Slashdot Mirror
German Constitutional Court Blocks Napster Suit
djmutex writes "In an urgent ruling, the German Constitutional Court has temporarily blocked the Napster copyright violations class action of several American recording companies and artists against Bertelsmann. The court decided that the German court in Düsseldorf, which was, according to international conventions, required to serve the writ, may not do so until the Constitutional Court has checked that the suit does not violate Bertelsmann's rights granted by the German constitution. Since, according to those agreements, the service is a precondition for both the suit to proceed in the U.S. as well as the later acceptance of the U.S. ruling in Germany, the lawsuit is for now halted. It is unclear when the Constitutional Court will definitely decide, but it is not generally famed for its tempo on final rulings, and it also stated in the press release (in German) that constitutional rights could possibly be violated if "proceedings before state courts are obviously abused to discipline competitors through public media pressure and the risk of a conviction"." Reuters has a summary.
German Court sides with German company in suit against American company. Wow, what a shock.
Who would have thought that the German constitution has had this law suit thrown out of court and protect a company while blatantly created a program for copyright violation, while the US constitution allows a collage student to be sued for his life savings by the RIAA for simply creating a search engine.
There is no god
If Bertelsmann buys a US company which violates US copyrights then Bertelsmann should submit to US law. If they don't like this, then they shouldn't do any business in the US.
If an american corporation does business with a foreign company which violates foreign law, then that american company should submit to foreign law. If they don't like this, then they shouldn't do any business with foreign organisations.
I hope we'll see such rulings (even not yet definitive) more often. Media conglomerates may have bought half of America and a third of the European Parlement, they are still some people left whose jobs are to be sure that laws have to be in sync with the higest values of the constitution of their country. They is only one Supreme Court in the US, there are one in EACH country of the EU that could be a counter-power to each stupid law.
Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
thats like suing people who owned stock/bought service from enron/worldcom.
;p
here is the company that funded the program, that shared the file, that stole money from the artist who is now eating from the gutter.
Who would have thought that the German constitution has had this law suit thrown out of court and protect a company while blatantly created a program for copyright violation, while the US constitution allows a collage student to be sued for his life savings by the RIAA for simply creating a search engine.
The US Constitution had nothing to do with that guy. He caved at the pressure and offered the RIAA everything in return. I bet the EFF would have backed him legally and the RIAA would have dropped the case or settled for a slap on the wrist and filtering of the search engine instead of all the guy's gil.
Also, lets not warp things out of perspective. His search engine wasn't without sin. A search engine to catalog shared files across a college campus. Yea, that has a lot more practical applications then simply warez, mp3z, and pr0n doesn't it?
I don't agree with the RIAA in their argument he was responsible for what others shared. I also don't agree with him caving in and then complaining. I doubt it would have held up in court. But we'll never know will we?
BTW. That last question was rhetorical incase you felt like answering it.
It's about time... we live in the United States of Injustice.
"In a cat's eye, all things belong to cats."
The very fact that shareholders cannot be sued for investing in a company is one of the cornerstones of the entire world's economy.
The worst you can do to the shareholders is to sue the corporation so that it has to dissolve in bankrupcy, so that the shareholders lose their investment.
There are only a few ways to "pierce the corporate veil". One of those is for the corporation to not pay its taxes. If the corporation does that, the tax authorities can levy the money from the personal assets of anyone with a fiduciary interest in the corporation.
There are other ways the corporate veil can be pierced, which all more or less involve the attempt to use the corporation as an attempt to protect yourself from being prosecuted for illegal activity.
IANAL, but I own a corporation, and I'm pretty sure no form of civil tort provides for piercing the corporate veil.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
This isn't about napster, it is about EMI and Universal using napster and demanding ridiculous amounts of money to put pressure on Bertelsman. Then they'd probably go for some kind of settlement which has nothing to do with napster at all.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
And yet, corporations don't have the responsibilities of an individual. We have the death penalty for individuals, but not for corporations.
This has always seemed rather backwards to me. A single individual can cause a lot of trouble and damage, especially in an age of nuclear and biological weapons. However, the amount of damage that can be caused by a corporation is much greater, yet the punishments for corporations in America are effectively limited to fines.
Survival of the fittest seems to be fine for businesses, but individuals are much more limited in their behavior.