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

Optional for each country

[ccguy]

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.

Notice the wording: Member states are not *required*... but they can, if they wish, lay down such an obligation.

I wonder if this ruling will have any effect on other cases in other countries.

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.

Re:Optional for each country

[Splab]

Damn you beat me to it. Here in Denmark the citizens aren't protected - so the 110 new cases the APG (RIAA/MPAA/BSA organization in Denmark) just submitted will go through.

Re:Optional for each country

[JoeInnes]

Correct. However, most ISP privacy policies state that they may be forced to disclose user information in criminal investigations. Therefore, it may be possible for people defending to get evidence dismissed. IANAL, and I'm not certain whether privacy policies are legally binding, or if the omission of "civil or" is significant.

Maybe someone who knows better than me can comment?

Re:Optional for each country

[Splab]

Indeed we can, unlike the US criminal system, any evidence encountered can and will be used against you (well at least in Denmark). The Danish police did some illegal searches during the problems with "Ungdomshuset" - during those searches they found drugs (mainly cannabis) those people will be fined even though the search was illegal, they where in possession of the drugs.

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.

Re:Optional for each country

[Weedlekin]

It depends what you mean by "the EU". Precedents aren't set by judicial decisions in the European Courts of Justice (ECJ), although it's fairly common for them to refer to prior decisions when making new ones. Not all EU member states operate in the same way however, with the UK for example still using their venerable precedent-driven Common Law that the US legal system is based on.

Yeah, right...

[Stanislav_J]

I wonder if this ruling will have any effect on other cases in other countries.

Not in the U.S., that's for sure. We don't care what them damn heathen furriners do in all them other countries...

Re:Promusicae has screwed up

[jonbryce]

Unfortunately for you, the opposite is not quite true.

This court rulings says that European law does not require telcos to supply information, and it does not prohibit it either. Spain does not have any national law on the subject, so Telefonica are not required to supply this information. If Holland does have such a law, then the likes of Chello would be required under Dutch law to supply the information.

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.

Criminal vs Civil

[Midnight Thunder]

Not being an expert here, could someone tell me the difference between a civil law and a criminal law? Is there any way for the file shares to be persued using criminal law?

I could search on the internet, but having an answer here would be useful to other readers of /.

In Germany there is a workaround already.

[egork]

Local lawyers have already found a workaround for this obstacle. They first open a criminal case and receive the identity information from the police. Later they file the civil case.

Re:Promusicae has screwed up

[History's Coming To]

I despair. This is supposed to be one of the few sites on the planet that has intelligent people, and yet all we get is "THE MAN CAN'T STOP US SHARING MUSIC!". Sorry, but The Man isn't the record execs on their £100k salaries, it's the musicians trying to break through. Sure, try to break "the system" by copying everything, but you'll get this:

1: The Man will earn just as much doing something else...advertising exec for SourceForge for example....The Man doesn't really care where he gets his money, as long as he gets it. And he will.

2: We'll have wall-to-wall pap (good Scots word, means "meaningless nothing") and it will be called music. Seriously, it'll be far worse than the stuff we get now. Nickelbak will be by FAR the most innovative it gets.

If you want to get free music, then go support the DAMN BANDS THAT PRODUCE IT! If you don't want to pay for music, DON'T BLOODY WELL BUY IT!