The endless fight against online piracy: Paris Court ruling of 11/07/2024.

On July 11, 2024, the Paris Judicial Court issued a decision ordering the blocking of several streaming and torrent sites by the main French Internet service providers (ISPs). This decision is part of the long legal battle fought by rights holders against online film piracy, illustrating both the progress made and the persistent challenges in this area.

I. Legal basis for the action.

The Société Civile des Producteurs Phonographiques (SCPP) sued Orange, Free, SFR, SFR Fibre, and Bouygues Telecom based on Article L336-2 of the Intellectual Property Code (CPI).

This article, resulting from the transposition of Directive 2001/29/CE, allows rights holders to ask the judge to order \" _all measures appropriate to prevent or put an end to such an infringement of a copyright or related right, against any person likely to contribute to remedying it_\".

The court first examined the SCPP's standing to act, as a collective management organization for the rights of phonogram producers. The trial judges confirmed the admissibility of SCPP's action to stop the unauthorized making available of phonograms from its repertoire, in accordance with its statutes and the provisions of the CPI.

II. Characterization of the infringement of rights.

The court then analyzed the evidence provided by the SCPP, including sworn affidavits from duly authorized agents, demonstrating that the targeted sites allowed access to protected phonographic works without the authorization of the rights holders.

The judge noted several aggravating elements:

These elements reinforced the court in its decision to consider these sites as \" _entirely or almost entirely illicit_\".

III. The ordered measures and their balance.

In accordance with the case law of the CJEU (Scarlet Extended \\ [2\\] and UPC Telekabel Wien \\ [3\\] judgments), the court sought to establish a fair balance between:

- the protection of the intellectual property rights of film authors, - the freedom to conduct business of ISPs (Orange, Free, SFR, Bouygues Telecom), - the fundamental rights of Internet users (protection of personal data and freedom of information).

The trial judges, taking these imperatives into account, decided to order the ISPs to implement \" _all measures necessary to prevent access_\" to the pirate sites.

It is important, however, to emphasize that the court's decision appends a list of domain names to be blocked by the ISPs, without this list being exhaustive due to the terms used in the judgment itself.

Consequently, the ISPs should, in light of this decision, constantly track new domain names that may be used by these sites to circumvent blocking measures.

This injunction is nevertheless limited:

1\\. Geographic limitation (French territory and overseas territories),

2\\. Temporal limitation (18 months).

The cost of implementing these blocking measures falls to the ISPs.

IV. The limits of blocking effectiveness.

Despite the apparent victory of the rights holders, this decision raises several questions regarding its actual effectiveness:

1\\. The rapid adaptability of pirate sites: the sites targeted by the decision are often already accessible via new addresses, making blocking quickly obsolete and leading to a costly and almost impossible struggle for ISPs.

2\\. The legal _whack-a-mole_: rights holders are forced to multiply legal proceedings to try to keep up with the constant evolution of pirate sites, committing significant resources for limited results over time.

3\\. The Streisand effect: blocking can paradoxically increase the notoriety of the targeted sites and encourage some Internet users to seek circumvention methods.

Conclusion.

The decision of the Paris Judicial Court \\ [4\")\\] is consistent with French and European case law in the fight against online piracy.

While it attests to the determination of rights holders and the responsiveness of the courts to their requests, it also highlights the intrinsic limits of the current blocking system.

The battle against online piracy remains a technological and legal cat-and-mouse game, where each victory seems ephemeral given the adaptability of illegal sites.

This situation calls for a broader reflection on how to effectively protect artistic creation in the digital age, without compromising fundamental freedoms and technological innovation.

In this regard, courts and ISPs seem somewhat overwhelmed.