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
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!
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
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.
The interesting thing is that the MEPs who vote in the European Parliament actually have to worry about their positions. Unlike most politicians who live in safe seats where they would safely shoot a puppy while abusing a child on live TV and not worry about being voted out, the MEPs generally will get voted out if they screw their constituents too badly.
What does this mean in the grand scheme of things? Well just look at software patents - the EU Parliament voted them down because that's what their constituents wanted. The council of ministers (Unelected body) tried to overrule them and the Parliament turned up with an overall majority to strike them down (More out of spite for the open abuse of the democratic process than any dislike of software patents, but hey).
So, unlike most local governments (US and UK included), it's currently much harder to buy legislation in the EU, which is nice.
Exactly. The point here is that in Spain it seems there is no existing law that could compel telefonica to reveal this information, so the copyright owner tried to use EU ISP data retention laws. The EU (correctly) stated that these laws don't apply, because they're only for criminal cases.
But the thing is, in most of Europe there are existing laws or procedures. For instance, here in the UK, the copyright holder would start a claim against an unnamed defendant, and ask the court to issue a Norwich Pharmacal Order to the ISP requiring them to identify the user. It's not an EU law that enables this, hence the EUCJ has no say in the matter.
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.
I thought we had signed up to make the european court the highest court in the land sometime ago. Since then they have struck down a good many of our laws that they felt were contrary to european laws.
If it was decided in the european court of justice that this breached our rights, then a british judge would have to follow that precedent regardless of the 1974 precedent you quote.
I dont read
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.