German Constitutional Court Blocks Napster Suit 173
djmutex writes "In an urgent ruling, the German Constitutional Court has temporarily blocked the Napster copyright violations class action of several American recording companies and artists against Bertelsmann. The court decided that the German court in Düsseldorf, which was, according to international conventions, required to serve the writ, may not do so until the Constitutional Court has checked that the suit does not violate Bertelsmann's rights granted by the German constitution. Since, according to those agreements, the service is a precondition for both the suit to proceed in the U.S. as well as the later acceptance of the U.S. ruling in Germany, the lawsuit is for now halted. It is unclear when the Constitutional Court will definitely decide, but it is not generally famed for its tempo on final rulings, and it also stated in the press release (in German) that constitutional rights could possibly be violated if "proceedings before state courts are obviously abused to discipline competitors through public media pressure and the risk of a conviction"." Reuters has a summary.
Protectionism (Score:1, Insightful)
WOW (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What has this to do with the US ? (Score:2, Insightful)
If an american corporation does business with a foreign company which violates foreign law, then that american company should submit to foreign law. If they don't like this, then they shouldn't do any business with foreign organisations.
Another country to "deliver"? (Score:5, Insightful)
how can you sue a shareholder? (Score:4, Insightful)
here is the company that funded the program, that shared the file, that stole money from the artist who is now eating from the gutter.
Insightful? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Constitution had nothing to do with that guy. He caved at the pressure and offered the RIAA everything in return. I bet the EFF would have backed him legally and the RIAA would have dropped the case or settled for a slap on the wrist and filtering of the search engine instead of all the guy's gil.
Also, lets not warp things out of perspective. His search engine wasn't without sin. A search engine to catalog shared files across a college campus. Yea, that has a lot more practical applications then simply warez, mp3z, and pr0n doesn't it?
I don't agree with the RIAA in their argument he was responsible for what others shared. I also don't agree with him caving in and then complaining. I doubt it would have held up in court. But we'll never know will we?
BTW. That last question was rhetorical incase you felt like answering it.
Re:Germany (Score:1, Insightful)
You can't,, that's what it means to be a corp (Score:5, Insightful)
The very fact that shareholders cannot be sued for investing in a company is one of the cornerstones of the entire world's economy.
The worst you can do to the shareholders is to sue the corporation so that it has to dissolve in bankrupcy, so that the shareholders lose their investment.
There are only a few ways to "pierce the corporate veil". One of those is for the corporation to not pay its taxes. If the corporation does that, the tax authorities can levy the money from the personal assets of anyone with a fiduciary interest in the corporation.
There are other ways the corporate veil can be pierced, which all more or less involve the attempt to use the corporation as an attempt to protect yourself from being prosecuted for illegal activity.
IANAL, but I own a corporation [goingware.com], and I'm pretty sure no form of civil tort provides for piercing the corporate veil.
This is not about Napster (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well Obviously... (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet, corporations don't have the responsibilities of an individual. We have the death penalty for individuals, but not for corporations.
This has always seemed rather backwards to me. A single individual can cause a lot of trouble and damage, especially in an age of nuclear and biological weapons. However, the amount of damage that can be caused by a corporation is much greater, yet the punishments for corporations in America are effectively limited to fines.
Survival of the fittest seems to be fine for businesses, but individuals are much more limited in their behavior.
Re:Protectionism (Score:2, Insightful)
EMI is British and Universal is French. The RIAA is 80% foreign-owned and Warner Music (the only US label) is not listed in the suit.