Slashdot Mirror
When Free Speech and Foreign IP Law Collide
segphault writes "Ars Technica has an interesting look at a recent intellectual property case where foreign copyright law conflicts with American freedom of speech rights. In this particular case, Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc., American enforcement of the French court's judgement on the basis of comity could establish a dangerous legal precedent that could lead to extensive censorship of the Internet. The article includes analysis of a relevant friend of the court brief filed by the EFF."
Apparently you cannot take and publish a picture you take of certain Chicago buildings either because the designers of the buildings have a copyright on the design. So the French law is not that crazy compared to Amerikan Copyright law. http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/06/chicagos_publ ic_scul.html
does any one else think that the EFF has kinda fell off to a degree, or am I just looking in the wrong place.
http://www.pspbrew.com
You have a right to free speech, but that's not your speech.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
'The plaintiff protested the ruling, arguing that publication of the photographs doesn't "possess sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment in to play."'
Maybe there wasn't enough detail to constitute a violation of copyright either.
Actually, this is a place where the copyright law is severely defective and needs to be fixed. If I'm a videographer doing an interview with someone and there is music playing in the background, the people who own the copyrights to the music can prevent me from using the interview without paying them $10,000.
Reporters should have the right to report. The fact that someone's copyrighted work is embedded in the report shouldn't prevent the report from reaching the public.
Unfortunately, this is not as simple as that. There are many cases where such geographical separation does not work and where both laws collide, where precedence of one law above the other are/should be enforced: children care in case of divorce between binational couples, heritages, fiscal matters for companies, etc... This is one case in the grey area of "international law". The right of the sea is in very murky waters too...
I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
When we can finally agree that someone's emotions are not protected by law, then we have a great start. All of these laws that raise religion, culture, or reputation over the free expression of thought are harmful and should be avoided at all costs, and their proponents be shunned from human society. The middle ages are over, and so are the 60's. Peace comes when people can speak freely and as equals, not when imposed by a government. Look what happened when General Tito died, and all of that pent-up hatred was released.
The French would raise hell if we tried to exercise a US law against a French citizen, and rightfully so. Similarly, French law does not and should not apply to those outside France's borders
Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't this the other side of the coin that everybody got so pissy about just a few weeks ago, when yahoo co-operated with the Chinese government regarding activities taking place in China?
The US government has historically tried to use laws regarding the behaviour of FOREIGN companies (owned wholey or partially by American companies) to extend it's foreign policy abroad.
I can't remember the number of times the American government has passed laws like that to try to affect the behaviour of CANADIAN companies who have the *temerity* to try to do business with Cuba, for example.
That being said, inter-governmental agreements and/or treaties between governements agreeing to respect each other's laws in specific areas is no more an abridgement of free speech than *american* copyright laws are.
Italy wanted a show trial for "justice". The US refused to allow it and militarily always has, both on foreign turf and at home. US civilian courts cannot try military cases. And te US extends the same privilege to the militaries of other countries. This policy has been recently abused to prevent foreigners designated "soldiers" from any access to civilian courts for but the general policy is sound.
The only thing Capt. Ashby (and his navigator, Capt. Schweitzer) are guilty of is obstruction of justice for the disappearance of the video tape. Why did they ditch it? Probably because of the barrel rolls that Ashby did -- not dangerous in themselves nor in any way the cause of the mishap but banned by the US Air Force as dangerous and unnecesasry manoeuvres except during a dogfight or practice for one. They probably also bad-mouthed a few colonels or generals. An obstruction of justice charge beats the hell out of a Court Martial for showing disrespect for superior officers.
woof.
See how it works in this case : fashion design is protected by WIPO ; but the scope of protection in the actual laws of various states bound by WIPO differs. The aim of WIPO is to enforce the harshest possible IP protection, so states are required to cross-apply judgements from other members of the treaty. Here, the USA say : "oh well, we don't like it, but ya know, it's good for economy so, what's a constitutional amendement between friends ?". Take other matters (DMCA), and see how it's reversed : we french had an exception of copyright comparable to fair use, called "exception de copie privée" by wich anybody was entitled to make any number of copies from any copyrighted work he may came by, restricted to his home use. This exception was wiped away and now is much closer aligned on your US fair use.
My point is that the problem isn't in the "OMG LOOK HOW THOSE ALIENS ARE TAKING OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS FROM US !!!", but in the uncontroled discussion, adoption, transposition and enforcement of WIPO upon citizens of the world without them having been informed of the consequences, and the political will to give industry an edge over the physical persons who should have decided because they are the citizens of the bound states, while corporations do not vote ! And WIPO is only one such treaty, among others.
If we do not put corporations under the law, soon, laws will be issued at an international level by the corporations and enforced on us. This is clearly not something we should be looking forward.
No dichotomy there. If the officers and decision-makers are citizens of or visitors to the US, they should be every bit subject to US law. If those in charge of Yahoo come to the US, they can and should be arrested for crimes against humanity.
Same thing here. If this guy wants to visit France again, they'd be well within their rights to deny his entry until he pays the outstanding judgment. But if he -doesn't-, they're not within their rights to enforce their law over here. Same thing there-if the Yahoo officers with veto power (and spawning off a "subsidiary" is meaningless) live here, they should be held fully accountable for their actions-under US law, -where they reside-.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
The question isn't why something should fall under free speech protections, but rather why something shouldn't. For something not to, a very, very compelling reason should be offered, and there are very, very few things to which the free speech law does not apply.
I agree with that. However, I am a proponent of more "shouldn't" cases. I have no problem with free speech "zones" as you name them. Not that I want to invoke Godwin's law, but Slashdotters often use the svatiska or Mein Kampf and the restrictions in Germany and in France as an example, however I am OK with these restrictions. The restrictions don't preclude education on the matter, on the contrary. In the US, the First Amendment is invoked for everything, from NAMBLA to homo-haters and neo-nazi groups. It's not because Free Speech is a Good Thing(tm) that one should abuse of it, so I have no problem with regulating free speech. It has nothing to do with censorship as long as you can get information (education on the matter from different sources) and think what you like.
As far as I'm concerned, NAMBLA should be illegal, but then again, it's just me. I'm not American so it's not my problem after all. I still prefer "full free speech" than censorship, and luckily the Internet was born under that free speech spirit. The Web is a "request and get" system, so I don't request neo-nazis websites, and even if there are certainly many, I don't see them, that's fine by me (I'd still prefer them not to exist but everyone has the right to his beliefs, yet I think those people are either simple-minded, retards or pyschotics). But I know there have been neo-nazis or such demonstrations in some american towns, I couldn't imagine hearing those fuckers yelling hate speech just under my window. For the sake of MY FREEDOM not to be harassed with hate speech. Their freedom stops where mine starts.
We're talking about treaties, freely entered into by all countries involved, designed to encourage & facilitate commerce between economies.
Treaties don't really come into play here, because the Berne Convention is not self-enacting.
If an American copyright holder in one of those areas was having his American IP rights violated in France, he would be just as capable of suing and gaining satisfaction.
No, you either misspoke or don't understand. Who the copyright holder is doesn't matter. What matters is where the alleged infringement takes place. When an American (or anyone) distributes copyrighted material in the US, they are under US law. When they distribute copyrighted material in France, they're under French law. Of course, getting a ruling in France based on French law for a US company with none of its assets in France, isn't very useful, unless you can convince a US court to enforce the ruling. Under the principle of comity, US courts will usually do this. Then, once the US court makes its ruling, it can be enforced, using injunctions, attachments, liens, and levies, if necessary.
You cannot claim that it goes against free speech unless you're willing to say that all copyright is a violation of free speech.
The claim is that a law granting copyright protection to fashion designs would be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. That's not saying that all copyright protections are unconstitutional, only this one. It's essentially saying that copyright protections in the US have already been extended to their Constitutional limit, and argument I'd pretty much agree with.