This issue (of downloading v streaming) has been debated in the EU as well recently. EU law includes a specific exemption to copyright law for "downloading temporary copies" of something (so browsing works), so the end user doesn't need a licence to view YouTube. However, if they "download" it for permanent or long-term use, the exemption doesn't apply and they would need a licence, so it could be illegal.
And that's without discussing any liabilities YouTube itself might have for "allowing" people to download.
In practice though, as with much of consumer-based copyright law, no one really cares.
On DRM, the measures could be good... or could be bad. This might be a response to the CJEU ruling that downloaded/licensed software could be resold, so the Government may legislate to overturn this in exchange for adding a few other consumer protection provisions.
On patents, software patents are already allowed in the UK (sort of); my understanding is that the EPC people and EU have been keener on them than the UK courts, so a move to the Unitary Patent Court might mean more software patents in the UK. There's also some really worrying stuff in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill and the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill which may criminalise the activities of people running gambling services but who aren't operating in the UK
Stuff that was missing; anything on the EU (being dealt with by Tory backbenchers next week, it seems), the Equal Marriage Bill (which has been brought back, but is being kept quiet; almost as if the Government is ashamed of it), and the anti-lobbying and MP-recall legislation we've been promised for a few years now but has never come up...
Just because a bill isn't explicitly mentioned in the speech doesn't mean it won't happen. However, the CommsData Bill is probably dead for now (it will come back in the next government, almost certainly). However, the stuff in the speech about cyber-security and IP addresses suggests the Government will be passing some sort of legislation, possibly in the form of requiring ISPs to keep more extensive records on who is using which IP (possibly forcing out use of IPv6). There's also a risk the government might try to introduce an "Online Identity Card" system, which they've been talking about (both in the UK and the EU) for a while now.
Lets see, over the past 30 years we are seeing declining sales, declining profits, record companies going bankrupt, record companies merging for cost savings, more record companies going bankrupt, fewer albums that are being released, and fewer artists being launch.
The problem with this is that it isn't all necessarily true, never mind whether it is due to a lack of DRM. On most of those metrics, no one really knows what is happening as there aren't accurate global numbers. While some groups (such as the IFPI) produce figures, they have been criticised for overestimating the market share of the major labels and underestimating the impact of independent groups or individual artists/bands. But on the data I could find after a bit of searching;
- the IFPI claimed an increase in sales in 2012, after a steady decline over the last few years, - some of the majors are still seeing increases in profits, others declines, I don't have exact figures (although they should be available), - only one major record company has had major financial difficulties in the last 20 years; EMI. This seems to have been due to a bad year, selling ownership of the company, and then mismanagement causing some of the big names to flee, - the number of albums being released (as recorded by Nielsen) seems to have peaked in 2008 (although that's an old article). However, I'm not sure that is a worthwhile metric now, due to the changes in how music is distributed and consumed,
As everyone on this site should know, the police can't just bust down doors whenever the hell they want to, they need a warrant, which means they need evidence they can take before a judge.
Yes, but they have plenty of evidence. They can try to get CCTV pictures from the ATMs used to get a picture of him (as discussed above). Combine that with the GPS and you can probably identify him. They can trace the IP he's using (if the laptop is using the Internet to report) and get his ISP to hand over his details. Or they could go to the dating site (or use any of the stuff on that) to narrow it down.
There are plenty of ways for them to get enough evidence for reasonable grounds to suspect him of theft, fraud and anything else he might have done, and thus get a warrant.
But they can't be bothered, and can't be forced to do it.
It would seem to me that he should be filing charges against the police. They are bound by laws as well.
UK police are under no legal obligation to help anyone. You can be being beaten up in the middle of the street and, legally, I'm pretty sure they can walk straight past you without doing anything illegal.
Legally, the "correct" response may be to bring a claim against maybe the banks (who operate the ATMs), maybe his ISP (if you can identify it), or anyone else you can identify who might have a way of identifying him (and is somehow mixed up in his illegal activities), to get them to disclose what they do have. Once you have enough to identify him, you either sue him or bring a private prosecution.
I theory, there is almost always a remedy available under English law. In practice, it is usually far too expensive and too time-consuming to bother.
There's a common law principle that politicians and other public officials can't sue over matters relating to their office, which is backed up by the ECHR, but there are questions as to how far that goes.
There was an attempt by the Lords to introduce an amendment to the upcoming Defamation Bill to codify, clarify and expand this, but I think that the government may be killing it.
As an aside, I (a US citizen) was once threatened (by a UK entity) with legal action for comments that appeared on a website I run.
Anyone can threaten anyone else with legal action. The organisation I work for (based in the UK, operating in the UK) has received legal threats from companies in India, referring to Indian and US law... we politely replied that we would be complying with English law and that was that.
Baseless legal threats are bad, and should, in theory, lead to English lawyers (who are heavily regulated) getting into trouble. While, obviously, I can't give legal advice, if threatened by English libel proceedings when it is clear that using English law would be a nonsense, the correct response may be to respond to that effect - that England is not the most appropriate jurisdiction, that English law should not apply, and that if they do bring proceedings, you will dispute jurisdiction.
Also, talk to a (good) English media lawyer; they'll probably be cheaper than a US one anyway.
Not really. They're bad, mainly due to the high costs involved in English legal actions (which are still nothing compared with US ones), but aren't nearly as bad as they have been made out to be. That the US passed laws to restrict the effectiveness of judgments of the English courts says more to me about the US and their political situation that the legal reality.
He "won" because the claimants (the BCA - nothing to do with homoeopathy) dropped their case after he won his appeal.
Technically the case never went to trial - English defamation cases rarely go to trial - but there were hearings and judgments on a preliminary issue as to what he said "actually meant" and whether it was "fact" or "opinion" (which affected which defences he could run).
The High Court found that Singh had accused the BCA of "knowingly promoting bogus treatments" and that this was a statement of fact. The Court of Appeal instead said that Singh had said that the BCA were knowingly promoting treatments which he (Singh) thought were bogus. Whether or not the treatments were bogus was a question of opinion (legally - obviously it is a question of fact scientifically), so the "fair opinion" defence was available.
The English courts tend to look down on the tabloids; mainly because of their wilful ignorance of and habit of misleading the public on legal issues. Tabloid opinion is unlikely to sway them.
I know that I'm a little late here, but a few comments:
Scientists have been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus". The fact that his statement is demonstrably true didn't help at all
As far as I am aware, there has been no English defamation case involving homoeopathy, and a quick search of the case law databases don't turn up anything. I think the case you are referring to was the one between the British Chiropractic Association and Simon Singh. The key phrase Singh used was that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments." The lower court (helpfully called the High Court) said this was a statement of fact, that the BCA knew what they were doing was bogus. The Court of Appeal said instead that this was saying that the BCA were promoting treatment, and that Singh thought they were bogus; as this was opinion not fact (legally - obviously it is a fact scientifically) the "fair comment" (or "honest opinion" or some combination thereof) defence applied, so the BCA dropped their case.
Libel tourism is one of those things that has been grossly overblown - mainly by US politicians and lawyers, as a general "let's attack the main rival to the US legal system," I think. The article linked refers to only 2 cases; the Mahfouz v Ehrenfeld case (which I just skimmed) was one of those cases where the defendant doesn't bother to show up or contest jurisdiction (despite publicly acknowledging their awareness of the claim), so they lose.
The second case, Berezovsky v Michaels, is an older case, and might not be followed these days (interestingly, some issues of choice of law and jurisdiction have been tightened up by the EU, but defamation has fallen outside the scope of that, so is still a bit fuzzy). On the facts in that case, the Court (or House of Lords) decided that England was the most appropriate jurisdiction given that the stuff was published/circulated in the UK, damage was caused there, both B and M had strong ties to England, but didn't have connections in each others' state.
British libel laws are problematic, but not because of the substantive law, but the underlying costs; people are bullied into accepting settlements etc. because libel cases can be dragged on for years, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds (legal actions being more expensive in the UK than nearly everywhere else, except probably the US). While there are currently attempts to fix UK libel law, unfortunately the costs issue is being ignored (both in defamation and English law in genera).
They (or rather, the dodgy "enforcement" companies they contract the work out to) don't want us to know how bad they are at sending out these notices. Takedown notices (particularly Google's) are now a running joke in some places, due to the percentage of mistakes (targeting reviews of films, IMDB/Wikipedia pages, pages that are unrelated but happen to have a few keywords, sites not indexed by Google, pages that no longer exist, etc.) and yet someone is paying a lot of money to issue all these notices.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that a lot of the anti-piracy industry is one big scam, targeted at film and music studios. I'm not sure yet whether the relevant executives etc. at the studios are in on it... I think for the most part they're not (they just repeat what they're told), but some must have caught on by now.
When you send a demand letter it is property of the recipient. They are free to publish it if they wish.
If the letters are sent in electronic form (which they are to Google) then there is no physical letter to be property. The contents of the letter (if it is sufficiently original) could be protected by copyright, though, and thus Google could be infringing the copyright in the letters by posting them.
This can get even more fun as some people have argued that a URL is capable of being protected by copyright (if a headline can, a URL should be). If that's the case, then some of the takedown notices sent to Google (and other places) may include URLs protected by copyright, and thus may be infringing in themselves.
Copyright law is far crazier than most people realise.
Not quite; the IFPI read the paper and said (in a press release) that it was "flawed, misleading and disconnected from commercial reality."
I think it's one of those classic "we're going to accuse everyone we disagree with of being what we are" tactics. I had a skim through their justifications for that statement and, based on what I remember of the other papers they referred to, they aren't being 100% honest or accurate either.
The court decided there is no right to take someone elses work without paying for it when that person does not freely give it away...
Actually, the Court found that there is such a right. From the judgment:
The Court has consistently emphasised that Article 10 guarantees the right to impart information and the right of the public to receive it... In the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public’s access to news and facilitating the sharing and dissemination of information generally...
In the present case, the applicants put in place the means for others to impart and receive information within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court considers that the actions taken by the applicants are afforded protection under Article 10 1 of the Convention and, consequently, the applicants’ convictions interfered with their right to freedom of expression. [Citations removed, emphasis added]
The Court went on to find that the interference was permitted (under Article 10(2)) as it was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society for achieving that aim. However, that doesn't mean that the underlying right doesn't exist, merely that the interference with it was justified/proportionate based on the facts provided by the Swedish Courts.
But they could have done that without hiring him for this. Which would be a lot less suspicious (particularly if it shows up on is tax returns). And presumably they would have had to also pay of the other two judges.
Of course, this still seems wrong to me, but the parent's reasoning (for why he would be a natural choice for either side) does seem to hold up - if it is within the rules for judges.
But it doesn't look good. And judges, even retired judges, should do so.
It's even worse than this; The record label collectives have caused a lot of fuss for Google, singling them out as the "number 1 enemy for the up-and-coming artist", forcing them to fund some very expensive research showing Google wasn't really responsible in any way (which they then conveniently forgot about) and basically blackmailed (under the threat of forcing through new laws like SOPA) Google into putting in place these search restriction policies.
The RIAA have now turned around and said "this policy is terrible and isn't working."
Well... yes. I imagine that's what Google has been telling them all along. But I guess the last thing the RIAA wants to do is admit to how much time and effort it's been wasting trying to find someone (other than the RIAA) to blame for the current mess the major record labels are in.
This varies by jurisdiction and claimant organisation, but often these groups will seek a "reasonable licence fee" on the basis of uploading - the argument being that because someone may have uploaded a file to a random person on the Internet, they need to pay for a worldwide, unlimited licence to distribute that song. Although being generous, sometimes they limit that a bit.
From what I've seen, courts (so far mainly in Germany) haven't bought that argument - in one German case they went with 100 uploads of each song (far too high for anything Torrenty, imho), at about €0,10 per upload, which came to about €80 plus costs. The court wasn't particularly impressed.
But then this is why the enforcement lobby groups have been pushing for statutory fines (such as in NZ) - then the fines/damages don't have to be based on actual losses.
I still don't understand why they didn't just take the birds from the start, and all the way to the end. It would've saved a lot of trouble, not to mention hard disk space.
And this is what happens when you have a fan-made film and they decide to throw in so many references to other things they miss the subtleties. From what I remember (I'm re-reading it right now, but haven't got to that bit) the Eagles are incredibly arrogant (which is sort of understandable, living on top of the world, being servants of the gods, there to protect the fauna of Middle-earth from nasty things). They pretty much refuse to associate with anyone and certainly wouldn't go all the way across Eriador just to help a bunch of dwarves get some gold and land back. That they talk with Gandalf (and help him in FotR) show just how must respect they have for him.
From what I remember, they come down to the woods (where Thorin & Co. are being attacked by the wargs) because the wargs were having a big meeting (that just happened to be taking place there anyway) and the eagles wanted to know what was going on. They help the dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf partly out of respect for Gandalf and partly because they really hate the wargs (and orcs). But even then, they simply carry them up to their eyrie, talk for a bit, then take them back down to plains (but a bit further away). There's no moth, and no "pale orc." Iirc there is a white warg, though, who is the leader of the various warg clans.
As for it all about them getting into trouble and Gandalf rescuing them... it's only 3 times in the book (4 if you include the eagles) that he does that, but then that's what he is there for. Plus it, perhaps, makes it more interesting later on when they have to save themselves without Gandalf's help, and Bilbo starts to really shine.
Fortunately an increasing number of lawyers, politicians and business CEOs *aren't* surprised by this (speaking as someone well on his way to becoming two of those). At some point they will reach critical mass in each of the fields and we might see some real progress.
What good is a right to bring a case before the ECHR if you cannot afford the legal costs? Because you're out of work and haven't been able to find a new job, and the government won't pay you any unemployment benefits...
This is a system whereby every time someone connects a new computer to the Internet, it will ask a series of probing questions and if you don't answer them all correctly (or at any point imply you have a child in the house), a massive (and wildly-inaccurate) web-filter will be put in place, in theory blocking anything about:
sexual messages;
violence;
gambling;
bullying;
alcohol/drugs;
abuse on social networks;
self-harm;
anorexia;
grooming;
radicalisation (religious and political); and
suicide.*
Because these are all things that children need protecting from and shouldn't be able to find out about (on the Internet; offline everything is fine). Oh, and because user-generated content tends to contain a lot of this, many of the existing filters just block all blog sites. And anything that flags certain keywords.
Oh, and this is to protect children from "sexualisation and commercialisation." But it won't block adverts. Or the DailyMail (who are, of course, behind this block - presumably to drive desperate children to their website?).
And this will require putting "government sponsored filtering and snoop-ware software on every machine in the country" as part of what will be one of the largest state-sponsored mass-censorship programmes in a democracy.
So you think nothing of value will be lost here? You might want to have another think.
"Stealing" has both a legal meaning, and a layman meaning. For the latter, you can argue semantics all night. For the former, it will depend on jurisdictions, but as far as English law (which is relevant here), it is definitely not theft. You can have a look at the relevant statute law, or case law such as Boardman v Phipps, Oxford v Moss or Phillips v Mulcaire (although more obiter stuff, more in the Court of Appeal case).
Legally, in England, you cannot steal information or data. It is that simple.
That's a law from Serbia... it doesn't really apply in the UK. The UK law on political parties is considerably more complex and antiquated (and pre-dates the idea of companies etc.) - no one is quite sure how it works, but it seems that English political parties don't have legal personality (unless they set up some sort of company).
Actually, because you played it before getting a licence, that's copyright infringement. So that's statutory damages at $150,000 per infringement, i.e. per Slashdot user to hear it.
Slashdot Mirror
This issue (of downloading v streaming) has been debated in the EU as well recently. EU law includes a specific exemption to copyright law for "downloading temporary copies" of something (so browsing works), so the end user doesn't need a licence to view YouTube. However, if they "download" it for permanent or long-term use, the exemption doesn't apply and they would need a licence, so it could be illegal.
And that's without discussing any liabilities YouTube itself might have for "allowing" people to download.
In practice though, as with much of consumer-based copyright law, no one really cares.
On DRM, the measures could be good... or could be bad. This might be a response to the CJEU ruling that downloaded/licensed software could be resold, so the Government may legislate to overturn this in exchange for adding a few other consumer protection provisions.
On patents, software patents are already allowed in the UK (sort of); my understanding is that the EPC people and EU have been keener on them than the UK courts, so a move to the Unitary Patent Court might mean more software patents in the UK. There's also some really worrying stuff in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill and the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill which may criminalise the activities of people running gambling services but who aren't operating in the UK
Stuff that was missing; anything on the EU (being dealt with by Tory backbenchers next week, it seems), the Equal Marriage Bill (which has been brought back, but is being kept quiet; almost as if the Government is ashamed of it), and the anti-lobbying and MP-recall legislation we've been promised for a few years now but has never come up...
Just because a bill isn't explicitly mentioned in the speech doesn't mean it won't happen. However, the CommsData Bill is probably dead for now (it will come back in the next government, almost certainly). However, the stuff in the speech about cyber-security and IP addresses suggests the Government will be passing some sort of legislation, possibly in the form of requiring ISPs to keep more extensive records on who is using which IP (possibly forcing out use of IPv6). There's also a risk the government might try to introduce an "Online Identity Card" system, which they've been talking about (both in the UK and the EU) for a while now.
The problem with this is that it isn't all necessarily true, never mind whether it is due to a lack of DRM. On most of those metrics, no one really knows what is happening as there aren't accurate global numbers. While some groups (such as the IFPI) produce figures, they have been criticised for overestimating the market share of the major labels and underestimating the impact of independent groups or individual artists/bands. But on the data I could find after a bit of searching;
- the IFPI claimed an increase in sales in 2012, after a steady decline over the last few years,
- some of the majors are still seeing increases in profits, others declines, I don't have exact figures (although they should be available),
- only one major record company has had major financial difficulties in the last 20 years; EMI. This seems to have been due to a bad year, selling ownership of the company, and then mismanagement causing some of the big names to flee,
- the number of albums being released (as recorded by Nielsen) seems to have peaked in 2008 (although that's an old article). However, I'm not sure that is a worthwhile metric now, due to the changes in how music is distributed and consumed,
Yes, but they have plenty of evidence. They can try to get CCTV pictures from the ATMs used to get a picture of him (as discussed above). Combine that with the GPS and you can probably identify him. They can trace the IP he's using (if the laptop is using the Internet to report) and get his ISP to hand over his details. Or they could go to the dating site (or use any of the stuff on that) to narrow it down.
There are plenty of ways for them to get enough evidence for reasonable grounds to suspect him of theft, fraud and anything else he might have done, and thus get a warrant.
But they can't be bothered, and can't be forced to do it.
UK police are under no legal obligation to help anyone. You can be being beaten up in the middle of the street and, legally, I'm pretty sure they can walk straight past you without doing anything illegal.
Legally, the "correct" response may be to bring a claim against maybe the banks (who operate the ATMs), maybe his ISP (if you can identify it), or anyone else you can identify who might have a way of identifying him (and is somehow mixed up in his illegal activities), to get them to disclose what they do have. Once you have enough to identify him, you either sue him or bring a private prosecution.
I theory, there is almost always a remedy available under English law. In practice, it is usually far too expensive and too time-consuming to bother.
There's a common law principle that politicians and other public officials can't sue over matters relating to their office, which is backed up by the ECHR, but there are questions as to how far that goes.
There was an attempt by the Lords to introduce an amendment to the upcoming Defamation Bill to codify, clarify and expand this, but I think that the government may be killing it.
Anyone can threaten anyone else with legal action. The organisation I work for (based in the UK, operating in the UK) has received legal threats from companies in India, referring to Indian and US law... we politely replied that we would be complying with English law and that was that.
Baseless legal threats are bad, and should, in theory, lead to English lawyers (who are heavily regulated) getting into trouble. While, obviously, I can't give legal advice, if threatened by English libel proceedings when it is clear that using English law would be a nonsense, the correct response may be to respond to that effect - that England is not the most appropriate jurisdiction, that English law should not apply, and that if they do bring proceedings, you will dispute jurisdiction.
Also, talk to a (good) English media lawyer; they'll probably be cheaper than a US one anyway.
Not really. They're bad, mainly due to the high costs involved in English legal actions (which are still nothing compared with US ones), but aren't nearly as bad as they have been made out to be. That the US passed laws to restrict the effectiveness of judgments of the English courts says more to me about the US and their political situation that the legal reality.
He "won" because the claimants (the BCA - nothing to do with homoeopathy) dropped their case after he won his appeal.
Technically the case never went to trial - English defamation cases rarely go to trial - but there were hearings and judgments on a preliminary issue as to what he said "actually meant" and whether it was "fact" or "opinion" (which affected which defences he could run).
The High Court found that Singh had accused the BCA of "knowingly promoting bogus treatments" and that this was a statement of fact. The Court of Appeal instead said that Singh had said that the BCA were knowingly promoting treatments which he (Singh) thought were bogus. Whether or not the treatments were bogus was a question of opinion (legally - obviously it is a question of fact scientifically), so the "fair opinion" defence was available.
The English courts tend to look down on the tabloids; mainly because of their wilful ignorance of and habit of misleading the public on legal issues. Tabloid opinion is unlikely to sway them.
I know that I'm a little late here, but a few comments:
As far as I am aware, there has been no English defamation case involving homoeopathy, and a quick search of the case law databases don't turn up anything. I think the case you are referring to was the one between the British Chiropractic Association and Simon Singh. The key phrase Singh used was that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments." The lower court (helpfully called the High Court) said this was a statement of fact, that the BCA knew what they were doing was bogus. The Court of Appeal said instead that this was saying that the BCA were promoting treatment, and that Singh thought they were bogus; as this was opinion not fact (legally - obviously it is a fact scientifically) the "fair comment" (or "honest opinion" or some combination thereof) defence applied, so the BCA dropped their case.
Libel tourism is one of those things that has been grossly overblown - mainly by US politicians and lawyers, as a general "let's attack the main rival to the US legal system," I think. The article linked refers to only 2 cases; the Mahfouz v Ehrenfeld case (which I just skimmed) was one of those cases where the defendant doesn't bother to show up or contest jurisdiction (despite publicly acknowledging their awareness of the claim), so they lose.
The second case, Berezovsky v Michaels, is an older case, and might not be followed these days (interestingly, some issues of choice of law and jurisdiction have been tightened up by the EU, but defamation has fallen outside the scope of that, so is still a bit fuzzy). On the facts in that case, the Court (or House of Lords) decided that England was the most appropriate jurisdiction given that the stuff was published/circulated in the UK, damage was caused there, both B and M had strong ties to England, but didn't have connections in each others' state.
British libel laws are problematic, but not because of the substantive law, but the underlying costs; people are bullied into accepting settlements etc. because libel cases can be dragged on for years, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds (legal actions being more expensive in the UK than nearly everywhere else, except probably the US). While there are currently attempts to fix UK libel law, unfortunately the costs issue is being ignored (both in defamation and English law in genera).
They (or rather, the dodgy "enforcement" companies they contract the work out to) don't want us to know how bad they are at sending out these notices. Takedown notices (particularly Google's) are now a running joke in some places, due to the percentage of mistakes (targeting reviews of films, IMDB/Wikipedia pages, pages that are unrelated but happen to have a few keywords, sites not indexed by Google, pages that no longer exist, etc.) and yet someone is paying a lot of money to issue all these notices.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that a lot of the anti-piracy industry is one big scam, targeted at film and music studios. I'm not sure yet whether the relevant executives etc. at the studios are in on it... I think for the most part they're not (they just repeat what they're told), but some must have caught on by now.
If the letters are sent in electronic form (which they are to Google) then there is no physical letter to be property. The contents of the letter (if it is sufficiently original) could be protected by copyright, though, and thus Google could be infringing the copyright in the letters by posting them.
This can get even more fun as some people have argued that a URL is capable of being protected by copyright (if a headline can, a URL should be). If that's the case, then some of the takedown notices sent to Google (and other places) may include URLs protected by copyright, and thus may be infringing in themselves.
Copyright law is far crazier than most people realise.
Not quite; the IFPI read the paper and said (in a press release) that it was "flawed, misleading and disconnected from commercial reality."
I think it's one of those classic "we're going to accuse everyone we disagree with of being what we are" tactics. I had a skim through their justifications for that statement and, based on what I remember of the other papers they referred to, they aren't being 100% honest or accurate either.
The court decided there is no right to take someone elses work without paying for it when that person does not freely give it away...
Actually, the Court found that there is such a right. From the judgment:
The Court has consistently emphasised that Article 10 guarantees the right to impart information and the right of the public to receive it... In the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public’s access to news and facilitating the sharing and dissemination of information generally...
In the present case, the applicants put in place the means for others to impart and receive information within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court considers that the actions taken by the applicants are afforded protection under Article 10 1 of the Convention and, consequently, the applicants’ convictions interfered with their right to freedom of expression. [Citations removed, emphasis added]
The Court went on to find that the interference was permitted (under Article 10(2)) as it was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society for achieving that aim. However, that doesn't mean that the underlying right doesn't exist, merely that the interference with it was justified/proportionate based on the facts provided by the Swedish Courts.
But they could have done that without hiring him for this. Which would be a lot less suspicious (particularly if it shows up on is tax returns). And presumably they would have had to also pay of the other two judges.
Of course, this still seems wrong to me, but the parent's reasoning (for why he would be a natural choice for either side) does seem to hold up - if it is within the rules for judges.
But it doesn't look good. And judges, even retired judges, should do so.
It's even worse than this; The record label collectives have caused a lot of fuss for Google, singling them out as the "number 1 enemy for the up-and-coming artist", forcing them to fund some very expensive research showing Google wasn't really responsible in any way (which they then conveniently forgot about) and basically blackmailed (under the threat of forcing through new laws like SOPA) Google into putting in place these search restriction policies.
The RIAA have now turned around and said "this policy is terrible and isn't working."
Well... yes. I imagine that's what Google has been telling them all along. But I guess the last thing the RIAA wants to do is admit to how much time and effort it's been wasting trying to find someone (other than the RIAA) to blame for the current mess the major record labels are in.
This varies by jurisdiction and claimant organisation, but often these groups will seek a "reasonable licence fee" on the basis of uploading - the argument being that because someone may have uploaded a file to a random person on the Internet, they need to pay for a worldwide, unlimited licence to distribute that song. Although being generous, sometimes they limit that a bit.
From what I've seen, courts (so far mainly in Germany) haven't bought that argument - in one German case they went with 100 uploads of each song (far too high for anything Torrenty, imho), at about €0,10 per upload, which came to about €80 plus costs. The court wasn't particularly impressed.
But then this is why the enforcement lobby groups have been pushing for statutory fines (such as in NZ) - then the fines/damages don't have to be based on actual losses.
And this is what happens when you have a fan-made film and they decide to throw in so many references to other things they miss the subtleties. From what I remember (I'm re-reading it right now, but haven't got to that bit) the Eagles are incredibly arrogant (which is sort of understandable, living on top of the world, being servants of the gods, there to protect the fauna of Middle-earth from nasty things). They pretty much refuse to associate with anyone and certainly wouldn't go all the way across Eriador just to help a bunch of dwarves get some gold and land back. That they talk with Gandalf (and help him in FotR) show just how must respect they have for him.
From what I remember, they come down to the woods (where Thorin & Co. are being attacked by the wargs) because the wargs were having a big meeting (that just happened to be taking place there anyway) and the eagles wanted to know what was going on. They help the dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf partly out of respect for Gandalf and partly because they really hate the wargs (and orcs). But even then, they simply carry them up to their eyrie, talk for a bit, then take them back down to plains (but a bit further away). There's no moth, and no "pale orc." Iirc there is a white warg, though, who is the leader of the various warg clans.
As for it all about them getting into trouble and Gandalf rescuing them... it's only 3 times in the book (4 if you include the eagles) that he does that, but then that's what he is there for. Plus it, perhaps, makes it more interesting later on when they have to save themselves without Gandalf's help, and Bilbo starts to really shine.
Fortunately an increasing number of lawyers, politicians and business CEOs *aren't* surprised by this (speaking as someone well on his way to becoming two of those). At some point they will reach critical mass in each of the fields and we might see some real progress.
What good is a right to bring a case before the ECHR if you cannot afford the legal costs? Because you're out of work and haven't been able to find a new job, and the government won't pay you any unemployment benefits...
This is a system whereby every time someone connects a new computer to the Internet, it will ask a series of probing questions and if you don't answer them all correctly (or at any point imply you have a child in the house), a massive (and wildly-inaccurate) web-filter will be put in place, in theory blocking anything about:
Because these are all things that children need protecting from and shouldn't be able to find out about (on the Internet; offline everything is fine). Oh, and because user-generated content tends to contain a lot of this, many of the existing filters just block all blog sites. And anything that flags certain keywords.
Oh, and this is to protect children from "sexualisation and commercialisation." But it won't block adverts. Or the Daily Mail (who are, of course, behind this block - presumably to drive desperate children to their website?).
And this will require putting "government sponsored filtering and snoop-ware software on every machine in the country" as part of what will be one of the largest state-sponsored mass-censorship programmes in a democracy.
So you think nothing of value will be lost here? You might want to have another think.
*List taken from the Government's response to the consultation on this.
"Stealing" has both a legal meaning, and a layman meaning. For the latter, you can argue semantics all night. For the former, it will depend on jurisdictions, but as far as English law (which is relevant here), it is definitely not theft. You can have a look at the relevant statute law, or case law such as Boardman v Phipps, Oxford v Moss or Phillips v Mulcaire (although more obiter stuff, more in the Court of Appeal case).
Legally, in England, you cannot steal information or data. It is that simple.
That's a law from Serbia... it doesn't really apply in the UK. The UK law on political parties is considerably more complex and antiquated (and pre-dates the idea of companies etc.) - no one is quite sure how it works, but it seems that English political parties don't have legal personality (unless they set up some sort of company).
Actually, because you played it before getting a licence, that's copyright infringement. So that's statutory damages at $150,000 per infringement, i.e. per Slashdot user to hear it.