Talk:HADOPI law

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reintroduced, but now with the courts[edit]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/its-baack-french-3-strikes-law-gets-another-go-from-senate.ars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname or Acronym?[edit]

In the first graf you first describe the name as a 'nickname' (which it ostensibly is not). Then you go on to explain it's actually an acronym (which it is). Make up your mind.

The bill is nicknamed with the acronym of the government body it is creating. Vivepat (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federal crime in France?[edit]

I just want to point out that France is not a federal state, there is no such thing as a "federal crime". I'm not sure to understand what the author had in mind... 213.218.155.60 (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "federal", thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I see nothing NPOV in this article.

WP:NPOV: "Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias." With only a "Criticisms" section, this important policy does not seem to be followed here. --Edcolins (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please write the "support" section --Vspaceg (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be hard to find materials for that.

Ive fixed the Criticisms section... I think Dared111 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think all neutrality issues has been fixed by now, and NPOV should be probably removed Vivepat (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letter from the Deneuve et al.[edit]

The letter referenced in note 26, from members of the film industry opposed to Hadopi, has been translated into English here.

Is the policy to link only to the original version or could it be added?

Blankly (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved from the article text[edit]

This should really be integrated in to the article http://www.cybersec.eu/?p=159 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.12.75 (talk • contribs)

Blacklisting[edit]

As soon as the law has gone into effect in France and blacklisting (3rd step) is being used in practice, it would be interesting to know more about the details of its implementation. For example, is the blacklisted person allowed to use the Internet in libraries, at schools and universities, to file tax returns over the Internet, and to use Internet at work? These questions might seem odd, but they are actually asked in other countries where the French law is much discussed with little knowledge. Much communication with and within education and public authorities is moving to the Internet, so not being able to use the Internet would have almost the same effect as being locked up in prison. Drinking and driving can make you lose the driver's license, but it doesn't stop you from walking or from riding buses and trains. So what is actually included in the proposed blacklisting? This is what the article should explain in more detail, as soon as facts become known. --LA2 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, is the blacklisted person allowed to use the Internet in libraries, at schools and universities, to file tax returns over the Internet, and to use Internet at work?" the answer is simple: yes, he is. The law only forbids him to subscribe on his name a new internet account. Even his wife or husband would be allowed to subscribe to a new internet account. Lerichard (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This should be clarified in the article, with sources of course. It is not clear from the current version. In Swedish media, we learn that people will be "removed from the Internet", which is very unspecific and leads to this kind of suspicion. --LA2 (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlicensed font use[edit]

Please make sure this makes an appearance somewhere in the article. I'd do it myself but don't want to step on any toes outside of my neck of the woods. -- samj _in ^out 16:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. Jayme (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Trademark is also in dispute: noted here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.156.17 (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement[edit]

The article seems to totally lack any mention of enforcement, which is critical in this case, since online copyright laws are generally enforced very ineffectively or not at all, and it seems very unlikely that this law will change the fact the copyright is violated routinely with almost no risk.

In particular, what methods are currently used for enforcement? Do they actually work? How are users intending to continue infringing copyright attempting to prevent such enforcement? Which methods are known to be effective? Which methods are known to be ineffective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.50.130 (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive French-language citations[edit]

Not only are there too many French citations (including some from quite tacky websites) but there are several styles of formatting which makes editing them for consistency a very arduous job. I eliminated many such refs by removing a section of "Discussion" which seemed to be unencyclopedic and tending towards a repository of links. I see that the version in French Wikipedia has over 250 references. Thus, anyone who can read French and wants all that detail can simply go there. I invite comments about placing such an invitation at the head of the article, eg,

For readers of French, this article is treated in more detail in the French Wikipedia article

Better still, does anyone know of a template which imports Do NOT add French-language citations to this article, which has its French equivalent HERE Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I now see there is a second French article (Loi HADOPI 2) or Loi relative à la protection pénale de la propriété littéraire et artistique sur internet Bjenks (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious mistakes[edit]

Hello everybody. I'm the general secretary of french Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur internet agency. I'm also a wikipedian. As a strict rule, I never edit articles related to me or my work. Anyway, let me precise that :

Hadopi law is not revoked as said in the article. Just the internet access suspension has been, which is very different ;
Hadopi law is not to be "abrogated" but just (as far the Government said) transfered to an other Governement body.

Regards to all. Eric Walter (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HADOPI law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]