French independent music labels have launched an action in Paris against P2P software publishers Streamcast/Morpheus and Azureus, claiming more than €20 million ($27 million) in damages for copyright infringement. Admittedly, the action faces many obstacles and is unlikely to have an impact on the general level of digital piracy. However, it is also intended as a means to pressure the French government into toughening copyright laws. Indeed, the music industry is currently lobbying for more efficient criminal sanctions against individual file-sharers.

On Tuesday, June 12, the SPPF (Société Civile des Producteurs de Phonogrammes en France), the French collecting society representing independent music labels, announced, in a press conference, that it had launched a civil action before the Paris Court of First Instance against US-based Streamcast (publisher of Morpheus), Azureus and was contemplating similar action against Shareaza. As Dumout notes, it is the first action of this kind in France, P2P publishers having already been sued in the US (against Streamcast/Morpheus) and in Australia (against Sharman/Kazaa).

The SPPF has asked the court to order “the immediate end to the distribution and functioning of these software”. It also claimed €16.6 million in damages against Azureus and €3.7 million against Streamcast/Morpheus (the amount of the damages has yet to be set for Shareaza).

Targeting proprietary software and/or commercial enterprises
Jérôme Roger, head of the SPPF, justified the choice of the defendants by arguing that “they were all involved in commercial activities” and that other P2P software are open source projects “against which very little can be done”. (In Dumout)

Collection and use of evidence of file-sharing
The monitoring of P2P networks and collection of evidence has been done by Advestigo (website in English), a French company who specializes in copyright protection, and is supervised by an appointed by Process Server (huissier de justice).

According to the SPPF the evidence collected will not be used to launch actions against individual file-sharers. (In Dumout)

A long, impractical and potentially inefficient action
The action faces a range of obstacles, many of which are compounded by the fact that the defendants are located in the US and operate on the Internet. Firstly, the process will take even longer than usual. Devillard reports that the writs have no yet been sent and still need to be translated and transferred through the French embassy in the US. Secondly, it is not assured that the defendant will even respond, forcing a judgment in default. Finally, and most importantly, it is hard to see how a court could enforce a decision to stop the distribution of any P2P software in France.

A cry for help by the music industry?
The SPPF is fully aware of these shortcomings, however this action is also a “way to ask for the help of the government” as Jérôme Roger put it. (in Dumout)

The industry had already seen its arsenal against piracy expanded by the new copyright law passed in August 2006 and known as the Dadvsi law. One of the most lobbied and controversial provisions, dubbed the “Vivendi-Universal amendment”, actually introduced in the French Intellectual Property Code, criminal sanctions against publishers of P2P software. The Code now punishes with a 3 year jail sentence and a €300,000 fine the fact to “publish, provide, communicate… [or] promote software obviously designed to illegally make available protected works.”(Article L. 335-2-1)

Interestingly enough, however, Lagane and Ratiatum.com report that the SPPF have not chosen to launch a criminal action against the software publishers, Jérôme Roger explaining that “a criminal action is much more complex to organize than a civil action” and that “a civil action gives more flexibility concerning damages.” (in Lagane).

The music industry believes that copyright law should be changed to fight piracy more effectively. The industry is pushing for criminal sanctions against individual file-sharers that would be less tough (currently the maximum sentence for any acts of file-sharing is a three-year jail sentence and a €300,000 fine) and thus easier to secure in court. The sanctions would also be incremental. The idea for the industry is that smaller fines used to punish every file-sharer would be a more successful deterrent than huge sanctions that are never pronounced. This “gradual response”, initially adopted during the discussion of the Dadvsi, had been struck down by the Constitutional Council. The previous government had largely by-passed the decision of the Council by issuing to the judiciary a recommendation for moderation in most P2P cases (story in French-law.net). The music industry now wants this criminal policy to become law.

The industry's plan to sue file-sharers received an important boost last month when the French Supreme Court overtuned a previous decision and allowed the tracking of P2P users (story in French-law.net).

On Thursday the government met members of the music industry, including the SPPF, to discuss these matters.

SOURCES
- Christophe Lagane , Piratage P2P : la SPPF attaque Azureus et Morpheus en justice. Vnuet, 12 juin 2007.
- Arnaud Devillard , Les producteurs de musique indépendants à l'assaut de trois éditeurs de P2P. 01net., 12 juin 2007.
- Estelle Dumout , Peer-to-peer: Morpheus, Azureus et Shareaza traînés en justice par la SPPF. ZDNet France, 12 juin 2007.
- Emmanuel Torregano , Les Français s'attaquent aux sites pirates américains. Le Figaro, 12 juin 2007.
- Guillaume Champeau , France : la SPFF attaque Morpheus, Azureus et Shareaza. Ratiatum.com, 12 juin 2007; translated in English by Matt , France: The SPPF Sues Morpheus, Azureus and Shareaza. Allpeers.com, June 12, 2007.
- P2P : précisions sur les actions judiciaires de la SPPF. Ratiatum.com , 12 juin 2007.

Please report any technical, legal or linguistic error. You can do that through the contact section. It would be very helpful. Many thanks.