Slashdot Mirror
EU Court Rules Social Networks Cannot Be Forced To Police Downloads
arnodf writes "According to EU Observer, 'The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has struck the latest blow in the debate over internet policing, ruling on Thursday (16 February) that online social network sites cannot be forced to construct measures to prevent users from downloading songs illegally. The court, which is the highest judicial authority in the EU, stated that installing general filters would infringe on the freedom to conduct business and on data privacy. ... The case was brought before the ECJ by Sabam, the Belgian national music royalty collecting society, against social network site Netlog. In 2009, Sabam went to the Belgian Court of First Instance to demand that Netlog take action to prevent site-users from illegally downloading songs from its portfolio. It also insisted that Netlog pay a €1,000 fine for every day of delaying in compliance. Netlog legal submission argued that granting Sabam's injunction would be imposing a general obligation to monitor on Netlog, which is prohibited by the e-commerce directive.' In related news, Sabam is going to be prosecuted (Google translation of Dutch original) for 'forging accounts, abuse of trust, bribery, money laundering and forgery,' which took place from the early 90's till 2007"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Man, the MAFIAA is sure gonna be pissed about this!
With every passing day, they become more and more irrelevant, and that's just fine with me...
1. Repeal DMCA.
1a - codify the right to backup to secure one's purchase against accident as a fundamental, protected consumer RIGHT.
2. Constitutionally amend to remove corporate personhood.
3. Return copyright to sane bounds, possibly bounds based on the life of the medium it is published in (it is absurd that computer programs, coded for hardware that was obsolete and almost impossible to find 5 years after the writing of the software, are copyrighted till doomsday).
Anyone else have items to add?
Prosecution: It's about time that an --AA type organization got acquainted with the concept of risk and accountability for massive frauds upon the public.
Repel 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act' in the UK.
That and a little common sense. In other words, don't count on it even if it is a step in the right direction.
4. All buyers of electronic goods have the right to reverse engineer, bypass, overwrite and do what they bloody well please with their property.
> Repeal 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act' in the UK.
Not a good idea . While it did have some horrible stuff in it, it also did actually set limits on police powers that were previously either unclear or being blatantly abused. Having a court (probably the European Court again) strike down the bad parts while leaving the rest would be a better approach.
You are reading it wrong. The US has zero balance in its laws.
The US is 100% for the rich powerful interests and 0% for the citizens. This is what the US is trying to export.
The EU just proved that it has a more balanced approach. They probably have actual democracy there too, instead of the auction to the highest bidder we call democracy.
It's not about having or not having IP laws. Clearly IP laws are needed and useful. It's about the corporations abusing those laws and going as far as screwing basic liberties that we should all enjoy. And nobody can deny that probably the biggest entertainment industry is in U.S.
Sounds to me like 20 some years of dubious business practices anything the courts had to hear from these guys should never have made it that far. Sounds like they have no credibility.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The U.S. (and possibly the U.K.) is the only country that will utterly destroy a person's life (financially that is) for a non-commercial download. Of the Western nations are concerned about copyright and imaginary property laws, lord knows we've ceased being competitive at much else. What we want/need is a modicum of perspective when enforcing the laws. Downloading something illegally should be seen as a speeding ticket, not a lifetime as a pauper.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
I'm a citizen so my interests are not taken to heart for this matter.
I fixed that for you.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I've often thought that even if I could get cheap unlimited hosting, and as much as I want to host my own stuff myself and would like to extend that 'service' to others -- I just wouldn't want to have to monitor everything 24/7. I mean, I'm cool with a "report abuse" feature, and I realize one would have to react to that, but that's a long shot from being "responsible for what your users do, period". So this is awesome, and I'm not thinking of downloading music at all.. sanity like this simply makes it possible to do fuck all that's actually interesting on the web without having to hire a bunch of lawyers and whatnot. Yay!
I have to give it to them, criminal and greedy as they are, they really know how to die slowly.
As by now it is quite clear that negative effects of filesharing on people that write books or music and make movies is at worst minimally negative and at best significantly positive, this is definitely going in the right direction.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The US has zero balance in its laws.
The US is 100% for the rich powerful interests and 0% for the citizens.
This is just as ludicrous as what the parent poster wrote. We wouldn't have elections if that was the case.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The EU court has no power to strike down UK laws, and certainly has no jurisdiction over police powers, or criminal law (not yet, anyway). Perhaps you were thinking of the European Court of Human rights, who can declare laws to be incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (incorporated directly into UK law by the Human Rights Act) - but even they cannot strike down laws.
This is just as ludicrous as what the parent poster wrote. We wouldn't have elections if that was the case.
Yes, just look at all that 'Hope and Change' America has seen since Obama replaced Bush in the White House.
Elections don't matter in the slightest when all candidates are controlled by the same vested interests.
If you repeal the DMCA, you're also repealing the 'safe harbor' provisions that many site currently enjoy.
5. Provide 'safe harbor' to all service providers, guaranteeing legal immunity to them with regard to material provided by third parties.
Note that there's no clause there about having to handle DMCA take-down requests, as those are a hassle, abused and near-impossible to verify at best and a privacy disaster at worst.
You already have the right to backup your items in most jurisdictions. However, I understand what you're saying and it ties into AC's point number 4, so I'll get back to that.
If you set copyright to 'sane bounds' you wouldn't change all that much. I think a website once put it as follows... if the copyright term were set to 14 years, or - and why not - 4 years.. would that mean the masses would wait those 4 years to download the blockbuster movie that premiered in theaters 1 month ago? Considering the vast majority of 'piracy' is of recent materials, I think you can deduce an answer.
So instead...
3. Drop copyrights. Sorry, but copyrights are clearly an unenforceable construction in the digital age.
If that means businesses that relied on copyrights to make back their investment will have to instead find a new funding model, so be it.
I'll let the FSF ponder the ramifications for the GPL and such.
For physical items, we'll still have patents.
So to point 4, which the AC supplied as the right to reverse-engineer, bypass, etc. stuff that is your property.
This, like your point 1a, are things that you're already allowed to do in most jurisdictions.
In your point 1a, I think the point you're making is not just that you should have the right to make a backup, but that nobody should interfere with that right and that that right is to a perfect backup.
That is to say, that companies should not be allowed to use DRM to try to prevent you from making a backup, and that pointing your video camera at your OLED screen to record a movie while playing it back (the analog hole) does not count as 'a backup' either.
So you'll want to adjust 1a to... ...but preferably without the horrible grammar.
1a - codify the right to a 1:1 backup, without restrictions or undue burden, to secure one's legally obtained material against accident as a fundamental, protected, consumer right.
Note that I'm not saying you have right to make the backup, you just have a right to a backup. The right to make one is implied, but more importantly...
1b 'legally obtained' includes, but is not limited to, the theoretical recording of a performance that has been broadcast openly to any individual at any time during the consumer's lifetime on the grounds that the consumer could have been that individual and could have recorded it themselves, and it is merely limitations on space-time that may have prevented them from doing so.
1c. a 'backup' constitutes any such recording.
I.e. if some random guy in Russia made a backup of their recording (R5 DVD) of a movie, then that is a valid backup of that movie for you, and you have every right to obtain it.
Which in turn leads back to AC's point 4... it's all good and well to be allowed to reverse-engineer stuff you own, but what about telling others about it? What about telling others about how to do it? What about making a program that makes it easy for others to do it? Those are things that, in some jurisdictions, are currently illegal without good reason.. after all, if a random somebody sold the thing they own to you, you reverse-engineered it, then sold it back to you, that would apparently be perfectly legal.
So... let's adjust 4 a little bit..
4a. All buyers of electronic goods have the right to reverse engineer, bypass, overwrite and do what they bloody well please with their property
4b. All such individuals have the right to make available any and all findings, in any and all forms, related to the act as described in 4a.
So now you can make a copy of that sc
Right now ACTA cannot pass in the EU, as long as (specific) political parties/bodies don't suddenly turn 180.
Both the European Parliament as well as all the different countries have to sign/accept the treaty. Right now Poland said it wouldn't ratify ACTA. Others bodies/countries said that they wouldn't accept ACTA if it conflicts with existing European law.
As long as those standpoints don't change, ACTA will not happen in the EU and it won't change the law. Of course the law could change first and then ACTA could pass. Or as usual hell will freeze over yet again.
Search Engines and Youtube are- not really considered part of a social network. As it is, EU appears to have a real hard-on about going after Google or other American businesses. So, will EU extend this new ruling to You Tube/Search engines?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The US has zero balance in its laws.
The US is 100% for the rich powerful interests and 0% for the citizens.
This is just as ludicrous as what the parent poster wrote. We wouldn't have elections if that was the case.
Elections are useful to keep the populace from revolting, by giving them an illusion that their opinions matter and appealing to their "our team against their team" instinct (even when the differences between the "teams" are both artificial and superficial).
Elections are just a small part of a functioning democratic process. You also need:
- An informed electorate
- A diverse choice of parties and representatives, with a low barrier to entry.
- Real accountability that will make corruption a very unappealing choice (not impeachment, long jail terms).
Being allowed to choose which lizard will be in power is not enough.
Anyone else have items to add?
Make common sense, a requirement, not an option, for any/all government/justice officials.
I don't believe wholesale re-writing the laws of the Universe is allowed, or possible. Greed is greed and power corrupts, apparently more these days than is ordinarily expected. Maybe start out working towards a smarter (or less forgiving) electorate?
Bravo, ECJ! Surprised me. :-)
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
We have inexpensive machines capable of being used to violate the reproduction right with the click of a mouse. We have an entire network of networks capable of being used to violate the distribution right as easily. There is no way to stop this aside from absolutely draconian measures, going even further than PIPA and SOPA. It's either the Internet or enforced copyright, and I know where I stand.
This has happened before on a smaller scale. The VCR made it possible to trivially violate the reproduction right on television shows. The RIAA took it to the courts, and the lower courts agreed: The VCR and copyright could not co-exist, therefore the VCR must go. The Supreme Court took the case, and decided it was copyright which must give, and carved a hole in it for the VCR. The hole you'd need to carve for the Internet would destroy copyright.
Not directly no but in reality it does, the ECJ can rule that an existing law in any Member State is incompatible with the treaties of the European Union or is in breach the European Union Law.
And according to article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union(of which all member states are signatories) if the court finds that a member state has not fulfilled an obligation the member state concerned must terminate the breach without delay. and if after new proceedings are initiated(by the European Commission) the court finds that the member state has not complied with its ruling the court may impose a fixed or a periodic financial penalty upon the member state which will be enforced by the European Commission.
The ECJ also has the power to annul regulations, directives or decisions by national institutions if they are in breach of European Union treaties or laws.