The item stated that in order for extradition to be considered, O'Dwyer had to have been accused of committing a crime that was illegal in both the UK and the USA. As far as I am aware, no crime was committed in the UK, which is why the criminal investigation was originally dropped.
This was one of the main challenges to the extradition (section 7 in the ruling, iirc) - the judge disagreed, and held that what he did probably was illegal in the UK. However, that may prove to be a good point to appeal on.
How can they legally extradite him, when he didn't commit a crime IN the US?... WTF happened to the concept of jurisdiction? Why should the US be able to enforce its laws in the UK?
Jurisdiction has always been quite a flimsy issue; merely needing some sort of link between the alleged offence and the country. In this case the US are arguing that some of the TVShack users and advertisers are based in the US, and as they're sort co-conspirators/accessories to the crime, that brings it within the US's jurisdiction. As strange and counter-intuitive as it may seem, this sort of thing isn't all that rare; a good example being if someone in country A murders a person from country B in country A, country B has grounds to extradite him for the offence; the reason this rarely happens is that country A will usually try him first.
This case is unusual because there's enough uncertainty as to the legality of what O'Dwyr did that the UK authorities don't want to prosecute him, but the US authorities do (for whatever reason). However, the judge has now, in theory, cleared up some of that uncertainty by ruling that it was probably illegal.
It's only happened once in the UK before as well, and then (TV-Links), the case was dismissed. Despite the web being around for some time now, it seems that the issue of linking is only just reaching courts, and unsurprisingly, there will be a few odd rulings until it settles down and precedent is established.
In this case, the US was arguing that providing the website (even merely linking to stuff) was "communicating [copyrighted stuff] to the public", and was "in the course of a business" due to the money being made from adverts (contrary to Section 107 (2A) of the CDPA). The counter-argument was that (as in the TV-Links case) his actions were protected by the 'mere conduit' defence (established by Article 12 of the Electronic Commerce Directive) which protects ISPs, website hosts etc. from the actions of their users. However, in this ruling, the judge seems to have found that because O'Dwyr (the defendant) was in control of the site, and those adding the links had to be "vetted". Imho (as a mere observer, not a lawyer) that's a very narrow interpretation of the Directive, which might be grounds for a successful appeal.
If he does appeal, we might get a "definitive" ruling on the legality of linking, and the scope of the EC Directive defences, which could be very useful (or terrifying, if they go the other way), so in some ways this is a good thing.
Of course, if he gets to the US, he then may face a completely different trial under US law, where he will be able to argue facts, not just points of law...
Technically this was just one step in the extradition process - the case now goes to the Home Secretary for a decision, then the whole thing can be appealed to the High Court. This case probably won't be over for months, if not years.
The Irish government may create law, but there's also this thing called the EU which has its own laws, some of which Ireland must follow. If Ireland isn't following those laws and EMI can prove they've suffered damage as a result, EMI is entitled to compensation from Ireland. It's a thing called state liability. This action may not be quite as crazy as it sounds.
If you're going to talk about the right to be armed "online", then surely that would refer to things actually capable of being weapons (and being used in the dreaded "cyber-war"^TM). This appears to be a case of MS deciding you can't have pictures of things (or text of things - I barely read the summary, never mind the article - got bored when it was clear this was a silly discussion), rather than anything to do with actual weapons.
Surely taking away people's weapons is (from my limited understanding of US law) a potential 2nd amendment issue (provided it's the state doing it), whereas blocking images of weapons a potential 1st amendment issue?
But then, I'm not a USian, but an evil foreigner, who is quite happy accepting greater gun control in return for significantly lower murder etc. rates.
If you look at the filing p19, or p21 of the pdf), LV are asking the court (B) to stop WB from "advertising, marketing, promoting or distributing" the film (or any other media) containing the relevant scene, (C) to make WB hand over all copies of the film to LV "for destruction" and provide an "accounting of profits" from their use of the bag (no idea how WB are going to calculate that, but knowing Hollywood accounting, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out as a few thousand dollars of loss from using the bag) and, (D) for punitive damages for the infringement.
*grabs popcorn* - Looks like this could be a fun case.
And this is one of those things that, as a law student (who has done a lot of research into copyright law), shows how the excessive weight given to copyright within Hollywood (combined with people being paid by the hour) leads to a lot of unnecessary work being done. While copyright (or in some places the more limited design rights) can cover things suck as furniture, frames, cars and buildings, in most jurisdictions there will be a suitable defence to including them in the background of a film; in the US, there's a good chance it would be covered by fair use, in the UK there's a specific "incidental inclusion" defence.
That's not to say that clearing isn't important, and that there isn't some stuff that will need licensing, but my impression is that a lot more is licensed than really needs to be licensed - which has the effect of exaggerating the scope of copyright, and discouraging independent film-makers (as discussed).
In this case, of course, it's a trademark issue, as trying to sue for copyright infringement would be rather awkward. In terms of reality TV and the censoring of labels, that may be over-protectiveness but might also be to prevent potential defamation claims. Plus it gives it that edgy, this-is-real-not-completely-staged feel.
The decision does raise an interesting question, though - what makes you a journalist.
As discussed elsewhere, this shouldn't be a relevant question when in court. The correct question should be "Why does it matter if the defendant (or claimant) is a journalist?" Why should the law treat someone differently because they happen to be a journalist? Why should they get better legal protections against defamation law?
I particularly like the way that even after the "responsible journalism"-style defence was added (for when a journalist publishes a defamatory, untrue, statement of fact, not in the public interest, without any sort of privilege protection etc.) journalists are still complaining that it places too much of a burden on them. Of course, looking at what's happened over the last year, you can understand why "responsible" might be hard for some of them to achieve.
UK defamation law is a mess due to the money. But that's a problem with the entire English legal system - it's far too complicated and far too expensive.
I'm pretty sure they also got the facts wrong about MS. While they may have settled the 2009 Internet Explorer case by adding the browser choice, they weren't so lucky with the 2003/2004 Windows Media Player/Networking case, where the EU fined them:
€497m (in 2004, original fine) + €280m (in 2006, calculated as €1.5m per day for non-compliance) + €899m (in 2008, for non-compliance) = €1,676m total. Slightly more than simply adding a browser choice thing. And that doesn't include the 80% of the Commission's legal costs (or MS's own legal costs).
Oh, and MS are still appealing the 2008 ruling - but as they've finally complied with the 2004 one (possibly aside from paying the fine) the numbers shouldn't be going up much any more.
Most of the details, including links to the actual CJ rulings, can be found on the relevant Wikipedia page.
They have the most dominant position to do this too - the largest search engine on planet.
Only if you define the planet by Europe and US.
While Google may not be dominant on the planet, I have a strange feeling that when the European Commission is investigating them for abuse of a dominant position, they'll be limiting their investigation to the EU - i.e. their jurisdiction.
Don't know where you live, mate, but Murdoch's (Rupert and Prince James, the News International heir apparent) have control over London Times, The Sun and News Of The World (now defunct) and wrote the cheques and managed the managers who made all this possible.
Because all the non-Murdoch British newspapers are perfectly well-behaved? The various Dailys, other tabloids etc. have spent years breaking all sorts of laws (just look at the number of cases they've lost in privacy and defamation alone), and that's the stuff they've been caught for - not the daily set of lies, spin, manipulation and hypocrisy (like the Daily Mail trying to use it's greatest target of hate and contempt, the Human Rights Act, to blow the privacy of people... giving evidence to an inquiry into breaches of privacy by newspapers). Even the Guardian's been publishing some dodgy stuff recently... Every day the newspapers seem to look more like part of the entertainment industry than journalism. The Murdochs wouldn't have been able to get away with all of their 'wrongdoing' if everyone else wasn't doing it as well.
Also, it's just "The Times", and has been since 1788.
As someone who has studied gravity in some detail, and evolution in less detail, I object to that comparison. Evolution is much more of a fact than gravity; "we" (in the general sense of scientists etc.) don't know how gravity works, why it works or what it does; there are a few theories, but they don't seem to cover everything and sometimes contradict each other (see general relativity v quantum mechanics/quantum field theory, or string theory, maybe M-theory). Evolution, on the other hand, seems to be quite well understood; the how, why and what.
Let's just hope that the file-sharers who have been disconnected have the tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds needed to bring an action against the ISP. Particularly as, these days, it seems you only have to try to intervene in a file-sharing case to get threatened with significant legal costs.
Interestingly, this sort of thing was trialled in the UK by the BPI back in 2008 and it was abandoned quickly. It was completely ineffective, very expensive, and resulting in some bad press due to lots of false accusations. It did lead to some very profitable (at least in t A couple of years later they had it put into law, making it much easier and cheaper for them (ISPs didn't want to pay) but a couple of years on from that and implementing it is still some way away.
All this sort of scheme does is make money for lobbyists, monitoring companies and lawyers, at the expense of actual creators, ISPs and the general public.
I can't speak for everywhere in Europe, but in the UK it's illegal to do, say or post anything threatening, abusive or insulting if you're likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress", and it's also illegal to use a "public electronic communications network" (i.e. phone or Internet) to send a message that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" or do certain stuff online "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another." And yes, these laws dogetused.
Of course, it should be harder to convict someone for offending a public figure like the Queen (or senior politicians) because Article 10 ECHR should get in the way, but that doesn't seem to stop the police barging into people's homes and threatening them with arrest...
The difference between this and the Newzbin2 ruling is that the Newzbin2 order was very specific that the Hollywood studios had to do all the monitoring etc..
While the order itself (given right at the bottom of the judgment) says that BT must "block or attempt to block access by its customers to the website known as Newzbin2... and any other IP address or URL whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to the Newzbin2 website", which seems to be a general monitoring obligation the judgment made it clear that "[i]t will be the Studios' responsibility accurately to identify IP addresses and URLs to be notified to BT." In theory, all BT has to do is take IPs and URLs given to it and add them to its existing block-list. While BT may be able to use this new ruling if they end up appealing the Newzbin2 order (or if ISPs face further orders), I'm not sure how much use it will be.
The CJEU ruling sets an upper bound on the extend to which courts can order ISPs to enforce copyrights, but anything less than the ridiculously-wide order SABAM sought is still fair game.
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."
There is no such thing as "intellectual property". It's an oxymoron. It's nonsense. Let alone a "right to...". That's like saying "a right to live north of north pole". THAT DOESN'T EXIST, YOU IDIOTS! It is a lie, spread by organized crime, namely the media reproduction and artist extortion Mafia*, to vaguely justify their nasty protection racket.
Wrong, it's a legal concept. I agree that it's a stupid (and grossly misleading) phrase, but it has a fairly specific legal meaning (referring to certain sets of intangible property rights, based around creations of intellect, or something).
And as for there being a "right to..."... well, rights are things created by law - there's nothing stopping governments from creating a "right to live north of the north pole", it would just be very hard to uphold.
The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now.
I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent.
The UK has the occasional protest, where people wander through the streets, accompanied by the police, a few of whom get arrested (for the wonderfully-vague "breach of the peace") and everyone goes home happy that nothing will change. Unlike peaceful places like Greece or France.
It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed.
ID cards went because they were expensive and ineffective (and no one wanted them)... although the database seems to still be around, although mainly used for foreigners. The DNA database is still up and running, despite being declared illegal, most of the "anti-terrorism" legislation New Labour introduced is still on the books aside from the bits the courts struck down (although they're mostly still on the books, just not being applied), including the various 'unreasonable stop-and-search' powers, and while libel-reform is in the works, and has some vague government backing, only last week the responsible minister pointed out to a meeting of the libelreform campaign that there's no guarantee it will happen any time soon. CCTV was never that big an issue (it was vastly exaggerated in the media), so I'll give you that one. Oh, and the UK also imprisons people for not disclosing passwords.
If the producers refuse to listen to their customers, and the customers go behind their back to get what they want anyway, who is to blame?
Personally, I blame the lobbyists pushing for increasingly-ridiculous and extreme copyright laws, which make it far harder for producers, consumers and third parties to get what they want, how they want it, where they want it and for a reasonable price. Many of these lobbyists seem more interested in creating a crisis so they can be paid to "fix" it, rather than doing what is best for the people they supposedly represent.
Of course, individually some of them are quite friendly people but, like used car salesmen, you don't really want them too close to the halls of power.
It has become necessary that we all ignore copyrights from this point on, in civil disobedience.
From what I've seen, this is already happening - just not in civil disobedience. While some people who infringe/ignore copyright on a daily basis do so for some sort of political meaning, most of the millions of people across the world who infringe copyright - not just those who download music and films without a licence, but those who rip CDs, use photocopiers, sing or hum tunes in public or, in England at the moment, visit most websites - do so because they don't care enough to check whether what they're doing is lawful, and probably wouldn't stop even if they knew. If asked, many may say that they support copyright, and that they think it is important, but that only lasts while it doesn't get in the way of whatever they want to do.
This doesn't just apply to people, either; news organisations and many other companies are perfectly happy to go with a "use first, try to license later" model, which sometimes involves them having to pay up, but rarely ends up in court. The current state of copyright reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes, except with laws passed to say the clothes exist, the Courts upholding those laws, and groups lobbying and pushing for even fancier, thinner and more expensive new fabrics for the clothes.
Slashdot Mirror
The item stated that in order for extradition to be considered, O'Dwyer had to have been accused of committing a crime that was illegal in both the UK and the USA. As far as I am aware, no crime was committed in the UK, which is why the criminal investigation was originally dropped.
This was one of the main challenges to the extradition (section 7 in the ruling, iirc) - the judge disagreed, and held that what he did probably was illegal in the UK. However, that may prove to be a good point to appeal on.
How can they legally extradite him, when he didn't commit a crime IN the US? ... WTF happened to the concept of jurisdiction? Why should the US be able to enforce its laws in the UK?
Jurisdiction has always been quite a flimsy issue; merely needing some sort of link between the alleged offence and the country. In this case the US are arguing that some of the TVShack users and advertisers are based in the US, and as they're sort co-conspirators/accessories to the crime, that brings it within the US's jurisdiction. As strange and counter-intuitive as it may seem, this sort of thing isn't all that rare; a good example being if someone in country A murders a person from country B in country A, country B has grounds to extradite him for the offence; the reason this rarely happens is that country A will usually try him first.
This case is unusual because there's enough uncertainty as to the legality of what O'Dwyr did that the UK authorities don't want to prosecute him, but the US authorities do (for whatever reason). However, the judge has now, in theory, cleared up some of that uncertainty by ruling that it was probably illegal.
It's only happened once in the UK before as well, and then (TV-Links), the case was dismissed. Despite the web being around for some time now, it seems that the issue of linking is only just reaching courts, and unsurprisingly, there will be a few odd rulings until it settles down and precedent is established.
In this case, the US was arguing that providing the website (even merely linking to stuff) was "communicating [copyrighted stuff] to the public", and was "in the course of a business" due to the money being made from adverts (contrary to Section 107 (2A) of the CDPA). The counter-argument was that (as in the TV-Links case) his actions were protected by the 'mere conduit' defence (established by Article 12 of the Electronic Commerce Directive) which protects ISPs, website hosts etc. from the actions of their users. However, in this ruling, the judge seems to have found that because O'Dwyr (the defendant) was in control of the site, and those adding the links had to be "vetted". Imho (as a mere observer, not a lawyer) that's a very narrow interpretation of the Directive, which might be grounds for a successful appeal.
If he does appeal, we might get a "definitive" ruling on the legality of linking, and the scope of the EC Directive defences, which could be very useful (or terrifying, if they go the other way), so in some ways this is a good thing.
Of course, if he gets to the US, he then may face a completely different trial under US law, where he will be able to argue facts, not just points of law...
Technically this was just one step in the extradition process - the case now goes to the Home Secretary for a decision, then the whole thing can be appealed to the High Court. This case probably won't be over for months, if not years.
The Irish government may create law, but there's also this thing called the EU which has its own laws, some of which Ireland must follow. If Ireland isn't following those laws and EMI can prove they've suffered damage as a result, EMI is entitled to compensation from Ireland. It's a thing called state liability. This action may not be quite as crazy as it sounds.
^ This.
If you're going to talk about the right to be armed "online", then surely that would refer to things actually capable of being weapons (and being used in the dreaded "cyber-war"^TM). This appears to be a case of MS deciding you can't have pictures of things (or text of things - I barely read the summary, never mind the article - got bored when it was clear this was a silly discussion), rather than anything to do with actual weapons.
Surely taking away people's weapons is (from my limited understanding of US law) a potential 2nd amendment issue (provided it's the state doing it), whereas blocking images of weapons a potential 1st amendment issue?
But then, I'm not a USian, but an evil foreigner, who is quite happy accepting greater gun control in return for significantly lower murder etc. rates.
If you look at the filing p19, or p21 of the pdf), LV are asking the court (B) to stop WB from "advertising, marketing, promoting or distributing" the film (or any other media) containing the relevant scene, (C) to make WB hand over all copies of the film to LV "for destruction" and provide an "accounting of profits" from their use of the bag (no idea how WB are going to calculate that, but knowing Hollywood accounting, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out as a few thousand dollars of loss from using the bag) and, (D) for punitive damages for the infringement.
*grabs popcorn* - Looks like this could be a fun case.
And this is one of those things that, as a law student (who has done a lot of research into copyright law), shows how the excessive weight given to copyright within Hollywood (combined with people being paid by the hour) leads to a lot of unnecessary work being done. While copyright (or in some places the more limited design rights) can cover things suck as furniture, frames, cars and buildings, in most jurisdictions there will be a suitable defence to including them in the background of a film; in the US, there's a good chance it would be covered by fair use, in the UK there's a specific "incidental inclusion" defence.
That's not to say that clearing isn't important, and that there isn't some stuff that will need licensing, but my impression is that a lot more is licensed than really needs to be licensed - which has the effect of exaggerating the scope of copyright, and discouraging independent film-makers (as discussed).
In this case, of course, it's a trademark issue, as trying to sue for copyright infringement would be rather awkward. In terms of reality TV and the censoring of labels, that may be over-protectiveness but might also be to prevent potential defamation claims. Plus it gives it that edgy, this-is-real-not-completely-staged feel.
The decision does raise an interesting question, though - what makes you a journalist.
As discussed elsewhere, this shouldn't be a relevant question when in court. The correct question should be "Why does it matter if the defendant (or claimant) is a journalist?" Why should the law treat someone differently because they happen to be a journalist? Why should they get better legal protections against defamation law?
I particularly like the way that even after the "responsible journalism"-style defence was added (for when a journalist publishes a defamatory, untrue, statement of fact, not in the public interest, without any sort of privilege protection etc.) journalists are still complaining that it places too much of a burden on them. Of course, looking at what's happened over the last year, you can understand why "responsible" might be hard for some of them to achieve.
UK defamation law is a mess due to the money. But that's a problem with the entire English legal system - it's far too complicated and far too expensive.
I'm pretty sure they also got the facts wrong about MS. While they may have settled the 2009 Internet Explorer case by adding the browser choice, they weren't so lucky with the 2003/2004 Windows Media Player/Networking case, where the EU fined them:
€497m (in 2004, original fine)
+ €280m (in 2006, calculated as €1.5m per day for non-compliance)
+ €899m (in 2008, for non-compliance)
= €1,676m total. Slightly more than simply adding a browser choice thing. And that doesn't include the 80% of the Commission's legal costs (or MS's own legal costs).
Oh, and MS are still appealing the 2008 ruling - but as they've finally complied with the 2004 one (possibly aside from paying the fine) the numbers shouldn't be going up much any more.
Most of the details, including links to the actual CJ rulings, can be found on the relevant Wikipedia page.
They have the most dominant position to do this too - the largest search engine on planet.
Only if you define the planet by Europe and US.
While Google may not be dominant on the planet, I have a strange feeling that when the European Commission is investigating them for abuse of a dominant position, they'll be limiting their investigation to the EU - i.e. their jurisdiction.
Don't know where you live, mate, but Murdoch's (Rupert and Prince James, the News International heir apparent) have control over London Times, The Sun and News Of The World (now defunct) and wrote the cheques and managed the managers who made all this possible.
Because all the non-Murdoch British newspapers are perfectly well-behaved? The various Dailys, other tabloids etc. have spent years breaking all sorts of laws (just look at the number of cases they've lost in privacy and defamation alone), and that's the stuff they've been caught for - not the daily set of lies, spin, manipulation and hypocrisy (like the Daily Mail trying to use it's greatest target of hate and contempt, the Human Rights Act, to blow the privacy of people ... giving evidence to an inquiry into breaches of privacy by newspapers). Even the Guardian's been publishing some dodgy stuff recently... Every day the newspapers seem to look more like part of the entertainment industry than journalism. The Murdochs wouldn't have been able to get away with all of their 'wrongdoing' if everyone else wasn't doing it as well.
Also, it's just "The Times", and has been since 1788.
US companies like Rolex, Chanel (the company in the ruling), Gucci, Prada or any of the other notorious anti-counterfeiting companies?
As someone who has studied gravity in some detail, and evolution in less detail, I object to that comparison. Evolution is much more of a fact than gravity; "we" (in the general sense of scientists etc.) don't know how gravity works, why it works or what it does; there are a few theories, but they don't seem to cover everything and sometimes contradict each other (see general relativity v quantum mechanics/quantum field theory, or string theory, maybe M-theory). Evolution, on the other hand, seems to be quite well understood; the how, why and what.
Let's just hope that the file-sharers who have been disconnected have the tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds needed to bring an action against the ISP. Particularly as, these days, it seems you only have to try to intervene in a file-sharing case to get threatened with significant legal costs.
Interestingly, this sort of thing was trialled in the UK by the BPI back in 2008 and it was abandoned quickly. It was completely ineffective, very expensive, and resulting in some bad press due to lots of false accusations. It did lead to some very profitable (at least in t A couple of years later they had it put into law, making it much easier and cheaper for them (ISPs didn't want to pay) but a couple of years on from that and implementing it is still some way away.
All this sort of scheme does is make money for lobbyists, monitoring companies and lawyers, at the expense of actual creators, ISPs and the general public.
I can't speak for everywhere in Europe, but in the UK it's illegal to do, say or post anything threatening, abusive or insulting if you're likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress", and it's also illegal to use a "public electronic communications network" (i.e. phone or Internet) to send a message that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" or do certain stuff online "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another." And yes, these laws do get used.
Of course, it should be harder to convict someone for offending a public figure like the Queen (or senior politicians) because Article 10 ECHR should get in the way, but that doesn't seem to stop the police barging into people's homes and threatening them with arrest...
Brits do one better and use outright Liddless Eye symbology.
I know I'm being pedantic/trolling, but I can't let this one slide. See those lines around the Underground-symbol-eye things, those would be eyelids.
The difference between this and the Newzbin2 ruling is that the Newzbin2 order was very specific that the Hollywood studios had to do all the monitoring etc..
While the order itself (given right at the bottom of the judgment) says that BT must "block or attempt to block access by its customers to the website known as Newzbin2 ... and any other IP address or URL whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to the Newzbin2 website", which seems to be a general monitoring obligation the judgment made it clear that "[i]t will be the Studios' responsibility accurately to identify IP addresses and URLs to be notified to BT." In theory, all BT has to do is take IPs and URLs given to it and add them to its existing block-list. While BT may be able to use this new ruling if they end up appealing the Newzbin2 order (or if ISPs face further orders), I'm not sure how much use it will be.
The CJEU ruling sets an upper bound on the extend to which courts can order ISPs to enforce copyrights, but anything less than the ridiculously-wide order SABAM sought is still fair game.
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.
There is no such thing as "intellectual property". It's an oxymoron. It's nonsense. Let alone a "right to...". That's like saying "a right to live north of north pole". THAT DOESN'T EXIST, YOU IDIOTS!
It is a lie, spread by organized crime, namely the media reproduction and artist extortion Mafia*, to vaguely justify their nasty protection racket.
Wrong, it's a legal concept. I agree that it's a stupid (and grossly misleading) phrase, but it has a fairly specific legal meaning (referring to certain sets of intangible property rights, based around creations of intellect, or something).
And as for there being a "right to..." ... well, rights are things created by law - there's nothing stopping governments from creating a "right to live north of the north pole", it would just be very hard to uphold.
The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now.
I'm so glad that the Digital Economy Act and s97A CDPA 1988 were figments of my imagination. I'm glad that the London police aren't extra-judicially working with the IFPI to block payments to sites they don't like, and aren't pushing Nominet into letting them seize domain names based on a mere accusation. On top of that, I'm glad the UK doesn't criminalise people for making harmless jokes on Twitter or for insulting people. While headscarves aren't illegal, the Police can remove and seize anything they think might be being used as a disguise. On the topic of censorship, the UK recently made it potentially illegal to draw stick-figure porn of overage people.
I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent.
The UK has the occasional protest, where people wander through the streets, accompanied by the police, a few of whom get arrested (for the wonderfully-vague "breach of the peace") and everyone goes home happy that nothing will change. Unlike peaceful places like Greece or France.
It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed.
ID cards went because they were expensive and ineffective (and no one wanted them)... although the database seems to still be around, although mainly used for foreigners. The DNA database is still up and running, despite being declared illegal, most of the "anti-terrorism" legislation New Labour introduced is still on the books aside from the bits the courts struck down (although they're mostly still on the books, just not being applied), including the various 'unreasonable stop-and-search' powers, and while libel-reform is in the works, and has some vague government backing, only last week the responsible minister pointed out to a meeting of the libelreform campaign that there's no guarantee it will happen any time soon. CCTV was never that big an issue (it was vastly exaggerated in the media), so I'll give you that one. Oh, and the UK also imprisons people for not disclosing passwords.
The UK's blasphemy law
If the producers refuse to listen to their customers, and the customers go behind their back to get what they want anyway, who is to blame?
Personally, I blame the lobbyists pushing for increasingly-ridiculous and extreme copyright laws, which make it far harder for producers, consumers and third parties to get what they want, how they want it, where they want it and for a reasonable price. Many of these lobbyists seem more interested in creating a crisis so they can be paid to "fix" it, rather than doing what is best for the people they supposedly represent.
Of course, individually some of them are quite friendly people but, like used car salesmen, you don't really want them too close to the halls of power.
It has become necessary that we all ignore copyrights from this point on, in civil disobedience.
From what I've seen, this is already happening - just not in civil disobedience. While some people who infringe/ignore copyright on a daily basis do so for some sort of political meaning, most of the millions of people across the world who infringe copyright - not just those who download music and films without a licence, but those who rip CDs, use photocopiers, sing or hum tunes in public or, in England at the moment, visit most websites - do so because they don't care enough to check whether what they're doing is lawful, and probably wouldn't stop even if they knew. If asked, many may say that they support copyright, and that they think it is important, but that only lasts while it doesn't get in the way of whatever they want to do.
This doesn't just apply to people, either; news organisations and many other companies are perfectly happy to go with a "use first, try to license later" model, which sometimes involves them having to pay up, but rarely ends up in court. The current state of copyright reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes, except with laws passed to say the clothes exist, the Courts upholding those laws, and groups lobbying and pushing for even fancier, thinner and more expensive new fabrics for the clothes.