On Monday, September 28th, the Conciliation committee on the Telecoms Package – a major reform of the Telecommunications sector in the European Union (EU) – started discussing contentious provisions that remain in the text. Early May, Rapporteurs for the EP and diplomats from the Council of the EU reached a consensus on the whole package, but one amendment that was finally passed by the Parliament : the notorious amendment 138. This fundamental provision is now at the heart of the negotiation.

Paris, September 22nd, 2009 - The French Parliament has adopted HADOPI 2, a law aimed at establishing a so-called “three-strikes” policy in order to fight file-sharing. The Constitutional Council made groundbreaking decision on June 10th 2009 that recognized access to the Internet as essential to the full exercise of free speech, and invalidated the sanctioning power of HADOPI 1. The law HADOPI 2, despite the internet cutoff now being handled in an expedient form of judicial justice, it is as flawed and dangerous as its predecessor, for it was only designed to circumvent the Constitutional Council's decision. The war on sharing continues its way as HADOPI 2 will go through the constitutional test again.

The Rapporteur of a European Parliament directive plays a crucial role at the second reading: he must forge a compromise with the Council of Ministers between the opinion expressed by the Parliament at the first reading and the common position adopted by the Council. If he succeeds, this compromise stands an excellent chance of becoming the report that comes to a vote in parliamentary committee, then reach a vote in plenary session by all Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). So the directive, the outcome of a consensus between the two legislative bodies, will become European law. If not, the Council and Parliament must reach an agreement for a third reading: the conciliation phase.

The controversial HADOPI bill against filesharing was rejected by the French National Assembly in a very surprising move last week, at the final vote of the emergency procedure in which it was considered, with only one reading in each chamber. Such a last minute rejection happened for the last time in 1983, and is a strong political blow for Nicolas Sarkozy and his minister Albanel. This law faced strong opposition coming from members of all the political parties, driven by a formidable and wide citizen movement lead from the Internet by La Quadrature du Net and others. The law is nonsensical, inapplicable and dangerous for numerous reasons: It allows for parallel administrative justice where innocents will be sanctioned based on immaterial proofs, private police of the network in the hands of corporate actors, and its Article 5 opens very disturbing doors to generalized filtering of content.

Paris, April 9, 2009 - In a surprising turn of events, the national assembly has rejected the HADOPI bill creating the "three strikes" scheme in France, in the final discussion, by a vote of 15 in favour and 21 opposed.

Paris, 26 March 2009 - The European Parliament, endorsing the Lambrinidis report1 and turning its back on all the amendments supported by the French government and defended by Jacques Toubon and Jean-Marie Cavada, has just rejected "graduated response" for the third time.

• 1. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A6-2009-0103+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

Paris, February, 25th. Opposing the stubborn and ridiculous will of the French governement to disconnect whole families from the Internet without real proof or trial, La Quadrature du Net issues a call to all freedom-cherishing citizens to a "black-out" of their sites, blogs, profiles, avatars,...

Paris, Feb. 23rd - The French minister of Culture in charge of the law setting up "graduated response" against filesharers ("HADOPI" or "Olivennes Law", or "Création et Internet") announced that public wifi hotspots will have to be filtered to allow only access to a "white list" of authorised sites. This is the paroxysm of the absurd logic of this law, dangerous and doomed to fail. This is a perfect example of how a repressive and ignorant legislation can lead to terrible regression for the growth and innovation of our digital societies.