The French attempt to pass the world's toughest "graduated response" law against P2P file-sharers has been en retard for months. But the negotiations are finally over, the "Cr�ation et Internet" bill has been drafted, and today it finally came up before the National Assembly for debate. Despite furious opposition, the bill could well pass soon, laying down severe penalties for "not securing one's Internet connection" and forcing public WiFi operators to allow access only to a "white list" of acceptable sites. And all this for one industry.

Libert�, �galit�, fraternit�... HADOPI?

The French law goes by many names. Officially called "Cr�ation et Internet," it is also known as the "Loi Olivennes" after Denis Olivennes, the head of French electronics giant FNAC. Olivennes headed the group that came up with the plan, which will be implemented by a new group called HADOPI—which is why the bill is also known as HADOPI.

But whatever one calls it, the principles remain the same. When ISPs are notified about alleged file-sharing, they first send an e-mail to the customer involved. The second time, the customer gets a registered letter. The third time, the customer gets booted off the 'Net for three months to a year. (A HADOPI blacklist will apparently keep blocked users from simply switching ISPs.)

In return, French DVDs will appear a couple of months closer to their theatrical release date and music and movie groups will have to drop much of their DRM.

Global music trade group IFPI thinks this is a wonderful trade-off. CEO John Kennedy, last seen testifying at The Pirate Bay trial in Sweden, said today that "our future, like that of the film industry and other media depends on whether we can sustain a legitimate business in an environment that has been swamped by unauthorised free music. Over the last two years the French government has led the way in addressing this critical challenge. It has recognised that involving ISPs in addressing the massive flow of infringing content on their networks is not only essential to protect the rights of creators and producers, but can provide a sensible and proportionate solution that will work effectively in practice."

Critics aren't convinced. Those critics include the European Parliament, which last year twice expressed its displeasure with such schemes on the ground that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the crime and that only judges should be allowed to order such disconnections. That has not dissuaded the Sarkozy government, which has continued to push the idea hard.

The toughest in tout le monde



It wouldn't be too much to say that the world is watching. Although Agence-France Presse said today in an article that "the new law would make France the fourth country, after the United States, Ireland and Italy, to cut off web access for illegal downloaders," the reality is that no countries currently have such a national policy in place. In the US, only "discussions" have been announced, and those are voluntary; in Ireland, a single ISP has voluntarily agreed to adopt graduated response principles; and Italy's parliament has simply agreed to follow the French model at some point in the future.

The UK, which is considering graduated response legislation, has already taken "Internet disconnection" off the table as a potential penalty. New Zealand, which has actually passed a law requiring ISPs to boot repeat copyright infringers off the 'Net, has delayed implementation after a public outcry.

But even if the New Zealand law does go into effect before the French, the French law is much stricter. For instance, "Cr�ation et Internet" requires home Internet users to install certain approved security software and to secure their networks. The old "I had an open WiFi network and someone across the hall probably logged on and downloaded all those episodes of The Office" won't work; while that may be what happened, the law tries to avoid such controversies by simply making each Internet subscriber responsible for what happens on their connection.

One obvious retort is that people will simply slip down the boulevard to the caf� for a cup of overpriced espresso, a waiter with bad case of ennui, and an afternoon of torrenting. But the Law will not be mocked so easily. When French Minister of Culture Christine Albanel answered some parliamentary questions about public WiFi networks, she said that the solution was simple: such hotspots would offer only a "white list" of approved websites.

This sort of "plug every hole in the dike, the consequences be damned!" strategy shows just how far the government is willing to go in order to protect the copyright industries; not even rank censorship is a bridge too far. And the logic of this approach suggests that the current practice of scanning BitTorrent swarms for IP addresses will have to give way to deep packet inspection of Web content as users shift to streaming media, direct download links, and darknets.

"This return to a centralized, state-controlled network is as scary as inapplicable," said J�r�mie Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net, a lobby group that works for an open Internet. "Yet, this is emblematic of how a government legislates with the same ignorance and archaism as the entertainment industries that promote the 'graduated response.' They are, like this law, doomed to fail."

Consumer group UFC Que Choisir compared the entire project to France's ill-fated Maginot Line, examples of World War I thinking that were famously bypassed early in World War II by blitzkrieging German panzer units.

Instead, UFC Que Choisir calls for new thinking—in this case, a license fee paid for total access to movies and music. Such a solution is backed by some French artistic groups "et m�me... par le groupe Warner aux Etats-Unis" (an apparent reference to Warner's Choruss project). The implication is clear: even the music labels can see the future, and this law is straight out of the past.

True or not, however, the bill appears to have a good chance of passing into law, and the European Commission has so far (under French pressure) resisted the European Parliament's efforts to block France from implementing it.