AfterDawn: News

French court ruled P2P legal for personal use

A French ruling made in December but just publicised now, regarded the use of P2P networks as legal as long as it was for personal and not commercial use. The ruling applied to both downloading and uploading copyrighted files. It started when Anthony G was taken to court by lobby group Société Civile des Producteurs Phonographiques (SCPP) for allegedly making 1,875 copyrighted music and movie files available on the FastTrack network (through use of Kazaa software) during 2004.

Another lobby group, L'Association des Audionautes, defended the user. "On September 21, 2004, the prosecutor's office found 1,875 MP3 and DivX files on the defendant's hard drive. Based on this discovery, a French record producer association known as the SCPP (Société Civile des Producteurs Phonographiques) sued him for downloading and uploading 1,212 music tracks." the group said.



"The District Court of Paris, however, refused to agree with the SCPP's argument. Following the line of reasoning utilised by the ADA for nearly two years, the Judges decided that these acts of downloading and uploading qualified as 'private copying'", it added. This decision is being publicised as the French parliament meets to discuss whether P2P use will be legalised as long as a fee of about 5 euro is paid each month.

The verdict is being appealed but L'Association des Audionautes is confident that a higher court will uphold the decision.

Source:
The Register

Written by: James Delahunty @ 8 Feb 2006 4:14

• Previous article

• iTunes gets Showtime content

• Next article

• iPod chip maker to add WiFi & Bluetooth support

• 10 comments

• cityoke2

  Is it legal do upload and download copyrighted files in the U.S.. If it is not something like this should happen in the U.S..

  8.2.2006 04:27 #1

• cityoke2

  Is it legal do upload and download copyrighted files in the U.S.. If it is not something like this should happen in the U.S..

  8.2.2006 04:27 #2

• sulaim

  man, it seems the french are the only ones who have got any sense in them whether it is war or copyright.

  8.2.2006 04:54 #3

• ireland

  the total article can be read here my post
  http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/296529
  
  much more news of the day here.under this title
  
  I Would Read The News In This Thread This Thead Is To post Any Thing Ye Want, Any Subject matter,
  http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/281991

  8.2.2006 06:05 #4

• freshguy

  I think that the copyright laws as they stand today are not nearly specific enough and leave far too much latitude for legal interpretation as to whether someone has violated a copyright or not. The copyright law was intended to protect a specifed quantity from being used by others to profit from the copyright holders' efforts or idea. Quote:Wikiquote can not grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.
  
  Please note that that the information found here may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information.
  It just doesn't work having a law that can effectively take certain images and phrases totally out of public circulation. The more popular that a fictional character is, the more likely it is that people are going to refer to that character in correspondence and general communication with others. Even to the point where nicknames are used to compare others to this copyrighted character. While there is such a thing as fair use status, there are so many stipulations for invoking this "fair use" status that often times it's virtually impossible to be certain that a particular fair use will not be vulnerable to being ruled a copyright infringement of some mega-comglomorate with a stable of tricky lawyers.
  Without a doubt, no one should be able to profit by misuse of someone elses's work. That being said, His or Her Honor will hopefully make certain that the copyright law is used as it was intended and not as a lark because the law may be too vague in certain areas.
  A person should be able to copy an image off of the internet, without having to worry about being sued just for using it in an e-mail or post to make others laugh.
  

  8.2.2006 06:44 #5

• Ne007

  The french are now the new Canada. Our best friend uploaders.

  8.2.2006 07:04 #6

• ireland

  French p2p file sharer freed
  
  p2p news / p2pnet: France is fast becoming a bastion for p2p freedom.
  
  The country was the first to propose legalizing p2p downloading and now a French court has thrown out a case against a p2p file sharer for both downloading and uploading music and movies.
  
  The file sharer was defended by the Association of Audionautes (ADA) in a suit brought by sued by the Société Civile des Producteurs Phonographiques.
  
  "On September 21, 2004, the prosecutor's office found 1875 MP3 and DivX files on the defendant's hard drive," says the ADA.
  
  The man was later sued for allegedly downloading and uploading 1,212 music tracks.
  
  However, "the Judges decided that these acts of downloading and uploading qualified as 'private copying'," says the post.
  
  Also See:
  legalizing p2p - French 'legal p2p downloads' plan, February 3, 2006
  Association of Audionautes - French judge authorizes downloading and uploading of copyrighted content on the Internet, February 7, 2006
  
  (Wednesday 8th February 2006)
  http://p2pnet.net/story/7859

  8.2.2006 08:27 #7

• whoozhe

  Those French love to niggle the USA at every opportunity.
  I wait for some lawyer to argue that a hard drive is not a permanant storage device so any files on it can only be regarded as temporary. The argument could be expanded that the owner of the hard drive intended deleting the file after reviewing it.
  Seeing there is not cut and dry law governing tempory storage then the proof would have to show that the file had been moved or copied to a permanant storage device such as a CD.
  Also there is no law saying a copy of a copy is illegal. The entire copywrite laws could be interpreted as copy meaning only the original copy.
  I know this is all tongue in cheek but hey murderers have gotten of with less an argument.
  And are newspaper copy boys illega?

  8.2.2006 13:48 #8

• ZippyDSM

  The laws are so vauge they cant tell the diffreance between soemone who makes a personal use backup/mix CD/tape/DVD or selling copyies for profit......

  10.2.2006 00:57 #9

• Necronomx

  I'm glad I live in the Netherlands, ok there some institutes busy to make a legal case but the'll fail.
  Because like the French judge said it is for personal use.
  Long live torrenting!!!!!!!!!

  13.2.2006 23:48 #10