Potentially Huge Legal Boost for EU File Traders

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.'"

No US lawyers there

[dotancohen (1015143)]

Yes, in the EU, the government still looks out for the consumer...

Re:

[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:

[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

Re:

[19thNervousBreakdown (768619)]

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

[rubens (824782)]

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...

No, wrong country

[andersh (229403)]

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

[hobo sapiens (893427)]

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:

[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:

[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:sad...for the US

[John Betonschaar (178617)]

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.

Re:sad...for the US

[IdleTime (561841)]

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.

Re:

[cdrguru (88047)]

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.

Note the word "authorities"

[Eudial (590661)]

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:

[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...

[by Anonymous Coward]

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:

[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.

Re:

[BlueParrot (965239)]

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.

Re:

[dunkelfalke (91624)]

nope, death penalty is forbidden in the eu.

Magna Carta Liberatum

[DFDumont (19326)]

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

[andersh (229403)]

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.

See this

[saibot834 (1061528)]

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.

Re:The result?

[Spad (470073)]

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.

Re:To quote the citizens of ancient Laconia...

[julesh (229690)]

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:

[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.

Re:Misleading article

[julesh (229690)]

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.