L'HADOPI se compose

La nouvelle est tombee par Decret du 23 Decembre 2009 (voir commentaire sous HADOPI 1+2 = 3). Les Membres sont nommés pour six ans selon la loi du 12 juin 2009'

Ils éliront leur président, également pour six ans, parmi les trois membres désignés par le vice-président du Conseil d’Etat, le premier président de la Cour de cassation et le premier président de la Cour des comptes. Il s’agira soit de Jean Mustelli, Marie-Françoise Marais, ou Patrick Bouquet.

1 - membre titulaire désignés par le vice-président du Conseil d'Etat

M. Jean MUSITELLI, 62 ans, Conseiller d’Etat depuis 2001, a été professeur d’italien avant d’intégrer le Ministère des Affaires étrangères en 1979. Il a au cours de sa carrière diplomatique, jusqu’en 2002, occupé plusieurs postes, auprès de l’Ambassade de France en Italie, de la Présidence de la République (notamment comme porte-parole) et de l’UNESCO où il a représenté la France de 1997 à 2002, alors même que les Etats-parties à l’UNESCO convenaient des termes du mandat confié au Secrétariat général pour la négociation d’une Convention internationale sur la protection et la promotion de la diversité des contenus culturels. Il a également été président de l’Institut national du Patrimoine (jusqu’en 2008) et est, depuis 2007, Président de l’Autorité de régulation des mesures techniques (chargée de la bonne mise en œuvre de la législation européenne relative aux droits d’auteurs et aux droits voisins).

Son expérience en fait un des meilleurs spécialistes en Europe de la régulation de l’économie de la culture et de l’audiovisuel et un des plus brillants avocats du combat européen en faveur de la promotion de la diversité des contenus culturels.

2 - membre désignés par le premier président de la Cour de cassation

En tant que membre titulaire : Mme Marie-Françoise Marais.

Conseiller à la Cour de cassation, 1° chambre, en charge des affaires de propriété littéraire et artistique, Marie-Françoise MARAIS a antérieurement été Présidente de la 4° chambre de la Cour d’appel de Paris spécialisée en matière de propriété intellectuelle.

Mme MARAIS est également Vice- Présidente du CSPLA (Conseil Supérieur de la Propriété Littéraire et Artistique), Présidente de la CNIS (Commission Nationale des Inventions de Salariés) et membre de la CEPC (Commission d’Examen des Pratiques Commerciales).

En tant que membre suppléant :
M. Dominique Garban. Conseiller a la Cour de Cassation. Admis a la retraite maintenu en activite par Decret du 6 Novembre 2009

Parmi les personnaites 'qualifiées désignées', le député UMP Franck Riester (ancien rapporteur de la loi “Création et internet” à l’Assemblée), le sénateur UMP Michel Thiollière (ancien rapporteur de la loi “Création et internet” au Sénat), l’ancien ministre de la Culture Jacques Toubon, Philippe Bélaval (récemment nommé président du Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique), Chantal Jannet (Présidente de l’UFCS). Ainsi qu’une partie des responsables de l’Autorité de Régulation des Mesures Techniques(ARMT) qui doit disparaître pour laisser place à l’Hadopi : Jean Berbineau (actuel secrétaire général), Jean Musitelli (actuel président), Marie-Françoise Marais (conseillère à la cour de Cassation et membre de l’ARMT), et Patrick Bouquet (conseiller-maître à la Cour des comptes et et membre de l’ARMT).

Trois magistrats sont a la tete de la Commission de protection des droits (CPD) chargée de la mise en œuvre effective de la riposte graduée: Mireille Imbert-Quaretta (Conseiller d’Etat), Jean-Yves Monfort (Président du TGI de. Versailles) et Jacques Bille.

On attend toujours - une surprise? - le décret portant sur la création de l’Hadopi qui n’a pas encore été publié.

Loi Hadopi 1 + 2 = 3 ?

Un excellent developpement sur les suites de la loi et HADOPI :

Droit et Technologies:

"Avec l'adoption d'Hadopi 2, le système initial prévu pour la protection des droits d'auteur sur Internet est désormais entré en vigueur. Une Hadopi 3 sera-t-elle nécessaire pour parfaire ce dispositif ? En effet, la loi ne donne pas de définition précise de la contrefaçon en ligne. Il faudra aussi, entre autres choses, préciser les modalités dans lesquelles les victimes de contrefaçon pourront demander réparation de leur préjudice."

http://www.droit-technologie.org/actuality-1282/loi-hadopi-1-2-3.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+droit-technologie%2FRnCH+%28Les+actus+du+Droit+des+Nouvelles+Technologies%29&utm_content=Google+International

Voir egalement sur Copyright et le Gouvernement Sarkozi:

UMP = Un Mouvement Pirate http://is.gd/5qSS7

Sarkozy -UMP a nouveau pris la main dans le sac, apres trois avertisements, on leur coupe la connection?http://bit.ly/6Ur9Rs

En anglais:

Three strikes Sarkozy's Party Found Violating Copyright Again http://bit.ly/6Ur9Rs

Doctorlaura: Third strike strike? Techdirt covers French UMP party violation of music copyright in political videohttp://bit.ly/6crr0S

Pour plus d'info sur le context, en anglais:

A piece of fun music copyright education by L Lessighttp://bit.ly/4WP8cy

Sur la 'tache d'huile' d'HADOPI dans le monde:

UK House of Lords Follow China and Australia, Propose Internet Censorship Bill http://bit.ly/68gDgO

UK House of Lords Follow China and ... http://bit.ly/8Wpi0E

New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes Lawhttp://bit.ly/5GQM5R

ACTA : ce qu'on ne vous dit pas...http://bit.ly/5J6vjx

Google CEO Eric Schmidt says privacy isn't important

Google CEO Eric Schmidt says privacy isn't important, and if you want to keep something private, "maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" (in other words, "innocent people have nothing to hide.")

Dr Eric Schmidt is very clever and wise. However, this hasn't always been Google's position. Has he changed his mind?

Google CEO On Privacy (VIDEO): 'If You Have Something You Don't Want Anyone To Know, Maybe You Shouldn't Be Doing It'

In July 2009, few months ago, he was wise enough to declare:

Eric Shmidt Interview July 2009: "I don't think anyone wants everything revealed. That's why we have doors and shades and so forth."

"..behavior of PPL online when they are teenagers. This isn't the sort of thing that they want to know when they are mature adults in leadership positions"

"...I have a specific suggestion that it should be common and legal to change your name at the age of twenty-one and say, "That wasn't me. It was a different person"'....

"I'm very strongly in favour of an individual's right of privacy but I'm very suspicious about Governments ..."

"...our Company makes a commitment to people to respect people's privacy and their personal information because it's central to the trust ..."

Read the entire interview transcript of Eric Schmidt for Marketplace in July 2009 http://bit.ly/EN1PB

Before that, in 2005, 'Google blackballed CNet's reporters after CNet published personal information about Schmidt's private life: ""Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking to CNET News reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story..."

A considerable amount of information is available through Google's applications and someone with access to Google's databases could find out about personal emails, locations, shopping, reading, preferences, travelling, etc...

The risk is that hackers, zealous government investigators, or even someone accessing this information using Google abuse that information. As Google, offering its services free of charge, processes a mountain of collected information, it has no liability to users.

It is a fact that if we directly paid Google we would be less vulnerable. At the moment, we pay a dangerous price with our privacy that is tremendously valuable.
Entering directly in contract with Google would make the company accountable.
As a free provider of services, Google inevitably lacks concern for our data: there have been incidents of data loss, human error (data sent out by mistake). We have no idea of how data are secured, what is done with our data and how it is processed. We need more transparency and maybe external audit of the mega giant activities.
Google is benefiting from a quasi monopolistic situation. Google just aggregates so much that it IS a serious threat to our privacy, reputation, identity, finances, career, health, etc…
We cannot trust Google any more. Don’t be evil when openly Google is under-estimating the value of our privacy.

Of course, Google is not immune from human mistakes, see:

The Rocky Mountain Bank’s customers private data revealed for random users because of humane mistake - Bank sues Google

http://blog.gwebs.com/index.php/2009/10/12/the-rocky-mountain-banks-customers-private-data-revealed-for-random-users-because-of-humane-mistake-bank-sues-google/

When Google Runs Your Life

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1228/technology-google-apps-gmail-bing.html

Google CEO Eric Schmidt Dismisses the Importance of Privacy

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy

Dan Solove: "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" http://bit.ly/NtYuE answers E Schmidt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_383105.html

'

Google CEO says privacy doesn't matter. Google blacklists CNet for violating CEO's privacy.'

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/09/google-ceo-says-priv.htm

Tag: Google Privacy data Eric Schmidt user database

Letter to my MP

........

The reason of this email is to point out to you the importance of the impact of the Digital Economy Bill.

Today, you will be at the Parliament for the Oral Questions at 3pm, followed by the second reading of the this bill.

I would like you to consider the importance of this legislation in the light of my remarks and articles I am sending you to preserve the right balance between Copyright and free speech and the right to access to internet.

The 'Three Strikes' proposal cannot be operative as it is unpractical:

- Different users accessing from the same computer or same network in the community are exposed to punishement for an act allegedly committed by one individual. This creates a collective liability.

- IP snooping: someone could easily hack the IP address of an internet access user to download infringing materials,

- Computers can be infected by malicious software, spyware or become a member of a bootnet attack.

- it is not realistic to expect every user to be able to adequately secure its network access while this is not offered as a default setting. Therefore, it becomes easy for anyone to hack into private networks for illegal downloads.

This goes against the UK and EU E-commerce Regulations. See Professor Liliane Edwards reaction after a pub was fined £8K for an infringing download from the open Wifi hotspot.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39909136,00.htm

- The notice letters have a good chance of ending up in the spam box and legitimately being ignored by account holders who won't be able to verify the authenticity of the warning. Remember many networks are accessed by several users (children, adults, friends, au-pairs, etc...) and many account holders are not tech-savvy.

- In our lives today, internet access is not a luxury anymore. Children need access for their study and this is the way it should go. Digital technologies are a great booster of knowledge and education. Workers need internet access. Consumers need internet access. Citizens need digital access and personal democracy. Promoting transparency and participation need to be the priority.

Instead, the new digital Economy Bill is opening the door to Deep Packet Inspection (as opposed to Net Neutrality) in the interest of the music industry. This represents a serious threat to our privacy. See: 'When Rights Clash Online: The Tracking of P2P copyright Infringement vs Ec Personal Data Directive.' by Okechukwu Benjamin Vincents, National University of Singapore http://works.bepress.com/okechukwu_vincents/4/

When Rights Clash Online: The Tracking of P2p Copyright Infringement vs. EC Personal Data Directive http://works.bepress.com/okechukwu_vincents/4/

- Often the internet service provider is also a provider of other primordial services such as telephone line or TV. What happens to the household when it is cut from the services? Should they maintain the monthly payments for an interrupted service?

I would also like to point out here the benefit of digital environment for the Music industry: No cost of premises, no shop, no print, no CD box, no staff, no shop cost etc... Instead fast music download with DRM (Digital Right Management protecting the re-production of the music in several support).

You can have a look at this graph : 'Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing?'

http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

Ultimately, I invite you to consider reading :

- From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

A Pirate-Finder General for the UK?

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/pirate-finder-general-uk

'My Digital Economy Bill letter to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee'

http://www.richardskingdom.net/my-digital-economy-bill-letter-to-the-the-house-of-lords-science-and-technology-committee?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RichardsKingdom+%28Richard%27s+Kingdom%29

'Mandelson's Madness'

http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?blogid=14&entryid=2646