Belgian ISP Scores Victory In Landmark P2P Case

secmartin writes "Belgian ISP Scarlet scored an important victory in the first major European test of copyright law. The interim decision forcing them to block transfers of copyrighted materials via P2P has been reversed, because the judge agreed with Scarlet that the measures the Belgian RIAA proposed to implement proved to be ineffective. A final decision is expected next year."

Comments

Not a victory

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not a landmark victory, thats a "your honor their idiots their idea doesn't work" "your right don't waste your time."

All they got there was a "That doesn't work" not a "you can't do that"

Re:Not a victory

[Kjella]

Thats not a landmark victory, thats a "your honor their idiots their idea doesn't work" "your right don't waste your time."

All they got there was a "That doesn't work" not a "you can't do that"

Don't abuse the troll mod, this isn't trolling. After reading the TFA I tend to agree as it says "The court has now ruled in favor of Scarlet, staying the fine until the final ruling in this case which is expected about a year from now." Basicly, they haven't been able to make the filtering work and since they've been at it for years I doubt they will a year from now either, but this ruling doesn't say they need not implement a filtering system, only that they won't be fined until there's a filtering system that works. I don't think one can be made to work, but who knows what a judge might decide next year - "This is a POS but it's better than nothing"? A good ruling yes, but the last word has not been said.

Re:common sense: 1

[The Master Control P]

0/10, plagarized; Original work is required for passing grade.

So..

[Aerynvala]

If people use public transportation to move 'stolen' goods, does that mean stores should have the right to sue the transit authorities running the bus systems? Because that's pretty much what that case amounts to.

Re:So..

[sortius_nod]

Well, if you knowingly allowed someone to transport stolen goods on public transport you'd be liable as the operator (depending on how high up it went). Unfortunately audio/video files aren't really that tangible, and the network operators "should" be able to know what's going on.

It's more of an ethical victory rather than a victory of common sense - to monitor and block users traffic really sits on the edge of being ethically "good".

I do see this as a nice stab in the eye of the MaFIA, but it really is only that. They'll heal and come back with more gusto next time, they've got more money than any ISP has, so really it's not a case of IF they can get this kind of crap to fly, but merely WHEN.

Re:So..

[atomic brainslide]

the grandparent assumes that someone has already determined what goods are stolen and what ones aren't when they are being transported. the concept of fair-use in most sane copyright legislation makes the determination of a violation nontrivial.

just like in real life, no one can stop you from transporting stolen goods without first determining whether those goods were indeed stolen or are merely borrowed, purchased, bartered, found, inherited, etc.

i suspect that this is the crux of the legal case here. ISPs aren't able to determine what content is in violation of copyright because most copyright has special cases and exceptions that depend on usage; something the ISPs are unable to determine from their perspective.

Re:So..

[jonaskoelker]

Add to the argument that [...] there is tech available that allowed the transport company to identify commuters carrying the illegal goods.

There isn't. Suppose I wear a hood plus striped shirt and carry a bag of money that says "loot". When the police officer on board starts questioning me, I show him the contract that documents my employment as a courier for Sillybank.

In the case we're talking about: the problem isn't detecting peer-to-peer. The problem is detecting copyright infringement.

You can have two identical bit streams where one infringes copyright and the other doesn't. It all depends on the humans at the ends of the bit streams, and the senders' agreements (or lack thereof) with the copyright holder.

(case in points: WoW, ubuntu, Creative Commons movies).

Re:So..

[nahdude812]

Except that in your corollary, the goods aren't stolen: they're indistinguishably perfect counterfeits which you are giving away for free.

Re:Belgian RIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think I can solve this with a Twitter analogy:

Slashdot has an insane user called Twitter, he comes out with a lot of weird shit, just like the RIAA. Then a user called freenix appears and spouts the same weirdness, as do a bunch of other users. They all have different names and UIDs than Twitter but, if it talks like Twitter, if it doesn't post anything other than support for Twitter, it's safe to assume that it is Twitter.

The same is true of the Belgian RIAA: if it talks like the RIAA and litigates like the RIAA, it's safe to assume that it is the RIAA.

Think about it, the RIAA is made up of the world's most powerful record labels. They may have registered different names, but they're the same beast underneath. :)

Re:Belgian RIAA

[Aerynvala]

I vote we call them the Borg. They have that whole assimilation/destruction, adherence to bland uniformity in common.

Re:Belgian RIAA

[FrankDrebin]

Hear hear. I also suggest we pronounce the * correctly as "hole".