122-5. Courts have ruled in both directions, some convicting peer-to-peer users, some acquitting them. Article 14 bis of the DADVSI law explicitly exempts from this regime the act of downloading a copyrighted work on a peer-to-peer network. This exemption is further extended to the act of making some copyrighted work available to the public without any commercial purpose, when this is an automatic result of the use of a peer-to-peer network for obtaining it; this clause was added because many peer-to-peer networks automatically make downloaded content available to other users, thus merely exempting downloads from the counterfeiting felony would not have been sufficient. These acts, exempted from the counterfeiting felony charge, will be repressed as a lesser charge, with a fine to be defined by a Decree (executive decision). Minister Donnedieu de Vabres has announced a €38 fine for downloading acts, but it is yet unknown whether this would apply to any single file (thus a person with 1000 songs downloaded illegally could in theory owe a fine of €38,000) or whether several downloads could be punished with a single fine. Supporters of the global licence such as Patrick Bloche have pointed out that fines would go into the state budget and would thus not benefit artists financially. The "global license" ''The proposal for including a global license in DADVSI was debated in 2005, and was eventually defeated. It is not included in the version of the law that was eventually enacted.'' One alternative proposal to the original draft law was, instead of criminalising Peer-to-peer users, to make peer-to-peer exchanges legal, in exchange for a fee on broadband Internet subscriptions, which would go to fund the artists and authors. This is known as the "global license" or "legal license". The "legal license" is promoted by the '' alliance public-artistes '' (""public / artists alliance"), composed of:
It is backed by a number of politicians, both on the left (members of the French Socialist Party such as Patrick Bloche and Christian Paul ) and on the right (members of the UMP such as Christine Boutin and Alain Suguenot ), who defended it in the National Assembly. It was defended in the National Assembly, but not the Senate, by parliamentarians from the French Socialist Party, the Greens, the and the French Communist Party . No specific amount of fee was discussed in the law, but it was meant to be approximately €7 per month for a broadband connection. French broadband connections typically cost €30 a month for rates up to 16 megabits per second, digital TV and unlimited VoIP phone calls. Proponents of the law contended that:
Opponents contended that:
expressing his distress after the global license was voted]] In the evening sitting of the Assembly on December 21, the first of the series of amendments establishing the global license (identical amendments 153 as proposed by UMP deputy to broadly legalize P2P file sharing (one has existed briefly in Canada , but it was not supported by the Canadian Parliament). The global license proved difficult to handle for the government. It was initially thought that the minister would request another examination of the controversial amendment by the Assembly; however, the head of the UMP group in the assembly, Bernard Accoyer , stated that the French Parliament had demonstrated that it was not a ''chambre d'enregistrement'' (a chamber for registering the wishes of the executive) and pointed out that the text was only at the beginning of its examination by Parliament, which has two houses, which seemed to suggest that he expected the amendment to be struck down in the Senate. {Link without Title} The examination of the text by the National Assembly resumed in March. The Minister of Culture announced that the government would use its prerogative to withdrawn its own draft law in order to withdraw article 1 of the law, which was the article to which amendments 153/154 applied, and propose in its stead a "1 bis" article. This move was supported by President of the National Assembly Jean-Louis Debré , who exceptionally presided the sitting; Debré cited precedent for such actions to deputies questioning the constitutionality of the action. However, the next day, the government announced that it would not withdraw the article, following from a communication by president of the Constitutional Council Pierre Mazeaud that the move's constitutionality was unclear. The Assembly then proceeded with the remaining amendments to article 1, then, expectedly, voted down article 1, then examined article "1 bis". The "global license" was thus removed from the text. Criminalisation of DRM circumvention Articles 13 and 14 of the law introduce a variety of criminal penalties for those working around DRM technical measures:
However, none of these penalties apply when the purpose of circumvention was computer security or research. This last clause, exempting circumvention from penalties when it is done for certain purposes, was kept by a narrow 11-10 margin in the Senate. Interoperability and Apple controversy The DADVSI law grants legal protection to Digital Rights Management "technical protection methods" (defined in article 7); that is, it contains clauses criminalizing circumvention of DRMs (articles 13 and 14). The initial draft law was heavily criticized for the vagueness and wide scope of the anti-circumvention clauses. It was feared that:
Since the personal computing software industry in France is heavily dominated by a few companies (such as Microsoft and Apple Computer ), which also provide DRM systems, it was feared that the law would reinforce these dominant positions, and also prevent competition from free software. Politicians across all French political parties have declared free software to be important for France, since it provides competition in a field dominated by extra-European corporations. It is officially considered instrumental in controlling the IT expenses of public administrations. Accordingly, a number of free software organizations ( Free Software Foundation France, EUCD.info, Framasoft, APRIL, AFUL ...) have lobbied so that the DADVSI law should not de facto prohibit making free software capable of reading formats protected by DRMs, including video and musics, and thus would make free operating systems unsuitable for personal use. They also noted that copyrighted works also include text, that formats such as PDF also have DRMs, and thus that the law could well exclude free software from desktop processing, since it could perhaps not read the same file formats as the main desktop suites. Those associations argued that criminal law should not reinforce Network Effects and the practice of Tying sales (''vente liée''), that is, making it compulsory to buy one good or service to be able to buy another good of service, without a legitimate motive, which is prohibited by French law ( Consumption code, L122-1 ). They argued that music and electronic equipment capable of playing it are separate products and that the sale of one should not be tied to that of the other. Politicians from several parties (among whom Alain Carayon and Richard Cazenave from the ruling right-wing UMP , François Bayrou , president of the center-right UDF ) have pushed amendments aimed at ensuring interoperability of DRM systems. These amendments were adopted by the Assembly at the very end of its reading of the law, on the night of March 16 to March 17. These amendments state that:
It is unclear, though, whether these clauses would apply to DRM providers that would not choose to avail themselves of the specific legal protection that the law grants to DRMs. That is, it is unknown at this point whether a licence agreement clause claiming that no part of a system, format or protocol is deemed to implement a DRM could exempt DRM providers from having to provide interoperability information. These clauses proved controversial, mostly in the US press, where analyses provided by various interest groups claimed that they were directed at Apple's ITunes platform and their IPod players; some news sources even went as far as to nickname the DADVSI law the "French iTunes law". Some analysts claimed that they could force Apple to shut down iTunes for French customers, because Apple's business model ties iTunes content to the iPod player using the DRM system and the French market comprises a relatively small portion of Apple's overall sales. Apple claimed that the French copyright law amounted to "state-sponsored piracy" [http://news.com.com/Apple+calls+French+law+state-sponsored+piracy/2100-1025_3-6052754.html . According to Apple, the proposed legislation would increase copyright piracy by making it easier for copyright pirates to download songs from iTunes in a generic format and then endlessly copy them for other users (the iTunes format, being proprietary, is more difficult to transfer to other media).[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4833010.stm] This declaration supported the claims by free-software advocates and politicians who said that the protection of DRM initially envisioned would benefit makers of DRM systems by enabling them to prosecute competitors as facilitating piracy. Finally, US Secretary Of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez declared that it would look at the law closely and support intellectual property rights, a comment widely interpreted to be supportive of Apple. {Link without Title} The reaction from Apple and the US government was highly controversial in France. The Odebi league, a citizen's action group defending the rights of Internet users, told Apple to "mind its business and not meddle into the French legislative process" and pointed out that "if Apple wishes to do business in France, it has to respect the rights that the French enjoy" [http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/multimedia/0,,3292089,00.html ; the league also issued a communiqué titled ''Guterriez go home'' . Deputy Christian Paul published a communiqué meant to explain the intents of French lawmakers to Americans, without the media filtering. Christian Paul also deplored that the French government took so much pains to please Apple: When Apple coughs, we now know that Paris sneezes Apple has assured itself control over channels of distribution and sales by imposing a proprietary format. Representatives from Apple were heard by the Senate Commission for Cultural affairs. The Commission subsequently recommended that the interoperability provisions should be substantially reworked, and proposed amendments, most of which were adopted by the Senate. A notable exception is that the Senate rejected (by 11 votes against 10) an amendment from the Commission which suppressed the right to work around DRMs for reasons of interoperability. The text from the Senate introduces an administrative authority capable of adjudicating the possibility of reading DRM contents in order to achieve interoperability. Article 7 bis A introduces a loophole for designers of technical measures of protection who do not desire to share them for interoperability. It states that the mission of this administrative authority is to prevent lack of interoperability and other limitations when these are not desired by the copyright holder. It thus seems possible that designers of technical measures can work around the interoperability requirement by showing that lack of interoperability was desired by the copyright holders. The "Vivendi Universal" amendments Some amendments, adopted by both houses of Parliament, introduce civil and criminal responsibility for authors of software used for illicit copying of protected works. These amendments are widely known as the "Vivendi Universal" or "VU" amendments; that terminology was used by some members of Parliament, the reason for it being that, allegedly, these amendments were strongly pushed by Vivendi Universal , a major entertainment corporation. According to the Odebi League and EUCD.info, these amendments were unofficially supported by president of the ruling UMP party and presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy . They ended up making up articles 12 bis and 14 quarter of the text adopted by the Senate. Article 12 bis introduces criminal penalties (up to 3 years in prison and/or a fine of up to 300,000€) for people who knowingly make available software "manifestly" meant to transmit copyrighted works illegally, or who knowingly incite to the use of such software. A number of commentators doubt the constitutionality of this article, because of the uncertainty introduced by the word "manifestly" for defining an incrimination; they also contend that this article amounts to making authors of software criminally responsible for the actions of others (users) that they do not control. Article 14 quarter makes it possible for right holders to obtain court injunctions ordering makers of software mainly used for illegal transmissions of copyrighted works to implement whatever technical measures that can prevent this usage, as long as they do not change the nature of the software. A register of copyrighted works is made available in order to help in the effective implementation of those measures. This article could make it mandatory to implement technologies such as SNOCAP into peer-to-peer transmission programs, as proposed by Sylvie Forbin from Vivendi Universal . {Link without Title} A related amendment, making up article 14 ter A, mandates that Internet users should "secure" their Internet connection so that it is not used for transmitting copyrighted works illegally; Internet service providers are supposed to provide users with the suitable technology. This measure may be targeted at peer-to-peer users claiming that their WiFi connection was hijacked, but it may also result in forcing all users to install anti-virus and filtering software on their machines. COPYRIGHT EXCEPTIONS ''Droit d'auteur'', or copyright, is an exclusive right of the author. However, there exist in French law a number of legal exceptions to this exclusive right, somewhat similar to the US notion of '' Fair Use ''. These are listed in CPI L122-5, and article 1/1 bis of the DADVSI law alters these exceptions. The law first expands the exceptions:
However, article 1/1 bis also introduces the Berne Three-step Test directly into French law: The exceptions enumerated within this article cannot hamper the normal exploitation of the work, neither can they cause an undue loss to the legitimate interests of the author. This clause is highly controversial. Members of the opposition such as Patrick Bloche have argued that the Berne three-step test may be imposed onto states, so that their legislation conforms to the test, but not onto individual citizens. They argue that the vagueness of this test makes it impossible for citizens to know what is allowed and what is disallowed, whereas counterfeiting of copyright works may be a felony offense, and thus that the law is unconstitutional because it is unintelligible. (In December 2005, the Constitutional Council Of France declared clauses in a tax bill to be unconstitutional because they were unintelligible {Link without Title} .) OTHER CONTENTS OF THE LAW The main focus of the law is DRMs and repression of peer-to-peer usage, but some other issues related to copyright were also included:
NOTABLE INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS , UMP / now CNIP (far right-wing), ''rapporteur'']] , president of UMP (right-wing)]] , president of UDF (centrist)]] ]] (Greens, Paris)]] , French Socialist Party (left), defended the global license]] , French Socialist Party (left), defended the global license]] , from UDF]] , French Communist Party ]] Notable characters in the political debate included:
Pressure groups:
TIMELINE
NOTES REFERENCES
ANALYSES
SEE ALSO |
|
|