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
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).
Just like German porn.
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.
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."
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