Slashdot Mirror
Potentially Huge Legal Boost for EU File Traders
Mishtara2001 writes "BusinessWeek reports that a high court adviser in the EU has decided that ISPs are not required to reveal information to authorities, when users are suspected of music piracy. If this is adopted across the EU then it can potentially spell doom for the IFPI's (the global RIAA) efforts to litigate against European P2P users. From the article: 'Promusicae wanted the personal data so that it could start taking legal action against the file sharers, but Telefonica claimed that it could only turn over such information as part of a criminal prosecution or in matters of public security and national defense. A Spanish court hearing the case referred the issue to the ECJ for guidance on how to interpret EU law on the subject and Ms Kokott's legal opinion is the advice for the ECJ judges who will eventually rule on a recommendation for the Spanish court to take. The final court decision is expected later this year. Once it comes out, it could form the basis for similar decisions throughout the 27-member EU bloc.'"
Yes, in the EU, the government still looks out for the consumer...
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Sad for the US, because this just shows us, once more, how far the US is behind Europe in terms of human rights, freedoms, etc.
blah blah blah
Corporations with money/power will not stand for this.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Note the word authorities. Does not say anything about private organizations.
I think I heard word of some new EU directive that would allow the copyright holders to directly demand such information from the ISPs, without involvement of the gov't. I think this is the one. Might be wrong about the details though, i can't seem to find very specific information about it.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
do an Iraq-style invasion of the US, hang Bush and his minions, and then provide us with some European freedom rather than the failed US version?
Sex on television, no drinking age limit, stylish clothes, German engineering.... I would be waving flags in the streets when the tanks rolled in!
Now that would be ironic!
>If this is adopted across the EU
If.
I generally try to avoid political articles such as this one, but in this case I would like to point out that the ECJ has simply help up common sense.
Record Companies via RIAA: "We wish to examine all ISP subscriber data to determine IF anyone has violated our copyrights."
EU High court advisor: "You must actually accuse someone before you may subpoena evidence."
Its nice to see that the EU still abides by the Magna Carta Liberatum, est 1215. If only those of us in the US could expect so much...
Dennis Dumont
"Sad for the US, because this just shows us, once more, how far the US is behind Europe in terms of human rights, freedoms, etc."
Uh huh. So when are you all going to remove those surveillance cameras?
The countries in the EU have to store telecommunications data for 0.5 to 2 years.
In Germany this data will also be used in cases of copyright infringement (at least, that's what the current proposal says). Also a matter with the new law, there is no judge required for the police to get the data.
...but Telefonica claimed that it could only turn over such information as part of a criminal prosecution or in matters of public security and national defense.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work here? (Or used to be, anyways...)"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
How will this affect the recent SABAM/Tiscali lawsuit in Belgium (was on Slashdot a while ago) that said ISPs are responsible for the browsing habits of their customers? Will it nullify it as it's essentially unenforceable now?
The fact that nobody should be able to peek at my personal data or internet usage unless a court orders it is so self-evident that I don't see why it even deserves a mention.
The point is that the court was asked to order it, and decided that it had no authority to do so. That *is* relevant.
Except Europe was never party to the Magna Carta of the English. What's more is that European countries belong to the Civil Law tradition (based on Roman law) and never shared the same system as the English. European countries of course had similar charters, but the EU would never, ever have any reason to uphold Magna Carta.
P.S. The document commonly known as Magna Carta today is not the 1215 charter, but a later charter of 1225, and is usually shown in the form of The Charter of 1297 when it was confirmed by Edward I.
The court (the judges) has not made any decision. One of its advisers (the Advocate General) has given an opinion.
So what you are saying is that because we have cameras in other European cities they are all more or less like London? And do you also claim there are no cameras in the US?? Please, acknowledge that London is a very unique example of heavy surveillance! Even if other cities in the Europe/world have cameras installed - it does not equal the amount in the UK! And it certainly does not leave the US a glowing example to follow. Point fingers when the US has no cameras anywhere.
By calling the UK a vassal state I was trying to point out that they needed more surveillance to help them defeat interal and external forces (terrorists) that want to harm the UK.
Why? Because of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and the conflict with Iran. All of the conflicts listed are connected with the UK's ties to the US. No other country in Europe has those kinds of ties! Spain had close ties before the Madrid attacks, but not afterwards..
And even though some European cities have some cameras installed - it is very different from the levels of surveillance in London and the UK.
Who ever labelled it "flamebait" must not have understood the irony.
Yeah, you've just pointed out 2 scandinavian cities. If you knew anything at all about europe, you would know that, basically, the more you go to the north, the stricter regulations become. Good luck trying to find a speed camera in Italy...
In Italy it is forbidden for anybody to monitor internet trafic. This
n ews/2007-07-18_11897954.html
o -peppermint-vietati-i-monitoraggi-in-rete.html
is stated in a recent article by the national press agency ANSA that I
gladly translate for the slashdot readers:
http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/internet/
ROMA, 18 LUG - An italian court "ruled illegal for anyone to monitor
network trafic". This is as declared by the innovation responsible of
the green party, Mr. Cortiana. As announced by the green leader the
Giudges approved the points forwarded from the Privacy Authority in
the case of Peppermint against Telecom. This is a important ruling,
sais Cortiana, because this set a important principle: On the internet
it is a (exclusive) duty of law forces and judges to investigate and
enforce the law.
The case Peppermin Jam Records VS Telecom originated when the Swiss
firm Peppermint used scare tactics like those employed by the RIAA
sending 3636 notification letters to Italian Users sharing licensed
music on P2P network. Those letters were containing a invitation to
deposit a sum of money or face a trial. Telecom initially opposed but
was forced to deliver the names. Now the Giudges overturned this
previous ruling.
On this page http://www.hardwaremax.it/20070718767/network/cas
Cortiana also criticises the private firm:
"Internet is not a 'nobody's land' where there are no rules and you
can apply do-it-yourself laws, also on the internet real world
citizenship rights apply" and continues as "business models should
adapt and cosider that network sharing is a collective cognitive
process"
In the Peppermint case, which is about recording industry suing about 3600 italians P2P users for music copyright infringement, one tribunal in Rome has reject the request by the accusation to the ISPs to track down the identities of those users. Privacy is the matter: you are not allowed to track user traffic without an authorization from a tribunal.
They're just not required to give out details. Looking out for the consumer would be requiring them to PROTECT details (at least until the law judges them guilty).
There's at least 4000 of them.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Yes, of course, Ireland (Eire) is great European country! I did not mean to imply otherwise. England on the other hand. I have strong doubts about their claims to be European. Notice I did not say the UK ;)
Besides the point was that Magna Carta is but one of the European charters that existed at the time. The original post reeks of ignorance to think that the great nations of Europe would have anything to do with Magna Carta. As if England ruled Europe or English law was synonymous with European law.
No, I wanted simply to point out that countries like France and Germany had equally interesting and perhaps even better systems of laws! After all today the world is far more influenced by the Code Civil and the German codification tradition than Common Law.
This is not a boost for anyone doing anything illegal. It's solely that the upheld one of the defining principles of the state, the "presumption of innocence". And that they won't give out your data to some misfits which accuse you of coyright infringement.
If you do have a case, go see a judge which will order the ISP to give out the data, but you can't just bypass the law on the presumption that you're right, and therefore think you should be able to invade anyones privacy.
The thing that strikes me as odd is that this is reported -- it's how the legal system is supposed to work. Nothing to see here. Or has this already become a special case, with "non-working" being the normal state of the legal system nowadays?
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse