EU Court Says File Sharers Don't Have To Be Named

Stony Stevenson writes "European Union countries can refuse to disclose names of file sharers on the Internet in civil cases, the EU's top court said. The European Court of Justice has ruled on a dispute between Spanish music rights holders association Promusicae and Spain's top telecoms operator Telefonica over Telefonica's Internet clients who shared copyright material on the Web. Telefonica argued that, under a national law based on EU rules, it only had to disclose the name of an Internet subscriber for criminal actions, not civil ones. But the court said: 'Community law does not require the member states, in order to ensure the effective protection of copyright, to lay down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings.' I wonder if this ruling will have any effect on other cases in other countries."

Comments

The law will change

[El Yanqui]

EU rules do not preclude the possibility for EU countries of laying down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings, it said.

"However, it does not compel the member states to lay down such an obligation," the court said.

It doesn't compel them to do so now. It doesn't mean that the EU won't change that law to be more stringent. What's even more likely though, is that the industry lobbies the EU and the law remains the same, but becomes attached to other conditions. Your country wants EU aid to help with communications infrastructure? Sure, but you'll need to comply with this law. It's the same way the drinking age changed to 21 in all the States; it became a requirement for Federal highway funds due to lobbying from MADD.

I predict the industry and anti-piracy lobby groups to focus on newer additions to the EU from Eastern Europe to do just this. These countries use more EU aid and can be painted as piracy hotbeds.

Re:Optional for each country

[faragon]

Probably not. The Spanish law doesn't require telcos to disclose the requested information (actually they would get in serious trouble if they provided it to third parties without a judge involved), and the EU said that said law is ok, but other countries could have a different law and that would be ok as well.

In Spain, judges play the "God mode" role, there are almost no limits for them, and are the only ones that are able to request *private* held information. As user, Telefonica/Orange/Jazztel/ONO/BT/ya.com/COLT/whatever can not, in no case, provide private information to third parties other than to the case instructing judge. Both "Promusicae" and "SGAE" are RIAA-like private associations. In the case of "SGAE" (stands for "Sociedad General de Autores y Editores", that can be poorly translated as "Authors and Editors General Association" -theorethically a non profit association-), they get money as "canon" -as euphemism, because in Spain a private company can not emit taxes!- for every suitable media (CD/DVD-R*, Hard Disks, flash memory, etc.). In my opinion, Al Capone had, much better gang taste.

As side effect of the undercover taxing, most people buy media to other countries, not only avoid the "canon" (Al-Capone-like tax, as is being issued by a *private* organization), but also VAT and other taxes (!). That stupid measure is generating a huge black market of media, and hurting badly the little computer shops.

Media associations (RIAA an others) are pushing without thinking about that who make the laws are the same that buys the media. The boomerang is already going back, por borregos y avariciosos.