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!
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.
Could you explain why you think it's not good?
Would you like to see political groups broken up for saying something that an individual would have been fine saying? It's happened all over the world in the past - the "legally elected government" cracking down on opposition parties simply because they oppose them, I'd say protecting the right of any organisation to express rational opposition to another is absolutely a requirement of civilised society.
Hate to tell you but the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU court but a COE (council of europe) court.
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.
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.