Slashdot Mirror
European Court Finds Copyright Doesn't Automatically Trump Freedom Of Expression
First time accepted submitter admiral snackbar writes "The European Court of Human Rights has declared that the copyright monopoly stands in direct conflict with fundamental Human Rights, as defined in the European Union and elsewhere. 'For the first time in a judgment on the merits, the European Court of Human Rights has clarified that a conviction based on copyright law for illegally reproducing or publicly communicating copyright protected material can be regarded as an interference with the right of freedom of expression and information under Article 10 of the European Convention [on Human Rights]. Such interference must be in accordance with the three conditions enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention. This means that a conviction or any other judicial decision based on copyright law, restricting a person's or an organization's freedom of expression, must be pertinently motivated as being necessary in a democratic society, apart from being prescribed by law and pursuing a legitimate aim.'"
I, for one, welcome our new european overlords!
What?
An organisation has freedom of expression?
That's not good. It's members maybe, but an abstract legal entity?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
While the EU has had a lot of criticism (some of it justified) for it's costs, it's impenetrable bureaucracy, and it's tendency to focus on the minutia rather than bigger problems, I think that it would be impossible to practically enact vital laws and opinions such as this on an international scale without it. Big government may be out of fashion on the other side of the pond, but it certainly has it's merits over here (where our governmental needs are different) and this kind of check against the increasing pressure and influence of fanatical commercial interests on the interpretation and drafting of legislation is exactly what we need right now to restore a little sanity to the situation.
There's something you owe the french.
Your freedom.
And most of your constitution.
TFA is crap, but links to a post with more details.
the applicants were Robert Ashby Donald, Marcio Madeira Moraes and Olivier Claisse, respectively an American, a Brazilian and a French national living in New-York, Paris and Le Perreux-sur-Marne. All three are fashion photographers. The case concerned their conviction in France for copyright infringement following the publication of pictures on the Internet site Viewfinder of a fashion company run by Mr. Donald and Mr. Moraes. The photos were taken by Mr. Claisse at fashion shows in Paris in 2003 and published without the permission of the fashion houses. The three fashion photographers were ordered by the Court of Appeal of Paris to pay fines between 3.000 and 8.000 euro and an award of damages to the French design clothing Federation and five fashion houses, all together amounting to 255.000 euro
Notably,
In the case of Ashby Donald and others v. France the European Court of Human Rights did not need to undertake itself such a balancing exercise, as it found that the French judicial authorities have done this exercise in a proper way. As the Court stated, it saw no reason to disagree with the findings by the French courts
I.e., the ruling didn't do squat to help the defendants in this case.
Might go some way towards explaining the massive right-wing hate for the European Court of Human Rights and petty tabloid hate of 'European human rights' in general.
Human rights and (rightwing politics, elite interests) of all colours generally don't get along.
(mutatis mutandis of course).
It's long been common practice that copyright couldn't be enforced if it was violated in order to provide information in the interest of the public.
I don't see this ruling going any further...
That's interesting. Could you provide links to more information? I think that's the way it should be.
Hate to tell you this, but only a minority of Europeans actually live in France, there are a few other countries in the EU...
Thanks for your attention, I hope you enjoyed your geography lesson.
Meh, just claim fair use on all the individual packets.
Hate to tell you but the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU court but a COE (council of europe) court.
They eat horses you know.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Good luck convincing a court of that.
To my mind, freedom of expression shouldn't necessarily be free of consequences. e.g. If I was a serial killer, I could claim that my murders were actually performance art, but then the punishment should also form part of the artwork. A lot of artists suffer for their art, and serving a prison sentence could be considered part of the whole "murder" performance.
That said, I don't agree with how copyright is used/abused these days and I think it's an outdated idea. Human culture and advancement has always been built on the basic human desire to share good ideas/music/art/recipes etc.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
You seem to ignore the fact that copyright protection is something that society GRANTED the copyright holders (by way of laws). So its just natural that society can limit copyright protection where necessary.
I was hoping someone would pick up on this. I live in the UK, but I'm vegetarian, so I get to laugh and point at all my friends who delight in eating mystery meat. Personally, I don't see much difference between horse and cow; why eat one and not the other?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. The ECHR was established as part of the Council of Europe. With 47 member states (including, for example, Russia) the Council is significantly bigger than Europe.
This is important for a few reasons:
- This decision, while not necessarily binding in domestic law for many countries, offers relatively strong guidance as to how domestic law should treat these cases
- Discussions about the EU are irrelevant here
- Unlike EU law, ECHR decisions do not automatically become domestic law in many cases/countries.
I've never understood the aversion to eating horse. It's basically just a tall skinny cow, so what's the problem?
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Mankind sort-of made a pact with horses. They let you ride on their back and agree to be used for labor, but in return you promise not to kill them for food.
Similar deals have been made with for instance donkeys, dogs, cats and falcons. They hunt for us, guard us or carry our loads.
Cows appear much less intelligent and you won't be able to make such a deal. They are basically a meat-milk-excrement factory, barely intelligent enough
to stay awake. All they do all day is stand around and eat. Therefore we are allowed to eat them.
On a sidenote, this is the reason I don't eat pig. They are way too intelligent to be brought to the slaughterhouse.
This ruling is generally in accordance with the US constitution. People have rights inherently; they are not granted. governments do not. They have powers over those rights, granted by he people for specific purposes, carefully designed, and revocable.
One such was the creation of copyright for the purpose of protecting the economic interest of authors, to promote same. Go read the lines yourself.
Now if this European decision is treating copyright as some power aggrandizement or usurpation, that is an incorrect view. There is no unconstitutionality of properly-formed government-granted (granted to government, by the people) powers.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I was hoping someone would pick up on this. I live in the UK, but I'm vegetarian, so I get to laugh and point at all my friends who delight in eating mystery meat. Personally, I don't see much difference between horse and cow; why eat one and not the other?
I don't see a problem with eating horse... To my mind, the problem seems to be that the suppliers obviously aren't capable of keeping track of what goes into the products, so it could have been *anything*... we just got lucky it was horse.
On the other hand, vegitarians need to be careful - uniquorn has been found in some veggy meals :)
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Huh? People eat all of the animals you listed (except perhaps falcons). Horse meat is taboo in the US, but commonly eaten in France and Italy. Donkey meat is not as common, but still consumed in Europe. Dogs and cats are eaten in Asia. Animals don't really care what you do with them when you die - you are anthropomorphizing.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Whoa there!
Falcons stay with their owner for protection, shelter and free food. The life the falconer gives them is better than the life they would get in the wild. It's why they choose to stay and not fly off to fend for themselves.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
To be honest, I think it's not so much not being capable of keeping track, but more outright fraud.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I disagree. Horses are stupid as well, but their meat tastes much better than beef. It is just that cows waste less food.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
"Similar deals have been made with for instance donkeys, dogs, cats and falcons."
Eating your fellow carnivores is in general a bad idea, and that goes for zombies and cannibals. The concentration of poisons go up the higher the food chain you go. A falcon can suffer from eating rats not harmed by eating insecticide-laced insects.
Actually, traditionally, most farm work was done by neutered male cattle (oxen), not by horses. Horses were too expensive. And oxen did get slaughtered and eaten when they were no longer able to work.
The taboo about eating horses comes not from their being working animals - it comes from the fact that they were expensive, and therefore kept by the upper classes, who had plenty of other food, and thus, could afford to be sentimental. The fact that the upper classes mainly kept them also led to horses being considered a 'noble animal', which led to further cultural restrictions against eating them.
I wake up every morning
hold my hands and pray for rain
I've got a head full of ideas
driving me insane
It's a shame the way she makes me scrub the floor
well, I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Agree with anything the self-important 'ECHR' says, and it's like agreeing to burn witches. Well, in ECHR terms, soaking their feet gently in nice warm water and giving them a pension-for-life as an 'excluded community'. Don't join the nonsense train, use the Comfy Cushions.
Like I said, anthropomorphizing.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I think this is the core of the issue.
On one hand, sharing information is a great thing.
On the other hand, that information will not get developed if it doesn't pay off handsomely.
My concern is making sure we can continue to fund quality books, movies, etc. We can find people to do it for free, but people who get paid to do it can do it full time and may do a better job.
Futurist Traditionalism
Alright, smart guy, how can you be a "backstabber" or "betrayer" to an animal unless you imagine the animal capable of understanding - let alone having an opinion about - these very human concepts? The very concept of "betraying" a horse only makes sense if the horse can feel betrayed.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Anthropomorphising is attributing human attributes to animals.
Try looking up definitions before making up your own.
"Similar deals have been made with for instance donkeys, dogs, cats and falcons."
Eating your fellow carnivores is in general a bad idea, and that goes for zombies and cannibals. The concentration of poisons go up the higher the food chain you go. A falcon can suffer from eating rats not harmed by eating insecticide-laced insects.
Ummmm, what?
"To thine own self be true". If, for example only, you were to say nasty things about a friend of yours to someone else, and that friend never found out, wouldn't you still be a bad person for doing so? The logic is identical, except that the "friend" is a horse. Or a rock, I suppose. I'd give you a pass on gossiping about a rock. Plus, horses are shiny.
Why be unfriendly?
In fact, I can find nothing that says fair use applies to issues "in the interest of the public", as the grandparent comment says. It seems unlikely that the result of a court case now would be like that of the case concerning the Pentagon Papers: "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."
Whistleblower laws are independent of fair use laws.
Can you do a logo for promoting spam as legitimate advertising?
I noticed that last sentence of yours works just as well for "human" as it does for "horse".
Just because it's difficult to communicate with X, does not mandate that X is incapable of feeling betrayed.
And a thought exercise: if one were to consider it acceptable to butcher any work animal that is "incapable of feeling betrayed", would a human psychopath (since they are not capable of forming emotional attachments) qualify?
Cool word, schmorgluck! Had to look it up: ... "the lowest degree of desire or volition, with no effort to act"
.
velleity : the lowest degree of volition, a slight wish or tendency, inclination
.
There is definitely a teenager in my house with a lot of velleity!
Yes, but will we get the same quality of work?
Ernest Hemingway was able to devote his life to his writing because it not only paid the bills, but paid comparable to work as an attorney or doctor.
If writing pays nothing, he'll take those other jobs instead, and not have the time to write the masterpieces he would do otherwise.
Futurist Traditionalism
Yes, exactly, there's the agreement. The falcon stays with the human, who will not eat it, and will provide it with food and shelter. In exchange for hunting and giving up their prey. Same with dogs. And very similar to horses. I am convinced that both sides understand this agreement- these kind of deals are biologic and have nothing to do with reasoning, it is not uncommon for different species of animals working together for mutual benefit. Like that little bird which cleans a crocodiles teeth.
I guess I consider horses closer to "rock" when it comes to the category of "capable of feeling betrayed". If anything, as herd animals they should appreciate a little display of dominance. Pack animals like dogs/wolves will eat their dead, so if anything they seem to consider it an honor to be eaten. Anthropomorphizing...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.