Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Court: ISPs Can't Be Forced To Monitor All Traffic

Posted by timothy on from the this-time-let's-track-europe-please dept.

mmcuh writes "Back in 2004, Belgian copyright group Sabam managed to get a court order forcing the ISP Scarlet to filter out filesharing traffic. Scarlet took the case to a national appeals court, which in turn asked the European Court of Justice for an opinion. The opinion was delivered today: 'EU law precludes an injunction made against an internet service provider requiring it to install a system for filtering all electronic communications passing via its services which applies indiscriminately to all its customers, as a preventive measure, exclusively at its expense and for an unlimited period. [...] It is true that the protection of the right to intellectual property is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. There is, however, nothing whatsoever in the wording of the Charter or in the Court's case law to suggest that that right is inviolable and must for that reason be absolutely protected.'" An anonymous reader adds a link to the ruling itself, but notes "The ruling is not quite as broad as I would have liked, since it only pertains to filtering 'which applies indiscriminately to all its customers; exclusively at its expense; and for an unlimited period.'"

6 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. No Unlimited Period by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Complainant asks the court to require the ISP filter out content X for all customers, at its expense, for the next 20 years. (P.S.: See you in 20 years when we plan to re-file a duplicate of this request.) *

    * See also U.S. Copyright duration.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:No Unlimited Period by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      20 years later

      The EP has far too much and is pushing political agendas! We need to reduce the power of the commission and the EP!

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:No Unlimited Period by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd mod you up if I had points. That's exactly how it's worked in the US. The GOP has figured out that by scaring the crap out of people and blaming the government for them being scared that they can get reelected without even trying to provide a better government. More than that they've found that they get rewarded for making the government as dysfunctional as possible.

      What's scary is that at this time they aren't even lying about their priorities.

    3. Re:No Unlimited Period by ThePhilips · · Score: 5, Interesting

      [...] the nice thing about not allowing the central federal government to get too powerful is that neither group can do much damage that way because almost all of the government a citizen experiences comes from the local and state levels.

      Another nice thing, is that it is much cheaper for large business to bribe local politicians.

      Local and state politicians no matter their affiliation are more accountable and it is much easier to relocate (and deny them your taxes) if you really have a problem with the way they run things.

      Until the time comes when large business, which outgrew every standalone state, has purchased every other state and you have nowhere to move.

      Yeah the government is dysfunctional, no dispute there, and it took the coordinated efforts of both parties (really a single Statist Party with two factions) to make it that way.

      The gov't is dysfunctional because people allowed it to be so.

      And also, honestly, I think that democracy (rule of majority) simply can't work when majority of people spend most of their lives passively consuming. Your US democracy is quite exemplary in that respect. It worked well when taking part in political process was highly involving, required some sort of commitment. And many did commit themselves, many were involved. And politicians couldn't dare to act against the will of people.

      Another opinion could be that the majoritarian systems, based on populism, simply had no sufficient time to adapt themselves to the environment where information travels very fast and very cheaply. Never before it was so easy to manipulate opinion of the masses. I'm constantly reminded of the ancient Bread and circuses. Fast food and TV, to put it in modern terms.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  2. Bigger issue... by FBeans · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most of these cases and problems all step from piracy. The Respective authorites trying to "fix" a broken system. Copyrights, patents, trademarks, they just wont ever work for all parties when it comes to intelectual property and digitally stored media. Instead of running around, putting pots and pans down to catch leaking rain water, we need to fix the roof. Until then, there will be countless, pointless conversations about Moral vs Legal aspects. Each of which are vague and ever-changing. Every story I read about Authorities trying to tackle piracy, or tackle Internet related issues in general, I die a little more inside. Having said that, I don't thin we're in for any revolution anytime soon...

  3. Re:Not an inviolable right by Grumbleduke · · Score: 5, Informative

    Great, so, can we stop pretending that copyrights are more important than free speech now?

    The ruling doesn't go quite that far. It says that copyrights are less important than freedom of expression (the European equivalent of free speech) + privacy + freedom to conduct a business in these specific circumstances. There's still a lot of talk about "striking a fair balance" between "the protection of the fundamental right to property [and] the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals."

    Having said that, they do, it seems for the first time, acknowledge that the "protection of the right to intellectual property" isn't absolute in [43], noting that "[t]here is, however, nothing whatsoever in the wording of [Article 17(2) of the CFREU) or in the Court's case-law to suggest that that right is inviolable and must for that reason be absolutely protected."

    It's nice to have that on record.