Hadopi: Fight against illegal downloading
Intellectual property. Several organizations representing independent cinema—producers, directors, and distributors—threatened to boycott the 2018 Cannes Film Festival, criticizing the government for its lack of support for creative work and the protection of rights holders.
In response, the Minister of Culture, Françoise Nyssen, spoke on April 18th, presenting new measures aimed at combating illegal downloading. These new provisions are expected to be incorporated into a comprehensive audiovisual law currently being drafted for the end of the year.
Inspired by proposals put forward by Fleur Pellerin in 2015, then Minister of Culture and Communication, in her roadmap for an “action plan against streaming, downloading, and indexing websites profiting from pirated works,” the measures envisioned by Ms. Nyssen include the creation of blacklists of illegal streaming websites and the prosecution of their mirror sites.
The goal is to block these sites by internet service providers, remove them from search engine results, and limit their funding sources. The list prevents advertising partners from denying their knowledge of the illegal nature of the content offered by the platforms.
The Minister of Culture reiterated the urgency and importance of taking action, given the estimated losses of €1.3 billion – a figure from a study conducted by Ernst & Young and submitted in February 2017.
Unfortunately, these figures warrant some caution, as the recent report commissioned by the European Commission to study the impact of piracy on sales of copyrighted content, submitted in May 2015 to the consulting firm Ecorys, concluded that there was no evidence of negative effects of piracy on sales.
The update of Hadopi’s missions
To further this objective, a review of Hadopi’s powers and scope of action is being considered. Following particularly heated legislative debates, the High Authority for the Dissemination of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet (HADOPI) was established by the law of June 12, 2009, promoting the dissemination and protection of creative works on the Internet. An independent public authority responsible for protecting works on the Internet, this institution’s primary purpose was to combat illegal downloading, focusing on peer-to-peer file-sharing systems.
Recognized for the credibility of its proposed sanctions, its deterrent effect on offenders, its streamlining of case processing, and its reduction of the burden on the courts, Hadopi has issued more than ten million warnings since its creation. However, its effectiveness was quickly called into question, as its target—torrents—became obsolete in favor of streaming and direct downloads of audiovisual content.
Hadopi and intellectual property: The issue of administrative sanctions
Désireux de faire évoluer le système actuel de réponse graduée, les sociétés de gestion collective continuent de prôner un système d’amende encore plus automatisée 140 euros proposé par le Midem, ce choix n’ayant pas encore convaincu Christian Phéline, dernier président de la Hadopi, attaché au respect des droits de la défense.
Sa position s’était notamment appuyé sur un rapport commandé par la Hadopi à deux conseillers d’Etats sur la faisabilité juridique des différentes propositions de sanctions – amende administrative, forfaitaire et leurs variantes intermédiaires, rappelant l’importance d’une procédure en plusieurs étapes d’une réponse graduée.
Evoquant la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel [Décision « Hadopi 1 » du 10 juin 2009], le document rappelle, avec quelques réserves, qu’il ne peut y avoir de traitement et transmission de données personnelles par des organismes privés, indépendamment d’un débouché judiciaire de l’ensemble de la procédure.
La décision a elle-mème admis sur le principe un pouvoir de sanction attribuée à une autorité administrative sous réserve de la protection des droits et libertés constitutionnellement garanties. Le rapport préconise cependant une innovation en proposant de confier à une autorité administrative les sanctions automatisées.
Propriété intellectuelle : Entre zones d’ombres et manque de données
The ministry’s commendable initiative, however, presents several shortcomings. Indeed, no information has been shared regarding the criteria for compiling such a list—the nature of the sites, the volume of pirated content and user visits, etc.—nor the resources allocated for censoring them.
Similarly, the rights and procedures for websites to appeal potential blocks by Hadopi have not yet been specified.
Consequently, other avenues for reflection and documentation are also being explored to improve awareness of new offerings of pirated content.
Judging simple administrative sanctions ineffective, Ms. Nyssen mentioned in December 2017, in particular, the importance of promoting legal content and conducting a comparative study of anti-piracy policies, notably to assess the effectiveness of a graduated response.
Following the example of the United States, several organizations also recommend large-scale studies of internet users’ practices, including the profiles of those who knowingly and actively infringe copyright by making works available without the rights holders’ authorization.
Also under consideration are a stronger role for Hadopi in implementing Article 13 of the draft directive on filtering, as well as the establishment of a sanctions committee separating prosecution, investigation, and judgment, similar in this respect to the CNIL (French Data Protection Authority).
