Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Potentially Huge Legal Boost for EU File Traders

Posted by Zonk on Sat Jul 21, 2007 02:34 PM
from the now-we-need-some-of-that-here dept.
Privacy Government The Courts News
Mishtara2001 writes "BusinessWeek reports that a high court adviser in the EU has decided that ISPs are not required to reveal information to authorities, when users are suspected of music piracy. If this is adopted across the EU then it can potentially spell doom for the IFPI's (the global RIAA) efforts to litigate against European P2P users. From the article: 'Promusicae wanted the personal data so that it could start taking legal action against the file sharers, but Telefonica claimed that it could only turn over such information as part of a criminal prosecution or in matters of public security and national defense. A Spanish court hearing the case referred the issue to the ECJ for guidance on how to interpret EU law on the subject and Ms Kokott's legal opinion is the advice for the ECJ judges who will eventually rule on a recommendation for the Spanish court to take. The final court decision is expected later this year. Once it comes out, it could form the basis for similar decisions throughout the 27-member EU bloc.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Potentially Huge Legal Boost for EU File Traders 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • No US lawyers there (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dotancohen (1015143) on Saturday July 21 2007, @02:39PM (#19940175) Homepage
    Yes, in the EU, the government still looks out for the consumer...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, it doesn't. If the lawyers say they want the victim's hand, the government denies it - and gives them both arms. Europe is currently installing data retention laws throughout the union. All providers will have to log connection metadata and make it available to law enforcement in a way which does not give clues what data has actually been requested. The media industry will continue to file criminal charges and get more data that way than any provider could give them now. Europeans pay fair-use taxes on

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        True, mod parent up. Here in France, the CNIL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNIL) which as of now did a very good job as a garant of data privacy recently surrendered and opened the doors to a new form of sanction for the P2P file sharers : a fine automatically sent to the offender... Just like automatic radars on the highway, bots would look for sharers of $LIST_OF_CURRENT_POPULAR_TRACKS, store the IP addresses and Of course ISP collaboration is needed. That's still a project, but, according to TFA at l

      • Sounds exactly like the US. I hadn't heard anything about it, but I recently visited a NOC for a large national ISP that I used to work at and they showed me the data retention equipment they were required to install by new government regulations, and the amount of data they keep on us is just insane. Think a full cabinet, every U used, 1/4 rack servers and 3/4 SANs, for a region.

        Out of what you've listed, what are we missing here? Only thing I can think of is the media taxes, but we'll have those soon, too

    • Re:No US lawyers there (Score:5, Informative)

      by rubens (824782) on Saturday July 21 2007, @04:53PM (#19941161)

      On the other hand, here in Belgium it was ruled by a judge last week that one of the internet providers (Scarlet) should install a filter on its customers' data traffic to prevent them from downloading copyrighted material:

      http://www.legalday.com/commentaries/clintons/SA_S carlet_Internet_Sharing.html [legalday.com]

      And they plan to take the other ISPs to court as well if they don't install those filters. Luckily, the ISPs don't like to do that, due to high costs and because one could easily circumvent it. But if the court orders it...

      Let's just see where it will go...

      • The judge who made this decision will demonstrate his technical knowledge by advising the ISPs to tie string around their Internet pipes to make it harder for the big files to get through.
    • Sure, the "consumer". More like the government looks out for the criminal.
    • They're just not required to give out details. Looking out for the consumer would be requiring them to PROTECT details (at least until the law judges them guilty).

      • Judging from the number of cameras you guys have in public areas
        Funny, you don't know the difference between one country (UK) and the whole continent of Europe and 47 other countries?
  • Sad for the US, because this just shows us, once more, how far the US is behind Europe in terms of human rights, freedoms, etc.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by poetmatt (793785)
      cue "spontaneous" changing of views from said adviser or having him fired in 5..4.....3.... wait, this isn't the US. My bad.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Yvanhoe (564877)
      Don't worry. Given the inertia of European bureaucracy, US has enough time to see a change of opinions, to make new lawas for copyrights and to abolish software patents.
      EU has a lot of good principle, the main one being to refuse the legalization of lobbying but its power are really limited and recommandations take a lot of time to be transformed into laws in the 27 countries. In France there are some recommandations that were made at the EU level in 2001 that are still not laws.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by twms2h (473383)

      this just shows us, once more, how far the US is behind Europe in terms of human rights, freedoms
      Unfortunately many European countries, Germany in particular, do their damned best to catch up with the US there.

      Only yesterday a court ruling was made public that the photographer can sue you if you used your own portrait photograph on your webpage without his consent. The reason: It's his copyright.

      I mean, how stupid is that?

      twm

      • It makes sense actually. The photographer created the photo so they should hold the copyright. Take this example.

        "twm has been a Slashdot user for some time now. Writing from Germany, he/she is often modded insightful..."

        Although I've written that text about you, I am the copyright holder.

      • Re:sad...for the US (Score:5, Insightful)

        by John Betonschaar (178617) on Saturday July 21 2007, @03:24PM (#19940495)
        I agree. We must protect the fundamental human right to download music!

        The scope of this ruling goes beyond only downloading music, it sets a precedent for other cases where 3rd parties request information on your browsing habits.

        • The scope of this ruling goes beyond only downloading music, it sets a precedent for other cases where 3rd parties request information on your browsing habits.

          So why is slashdot reporting it purely as good news for P2P music file sharers? The article summary merely trumpets "Potentially Huge Legal Boost for EU File Traders", and doesn't mention anything about my rights online, or possible precedents about my privacy.

          So I think it's entirely valid to point out that file "trading" of copyrighted material is not a human right, and once again we have a slashdot summary that misses the big picture and is just another round of cheerleading for copyright infringement.

          • At the risk of being pedantic, the article didn't say anything about human rights. It just said it's a potential boost for EU based file traders. There is the implication that file trading of this (illegal) sort is ok, but there is no mention of human rights.

            There is a human rights issue at stake as well though, and that is whether a company should be able to demand access to your data based on a suspicion. Personally, on balance, I think that a strong line on this issue is more important than prosecuting

          • Right to downloading data files as a "human right"??
            It's certainly not a right. But the core issue is quite a bit deeper, though: In order to control a product that is represented as information, you obviously have to control information flow between people.

            Either you monitor every piece of information people share, or they pirate data with their non-monitored bandwidth.

      • Re:sad...for the US (Score:5, Insightful)

        by IdleTime (561841) on Saturday July 21 2007, @04:19PM (#19940931) Journal
        If a crime has been committed and they have evidence for said crime, file a complaint with police, have the police do the investigation and if a crime found to have taken place, a subpoena is issued and the ISP will hand over data to the court.

        Alas, Americans are used to corporations having more legal standing and protection than the citizens, Europe is the opposite.
      • They didn't have to put the material out in digital form. Once that was done, they have no rights according to most of the younger people I talk with. If it is humanly possible for it to be pirated, it is obviously their right to do so and nothing is going to stop them.

        Laws? Bah, they don't think they will get caught. Now the EU is affirming their "right to pirate" which simply confirms everything they believe.

        • Now the EU is affirming their "right to pirate" which simply confirms everything they believe.

          No, actually this is the Spanish Court asking the European Court of Justice (ECJ) how this specific EU-given law [wikipedia.org] was meant to be interpreted. This specific law never decided copyright issues in Europe - however other national and EU directives do (EUCD [wikipedia.org]). You, sir, obviously do not know much about European laws.

        • By calling the UK a vassal state I was trying to point out that they needed more surveillance to help them defeat interal and external forces (terrorists) that want to harm the UK.

          Why? Because of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and the conflict with Iran. All of the conflicts listed are connected with the UK's ties to the US. No other country in Europe has those kinds of ties! Spain had close ties before the Madrid attacks, but not afterwards..

          And even though some European cities have some camera

          • So what you are saying is that because we have cameras in other European cities they are all more or less like London? And do you also claim there are no cameras in the US?? Please, acknowledge that London is a very unique example of heavy surveillance! Even if other cities in the Europe/world have cameras installed - it does not equal the amount in the UK! And it certainly does not leave the US a glowing example to follow. Point fingers when the US has no cameras anywhere.
  • The record companies (for it is they, not the IFPI or RIAA) will draft a new law and buy (and lobby) the politicians to put it through.

    Corporations with money/power will not stand for this.

    • Re:The result? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Spad (470073) <slashdot@sRASPpad.co.uk minus berry> on Saturday July 21 2007, @04:42PM (#19941089) Homepage
      The interesting thing is that the MEPs who vote in the European Parliament actually have to worry about their positions. Unlike most politicians who live in safe seats where they would safely shoot a puppy while abusing a child on live TV and not worry about being voted out, the MEPs generally will get voted out if they screw their constituents too badly.

      What does this mean in the grand scheme of things? Well just look at software patents - the EU Parliament voted them down because that's what their constituents wanted. The council of ministers (Unelected body) tried to overrule them and the Parliament turned up with an overall majority to strike them down (More out of spite for the open abuse of the democratic process than any dislike of software patents, but hey).

      So, unlike most local governments (US and UK included), it's currently much harder to buy legislation in the EU, which is nice.

      • The council of ministers (Unelected body) tried to overrule them and the Parliament turned up with an overall majority to strike them down (More out of spite for the open abuse of the democratic process than any dislike of software patents, but hey).

        What a bunch of British Tabloid Bull, the European Council of Ministers is appointed by their respective governments who are in turn all democratically elected.
        When you don't like what your member of the Council does then make sure he (his and your government) is called into the national parliament to answer questions.

        At the same time this division of powers does make it much harder for a lobbyist to screw the democratic process.

        • I know my MEP. I have written to him to express my views on software patents. He replied agreeing with my point of view and voted against software patents. If you don't know the name of your MEP, whose fault do you think it is?

  • Note the word "authorities" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Eudial (590661) on Saturday July 21 2007, @03:04PM (#19940365)
    Note the word authorities. Does not say anything about private organizations.

    I think I heard word of some new EU directive that would allow the copyright holders to directly demand such information from the ISPs, without involvement of the gov't. I think this is the one [slashdot.org]. Might be wrong about the details though, i can't seem to find very specific information about it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dunkelfalke (91624)
      actually it is the other way around. ISPs are not required to give information to private institutions in civil cases. the summary is misleading.

  • Could we get the EU to... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 21 2007, @03:06PM (#19940395)
    do an Iraq-style invasion of the US, hang Bush and his minions, and then provide us with some European freedom rather than the failed US version?

    Sex on television, no drinking age limit, stylish clothes, German engineering.... I would be waving flags in the streets when the tanks rolled in!

    Now that would be ironic!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The way things are going, you guys are going to be liberated by the Chinese.

      Seriously, by the time they invade, you'll be more of a police state than they are.
        • God, I hope this is a troll post. The only way this would feasible is if all the police were fair, kind, humble people with the community's best interests at heart. The reality is that some officers are corrupt, and most officers are dicks. The job attracts those who enjoy the power it gives them - and if you increase their power as you are suggesting, even more dicks will become police officers. With this power they will be able to bully people and fine anyone who looks at them the wrong way.

          I'm amazed by
            • Actually, I think we agree that the law often has serious problems, and that it can unfairly implicate people who weren't causing anyone harm and who should have been left alone. I could list several of my own examples of stupid prosecution taking place, where basic common sense should have led to the case being dropped. I find these cases extremely frustrating. (I'm in the US myself, but I think this discussion applies just as well over here.)

              And yet, the reason we need the law to be specific is that we ca
    • We do have a drinking age limit in most EU countries. It is true that it is quite a bit lower than in the US thou.
    • nope, death penalty is forbidden in the eu.
    • Fuck that man, I spent countless months learning to binge drink to earn that Over 21 badge earlier this month! What will I do if I can't make fun of the underagers??

  • Magna Carta Liberatum (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DFDumont (19326) on Saturday July 21 2007, @03:14PM (#19940443)
    I generally try to avoid political articles such as this one, but in this case I would like to point out that the ECJ has simply help up common sense.
    Record Companies via RIAA: "We wish to examine all ISP subscriber data to determine IF anyone has violated our copyrights."
    EU High court advisor: "You must actually accuse someone before you may subpoena evidence."
    Its nice to see that the EU still abides by the Magna Carta Liberatum, est 1215. If only those of us in the US could expect so much...

    Dennis Dumont

    • Except (Score:5, Informative)

      by andersh (229403) * on Saturday July 21 2007, @07:36PM (#19942175)

      Its nice to see that the EU still abides by the Magna Carta

      Except Europe was never party to the Magna Carta of the English. What's more is that European countries belong to the Civil Law tradition (based on Roman law) and never shared the same system as the English. European countries of course had similar charters, but the EU would never, ever have any reason to uphold Magna Carta.

      est 1215

      P.S. The document commonly known as Magna Carta today is not the 1215 charter, but a later charter of 1225, and is usually shown in the form of The Charter of 1297 when it was confirmed by Edward I.

        • Yes, of course, Ireland (Eire) is great European country! I did not mean to imply otherwise. England on the other hand. I have strong doubts about their claims to be European. Notice I did not say the UK ;)

          Besides the point was that Magna Carta is but one of the European charters that existed at the time. The original post reeks of ignorance to think that the great nations of Europe would have anything to do with Magna Carta. As if England ruled Europe or English law was synonymous with European law.

          No,

  • See this (Score:5, Informative)

    by saibot834 (1061528) on Saturday July 21 2007, @03:29PM (#19940539) Homepage
    The countries in the EU have to store telecommunications data [wikipedia.org] for 0.5 to 2 years.
    In Germany this data will also be used in cases of copyright infringement (at least, that's what the current proposal says). Also a matter with the new law, there is no judge required for the police to get the data.
  • This is not a boost for anyone doing anything illegal. It's solely that the upheld one of the defining principles of the state, the "presumption of innocence". And that they won't give out your data to some misfits which accuse you of coyright infringement.

    If you do have a case, go see a judge which will order the ISP to give out the data, but you can't just bypass the law on the presumption that you're right, and therefore think you should be able to invade anyones privacy.

    The thing that strikes me as odd

    • Re:To quote the citizens of ancient Laconia... (Score:5, Informative)

      by julesh (229690) on Saturday July 21 2007, @05:26PM (#19941375)
      Exactly. The point here is that in Spain it seems there is no existing law that could compel telefonica to reveal this information, so the copyright owner tried to use EU ISP data retention laws. The EU (correctly) stated that these laws don't apply, because they're only for criminal cases.

      But the thing is, in most of Europe there are existing laws or procedures. For instance, here in the UK, the copyright holder would start a claim against an unnamed defendant, and ask the court to issue a Norwich Pharmacal Order [quinnemanuel.com] to the ISP requiring them to identify the user. It's not an EU law that enables this, hence the EUCJ has no say in the matter.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ash Vince (602485)
        I thought we had signed up to make the european court the highest court in the land sometime ago. Since then they have struck down a good many of our laws that they felt were contrary to european laws.

        If it was decided in the european court of justice that this breached our rights, then a british judge would have to follow that precedent regardless of the 1974 precedent you quote.

        • I thought we had signed up to make the european court the highest court in the land sometime ago

          Actually the European Court of Justice [europa.eu] (ECJ) decides in cases of EU related laws while others again are a matter of the European Court of Human Rights [coe.int] (ECHR). The ECHR can decide that laws or verdicts are in conflict with the European Convention of Human Rights [coe.int] (and the many additional protocols).

        • I thought we had signed up to make the european court the highest court in the land sometime ago.

          You're confusing the European Union's Court of Justice (which is what this article is about, and which decides cases related to laws introduced by EU directives, such as the data retention directive, which is the law in question here) with the European Court of Human Rights (which is not an EU institution, and doesn't enforce EU laws).

          This has nothing to do with rights, the decision is that the EU data retention
          • Sorry, I was actually referring to the European Union's Court of Justice. I was under the impression that we in Britain had signed up to make them the supreme court of appeal for Britain and agreed to allow them to overule the House of Lords in all matters of English Law.

            I thought I remembered hearing that in a lecture a few years ago.

    • Re:Misleading article (Score:5, Informative)

      by julesh (229690) on Saturday July 21 2007, @05:28PM (#19941389)
      The fact that nobody should be able to peek at my personal data or internet usage unless a court orders it is so self-evident that I don't see why it even deserves a mention.

      The point is that the court was asked to order it, and decided that it had no authority to do so. That *is* relevant.

    • Will it nullify it as it's essentially unenforceable now?
      No, because laws given at the EU (supernational) level does NOT mean individual countries cannot have other laws - as long as they're not in conflict with the supernational laws or their intentions. So they might be allowed to have stricter national laws or procedures.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.