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.
I have not read the article, but I will declare victory for free speech. I will also make a vague jab at the DMCA, and express my deep-seated hatred for the evil RIAA.
Even though I don't speak German and I have no understanding of how the legal system works in Germany, I'll act like I know what I'm talking about when I make my ridiculously uninformed comment.
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
GPL May Not Work In German Legal System, but also this news.
The German legal system is refreshingly weird, unlike the American legal system.
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).
Like the miranda stuff, gun possession amendement, weird law about punishing hacker/copyright infringer with more prison than a raper/thief and in some case murderer, the fact you can sue if you are in the wrong mood, 12 people which know nothing of the law , and can swallow any good discourse by defense/offense especially on "expert" debat, have to swear on the bible in court (?!) and I pass many of them.
it can all be resumed in : "different history , different culture, different law system". Do not try to understand. Accept it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
First they oust Windows in Munich, then they do all kinds of crazy things that are good for the general public such as this. Now They're protecting people's rights. It seems like Germany is the place where all /.ers should move to. Although, then what would you complain about?
-I DDoSed your mom.
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 is unclear when the Constitutional Court will definitely decide[...]
I'm a German, but since IANAL, my legalese isn't up to scratch, so I might be wrong here, but I think that in the press release it says something about a 6 month time frame:
Der Zweite Senat des Bundesverfassungsgerichts hat heute[...] der Präsidentin des Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorf für die Dauer von sechs Monaten, längstens bis zu einer Entscheidung über die Verfassungsbeschwerde untersagt, die [...] Schadensersatzklage [..] zustellen zu lassen.
Rough translation:
"The 2nd chamber of the constitutional court today ruled that the president of the Düsseldorf court may not serve the writ for a six month time period, or at the utmost until there's been a decision about the constitutional complaint."
Now there's probably a lot been lost in the translation, but to me this sounds like the court isn't allowed to serve the writ until either the constitutional court has made a decision or 6 months have passed.
But again, IANAL and I may very well have mis-interpreted (and thus mis-translated) that part.
Jens
Well obviously the difference doesn't lie in the Constitutions of the United States and Germany but in the way the courts handle a situation like this.
/. front page or in the Economic Times you'd see that it's not so much about the People vs. the Corps but about the fact that in Germany you can't carry about a case in the media and expect that it is still constitutional to proceed with the case, as well as the fact that media pressure and threats of court orders don't fly there.
In the United States a Corporation has the rights of an individual.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, corporations are treated as individuals; therefore, their taxes should be assessed at a smaller value, the same way it is done for individual property owners.
This case is often cited in other cases because it stands for the principle that the word person in the Fourteenth Amendment applies to corporations as well as natural persons and both are entitled to the equal protection of the laws under the Constitution.
So in the United States the issue wouldn't be about corporations against the people, but about the rights of an individual to copywritten materials.
If you were to read the description of the situation on the
"The Federal Constitutional Court said it stopped the delivery because it could not rule out that the lawsuit, filed by a group of U.S. music publishers in Manhattan, would violate Bertelsmann's constitutional rights in Germany.
"If lawsuits in (foreign) courts are obviously misused to bend a market player to one's will by way of media pressure and the risk of a court order, this could violate the German constitution," the court said in a statement late on Friday."
Wake up, people. We are in global competition and some people are NOT playing fair.
There are peer to peer networks for the sharing of legal music. In some cases they use digital signatures to ensure the files are legit. Here's the ones I've found so far:
- Furthur Network
-
konspire[2b]
-
Monotonik's BitTorrents - zip files with ~300 MB of MP3s
If you know of any others please let me know.Request your free CD of my piano music.
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.
Like I said, I haven't used it in a while so I don't know how good the servers are anymore. Anyone interested should look at Napigator for some more info.
~Tommy Boomfiger http://www.gotapex.com/forums
To clear up some stuff, this ruling has very little or nothing to do with legality of P2P services. It is about the huge amount of sums companies have to pay others for doing things out of contract. In the US, comps have to pay huge amounts to individuals or other comps as a FINE for what they have been doing which exceeds the damage by far. This is not possible in Germany. You have to proof that there has been a DAMAGE for you, and you have this DAMAGE repaid only. Now, this is what you have to understand to understand the ruling. Below I will roughly translate what our constitutional court said : The country court in Duesseldorf is not allowed to hand in the charge against Bertelmann until further notice. The charge, handed in by Bertelsmann rivals EMI and Universal for 17 Million Dollars MIGHT be against fundamental basics of our justice system. To stop the charge being overhanded, this INTERIM order has been made. The very high amount to get money beyond your damages is not GENERALLY against our constitution. But if trials in front of german courts are misused in an obvious way to gather public attention and press coverage and the risk of being sentenced to make the opponent give in, this might break the german constituion. Wether this has been the case THIS TIME, if to be cleared in the MAIN TRIAL. If this question is answered yes, the charge is not allowed in germany and german courts can't deal with it. Bertelsmann sees itself endangered in it's by the constitution granted rights of possesion and freedom of occupation. Hope this clears it up a bit George