Most Popular
| Top Stories | Commented | Featured |
4-Way Intel H55 Motherboard Shootout featured
Tech Tip of the Week: Customize Your Windows 7 Start Menu Button featured
Catalyst 10.3 previewed, full release coming next week
EVGA Classified SR-2 fits twin six-core Xeon processors
Microsoft loses another patent suit, must pay $105 million
New GeForce 197.13 beta drivers fix overheating issues
TS Community
| User Gallery | Recent Discussion |
Vista MCE Blue ORG 2008 for Media MVP by tipstir | On forum by BlackIrish |
The Web
French Senate passes revamped 'three-strikes' law
France’s controversial project to fight illicit downloads is back in the news. First voted down by the country’s National Assembly, passed in a second attempt and then ruled unconstitutional, the so-called “three-strikes” bill has been reworked and passed one more time for consideration by the National Assembly and French Constitutional Council. It seems that one way or another the Sarkozy regime is determined to adopt this law.
The original version was set up as a three-strikes system in which a state agency known by the acronym HADOPI would track and punish copyright violators – first sending an email warning, then a letter and finally cutting off a user's internet connection. France’s Constitutional Council said that citizens deserved a court hearing, however, as only a judge should have the power to deny a user access to the Internet.
The revised bill has moved the authority to disconnect file-sharers away from HADOPI to the courts. As it stands now, when someone is warned about an infringement for a third time, the agency will report the offender to a judge, who would either impose an Internet ban, a fine of up to $415,000 or a two-year jail sentence. These decisions would be made under a fast-track ruling system that would give judges merely a few minutes per case.
The original version was set up as a three-strikes system in which a state agency known by the acronym HADOPI would track and punish copyright violators – first sending an email warning, then a letter and finally cutting off a user's internet connection. France’s Constitutional Council said that citizens deserved a court hearing, however, as only a judge should have the power to deny a user access to the Internet.
The revised bill has moved the authority to disconnect file-sharers away from HADOPI to the courts. As it stands now, when someone is warned about an infringement for a third time, the agency will report the offender to a judge, who would either impose an Internet ban, a fine of up to $415,000 or a two-year jail sentence. These decisions would be made under a fast-track ruling system that would give judges merely a few minutes per case.
User Comments (2)
Post a comment| DrazharLn on July 11, 2009 9:15 AM | While I disagree with illegal filesharing, it is completely
wrong to allow the state such enormous powers over something
as fundamental as internet access with only a cursory court
case. The fines and jail sentences are similarily outrageous, especially given such short court cases. |
| JDoors on July 11, 2009 1:12 PM | Hope this gets struck down as well as we apparently are on a
path to emulate anything the Europeans do. Crafted just so, this could easily bypass our Constitutional protections. |
TechSpot RSS



