Французский закон о авторском праве DADVSI

French bill concerning copyright law

Loi DADVSI (generally pronounced as dadsi) is the abbreviation of the French Loi relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l’information (in English: "law on authors' rights and related rights in the information society"). It is a bill reforming French copyright law, mostly in order to implement the 2001 Information Society Directive, 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 focussed on 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 dealt with other matters related to copyright, including rights on resale of works of art, copyright for works produced by government employees and exceptions to copyright for education and the handicapped, among other issues. The law was controversial within France because of fears that it could significantly hamper free software and might also significantly restrict the right to make copies of copyrighted works for private use. Some amendments to the bill, not present in the original version, would potentially require manufacturers to share their proprietary digital music formats with other software developers (by way of the need to provide the documentation necessary for interoperability). 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.

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.

Some members of the French parliament, as well as other observers, publicly decried the intense lobbying by various groups and industries. Bernard Carayon, UMP deputy for the Tarn département, denounced lobbying, pressures and even blackmail on the part of certain groups on national TV. A number of parliamentarians said they had never seen such intense lobbying from all sides, including a grassroot effort from Internet users and free software advocates which inundated them with letters and emails. At one point, Senator Michel Charasse demanded that parliamentary staff clean out corridors of loitering lobbyists. 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 constituencies 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. At the beginning of the DADVSI discussion in December, Donnedieu de Vabres organised a demonstration of commercial music download platforms inside a room of the National Assembly, where deputies were given a free account with a €10 credit. Opposition deputy Christian Paul denounced this action and the demonstration was shut by president of the Assembly Jean Louis Debré, who indicated that though he had authorized the demonstration he had not authorized it to go in this manner. According to the Odebi league, a pressure group defending French Internet users, some aides of Donnedieu de Vabres had strong links to industry groups. In response, some, such as Pascal Rogard from SACD, denounced the League as a specialist in ad hominem attacks. Some amendments to the law (150/151, 267) were labeled by some parliamentarians and others as 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 an industry group was allowed into the "four column hall", a room in the Assembly building whose access is normally restricted to deputies and journalists.

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 how 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. 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".

The EUCD. info group ran an Internet petition, which, by June 2006, garnered more than 170,000 signatures. Groups opposed to clauses in the law organised a variety of protests. The StopDRM group organised flash mobs. Various groups organized a march against new French copyright law on May 7, 2006, as the bill was at the Senate; the March ended with flowers being laid in memory 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 saw as contempt for the concerns of ordinary citizens. 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. 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.

The DADVSI law contains a number of articles meant to suppress 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 a felony counterfeiting, with a maximum 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 fined, with stronger penalties for 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 penalties.

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 copying, 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, others 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, would still fall under 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.

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 introduced 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 made 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. A related amendment, making up article 14 ter A, mandated 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.