The French parliament on Tuesday gave its final approval to an internet piracy bill that has drawn attention from around the world with its provision to cut illegal downloaders off from the internet.
The bill, which was opposed by consumer groups but had the backing of the music and film industry, is one of the toughest ever drafted in the global fight against the illegal downloading of films, music and computer games.
The bill was approved by 258 votes for and 131 against.
The penalties will probably be quite rare, for I believe in the effectiveness of this deterrent, said Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand.
An official of President Nicolas Sarkozy s right-wing UMP party, Franck Riester, said the first warnings to users falling foul of the new law would be sent at the beginning of next year.
Championed by Sarkozy and singer-turned-first lady Carla Bruni, the original anti-piracy law was adopted in May after a stormy parliament battle, but was blocked in June by France s top legal authority.
The Constitutional Council objected to a key provision, which gave a new state agency, known by the acronym Hadopi, the power to shut down web access for up to a year for those who download music and films illegally.
Opponents said it failed to give alleged pirates enough recourse to challenge accusations and argued that web innovations would make it possible for illegal downloaders to avoid detection.
The new bill shifts the final decision on cutting off web users away from the state agency to the courts.
On the third strike, a judge would hand down an Internet ban or – as was possible under existing but rarely applied legislation – impose a fine of up to ?300,000 ($415,000) or a two-year jail sentence.
Account holders found guilty of negligence for allowing a third party to pirate music or films using their web connection, would risk a ?1,500 fine and a month-long suspension.
In Sweden, a similar law, which was closely monitored by France, has led to a sharp drop in illegal downloading although critics predict the effects will be short-lived and argue it is an excessive breach of personal privacy. -AFP
