EU Court Rules Social Networks Cannot Be Forced To Police Downloads 81
arnodf writes "According to EU Observer, 'The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has struck the latest blow in the debate over internet policing, ruling on Thursday (16 February) that online social network sites cannot be forced to construct measures to prevent users from downloading songs illegally. The court, which is the highest judicial authority in the EU, stated that installing general filters would infringe on the freedom to conduct business and on data privacy. ... The case was brought before the ECJ by Sabam, the Belgian national music royalty collecting society, against social network site Netlog. In 2009, Sabam went to the Belgian Court of First Instance to demand that Netlog take action to prevent site-users from illegally downloading songs from its portfolio. It also insisted that Netlog pay a €1,000 fine for every day of delaying in compliance. Netlog legal submission argued that granting Sabam's injunction would be imposing a general obligation to monitor on Netlog, which is prohibited by the e-commerce directive.' In related news, Sabam is going to be prosecuted (Google translation of Dutch original) for 'forging accounts, abuse of trust, bribery, money laundering and forgery,' which took place from the early 90's till 2007"
Win for the good guys (Score:1)
Good guys 2
Bad guys 20000000000
Now that we have asserted our right to privacy, shot down SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA (more work needed in the US), what's next?
Re:Win for the good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Repeal DMCA.
1a - codify the right to backup to secure one's purchase against accident as a fundamental, protected consumer RIGHT.
2. Constitutionally amend to remove corporate personhood.
3. Return copyright to sane bounds, possibly bounds based on the life of the medium it is published in (it is absurd that computer programs, coded for hardware that was obsolete and almost impossible to find 5 years after the writing of the software, are copyrighted till doomsday).
Anyone else have items to add?
Re: (Score:3)
Repel 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act' in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
(repeal even)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Repeal 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act' in the UK.
Not a good idea . While it did have some horrible stuff in it, it also did actually set limits on police powers that were previously either unclear or being blatantly abused. Having a court (probably the European Court again) strike down the bad parts while leaving the rest would be a better approach.
Re: (Score:3)
The EU court has no power to strike down UK laws, and certainly has no jurisdiction over police powers, or criminal law (not yet, anyway). Perhaps you were thinking of the European Court of Human rights, who can declare laws to be incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (incorporated directly into UK law by the Human Rights Act) - but even they cannot strike down laws.
Re: (Score:3)
And according to article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union(of which all member states are signatories) if the court finds that a member state has not fulfilled an obligation the member state concerned must terminate the breach without delay. and if after new proceedings are initiated(by the
Re:Win for the good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
4. All buyers of electronic goods have the right to reverse engineer, bypass, overwrite and do what they bloody well please with their property.
Re: (Score:2)
4a - while not hurting other people...
And reverse-engineering PS3s hurt Sony financially, see #2 (where applicable)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone else have items to add?
Make common sense, a requirement, not an option, for any/all government/justice officials.
I don't believe wholesale re-writing the laws of the Universe is allowed, or possible. Greed is greed and power corrupts, apparently more these days than is ordinarily expected. Maybe start out working towards a smarter (or less forgiving) electorate?
Bravo, ECJ! Surprised me. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
If you repeal the DMCA, you're also repealing the 'safe harbor' provisions that many site currently enjoy.
5. Provide 'safe harbor' to all service providers, guaranteeing legal immunity to them with regard to material provided by third parties.
Note that there's no clause there about having to handle DMCA take-down requests, as those are a hassle, abused and near-impossible to verify at best and a privacy disaster at worst.
You already have the right to backup your items in most jurisdictions. However, I unde
Re: (Score:2)
3. Drop copyrights. Sorry, but copyrights are clearly an unenforceable construction in the digital age. If that means businesses that relied on copyrights to make back their investment will have to instead find a new funding model, so be it.
Wait... you want to do away with copyright altogether?
Just think of all the "new funding models" that will be available:
I could write a sequel to the Harry Potter books. If I had been really quick about it, I could even have rushed out a sequel right after she had written the first book, but before she was done writing her second book. I could call it Harry Potter 2: Forbidden Lust and use her cover art from the original publication without paying for it!
Or maybe I could just take the text of Harry Potter a
Re: (Score:2)
Given the complete disregard for copyright when you look at things rationally? yes.
You can do so right now - you just can't call it that and it really shouldn't be particularly similar.
If you did, you're really not in violation of copyright,
Re: (Score:2)
It's so obvious! Completely abolishing copyright is the only solution that makes sense! Let's do it!
I'll make sandwiches. :-) It'll be a fun gig. Think of all the neat people you'll be playing with. No lawyers! Woohoo! And anything that comes out of it is yours to further leverage as you see fit.
Where's the downside?
Re: (Score:3)
We have inexpensive machines capable of being used to violate the reproduction right with the click of a mouse. We have an entire network of networks capable of being used to violate the distribution right as easily. There is no way to stop this aside from absolutely draconian measures, going even further than PIPA and SOPA. It's either the Internet or enforced copyright, and I know where I stand.
This has happened before on a smaller scale. The VCR m
Re: (Score:2)
I could write a sequel to the Harry Potter books. If I had been really quick about it, I could even have rushed out a sequel right after she had written the first book, but before she was done writing her second book. I could call it Harry Potter 2: Forbidden Lust and use her cover art from the original publication without paying for it!
You couldn't use the name "Harry Potter" in the title, since it's a trademark. Trademarks are separate from copyrights. Similarly, you might run into trouble if you used the original cover art without changing it substantially, since it could cause confusion with J.K. Rowling's original product. But you could use the characters and situations from the original "Harry Potter" book in your own book, as long as you made clear that it was an unauthorised version not written by J.K. Rowling, and didn't mislead p
Re: (Score:1)
We could also abolish commercial copyright but keep the artist's right to attribution. That way, an artist whose work was used in a successful remix would get free advertising out of it.
Precisely what is needed in a modern system and why trademarks cause much less fuss than other so called 'ip'. Because the issue there is honesty, not money. It would involve trusting people to see that 'harry bowler' is attributed to jk rowling even though the 'author' is http://slashdot.org/~asdbffg [slashdot.org] and decide to only
Re: (Score:1)
The only problem with abolishing copyright altogether is that it allows groups like the MAFIAA and affiliated companies to take the work of artists who don't even make a deal with the Devil and sell them, and make huge amounts of money off said sales.
IMO, copyright needs to be amended to automatically include the terms of some sort of Creative Commons license, as well as have drastically shorter durations. No artist has a right to profit, but I do believe that allowing an actually limited fictional monopol
I know it's bad form to reply to myself. (Score:1)
For part of me, my opinion is formed by the fact that I"m starting to get back into doing photographic work and hopefully, when I manage to get my portfolio back together, make some money off of it (even if I still need to keep a day job). Since I'm more inclined to the Fine-Arts and want to sell prints rather than commercial work (which would be a work for hire in any event), I really don't care if .pngs are downloaded/used by anyone on the Net. If it brings someone joy, or they want to use it as a start
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be happy to know that this is what I was aiming at with the last part of my post.
I essentially envision a change to the copyright model in which a model from most of the media publishing world is used as a foundation for legislation; the separate statuses of copyright and distribution (or publishing) rights.
Now, I realize my 'abolish copyright' is extreme - but you yourself are already saying that he
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for the good wishes. And you're right, the model has to be totally revamped in order to the sort of abuses that we see on the front page here every bloody day. The entire purpose of copyright has been hopelessly perverted. And honestly, unless it was $MEGACORP I'd be angrier that nobody had been courteous enough to call and ask for permission that I'd probably freely give than any money that may or may not be involved. In terms of my own work, and given the cost of producing and properly framing
Re: (Score:2)
If you repeal the DMCA, you're also repealing the 'safe harbor' provisions that many site currently enjoy.
A "safe harbour" means the site has to do something to earn it (in the case of the DMCA, honour take-down requests). If you mean that the site should plainly not be responsible for what their users upload, a better term is "status as a neutral carrier" or somesuch.
Re: (Score:2)
fair enough :) Although I don't think 'neutral carrier' is what I was going for either... I do think they should be subject to legal procedures, for example. The DMCA take-down request notice form thing is essentially a shortcut to go around the courts (which does alleviate pressure on them, yes) under the assumption that rights owners are following the rules to the letter. Which, quite often, they don't. Bringing things back to the courts puts up a much higher barrier and as a result the complaints wou
Re: (Score:2)
1. Repeal DMCA. 1a - codify the right to backup to secure one's purchase against accident as a fundamental, protected consumer RIGHT.
i spent most of this evening helping my friend do some DMCA take down notices and send them out to imageshack and to another site where my friends images was being used without her permission on a sex related site.
imageschack complied within 10 minutes and the other site worked over the next hour or so to remove profile pics and also cancelled the account of the person using the images without permission.
there are some provisions in the DMCA that are useful and which would be a shame to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Oktoberfest?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That and a little common sense. In other words, don't count on it even if it is a step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "not precedent-based"?
All courts look at previous rulings when interpreting a law (if they can find relevant cases), since it's important that laws are applied consistently.
It's true, though, that the EU court doesn't have a Common Law system, like the UK and the USA, where the courts have a lot of leeway in establishing new practices which are practically laws in themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
A defeat for US e-colonialism.
This is absolutely silly, this notion that the US is on the only country that has concerns about piracy and copyright violation. Europe has IP laws too. This central argument... that if mean ole' America went away, everyone would happily download pirated content all day with support from governments... is ludicrous.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are reading it wrong. The US has zero balance in its laws.
The US is 100% for the rich powerful interests and 0% for the citizens. This is what the US is trying to export.
The EU just proved that it has a more balanced approach. They probably have actual democracy there too, instead of the auction to the highest bidder we call democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a citizen so my interests are not taken to heart for this matter.
I fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has zero balance in its laws.
The US is 100% for the rich powerful interests and 0% for the citizens.
This is just as ludicrous as what the parent poster wrote. We wouldn't have elections if that was the case.
Re:Go EU (Score:4, Informative)
This is just as ludicrous as what the parent poster wrote. We wouldn't have elections if that was the case.
Yes, just look at all that 'Hope and Change' America has seen since Obama replaced Bush in the White House.
Elections don't matter in the slightest when all candidates are controlled by the same vested interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to undo "Insightful" mod. I was going for "Redundant" especially since you are full of your own rhetoric.
Elections DO matter, especially when the candidates are close on many issues.
Not that this administration got it right, but do you understand the difference between Universal Health Care and the status quo? How about alternative energies, supporting American workers (Michigan), understanding the benefit of information technology, women’s health, freedom of religion, etc.?
I'm not saying the
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, the Soviet Union and all others east block countries had elections, too. They were just rigged, that nobody not in the Communist party had any chance of winning anything, so only people that the Communist party supported had any chance of attaining any Office.
Now in the US, it is pretty much impossible on a nation or state wide level to get elected, unless the rich and powerful (who also own the media, which is the one pushing all those new laws) to support you. What the US *does* masterfully, is
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, even Obama and Bush are cousins.
I generally agree with your point but this last statement destroys credibility. 11th cousins is hardly surprising. Odds are, that 11th cousins includes half or the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a very distant cousin to three presidents myself; it just sort of happens when your family (in this case, my mom's family) has been in the U.S. since before the Revolution.
I'm also a direct descendant of the medieval kings of Sweden, but then again probably you are, too.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has zero balance in its laws.
The US is 100% for the rich powerful interests and 0% for the citizens.
This is just as ludicrous as what the parent poster wrote. We wouldn't have elections if that was the case.
These aren't elections, they're distractions for the sheep while the wolves munch away behind.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has zero balance in its laws.
The US is 100% for the rich powerful interests and 0% for the citizens.
This is just as ludicrous as what the parent poster wrote. We wouldn't have elections if that was the case.
Elections are useful to keep the populace from revolting, by giving them an illusion that their opinions matter and appealing to their "our team against their team" instinct (even when the differences between the "teams" are both artificial and superficial).
Elections are just a small part of a functioning democratic process. You also need:
- An informed electorate
- A diverse choice of parties and representatives, with a low barrier to entry.
- Real accountability that will make corruption a very unappealing
rotfl (Score:2)
Europe owes the entire world a larger moral debt than the US ever will.
Yep. The Europeans invented human nature!!! That snake in the tree selling apples - he was /European/!!! Probably even French!!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not about having or not having IP laws. Clearly IP laws are needed and useful. It's about the corporations abusing those laws and going as far as screwing basic liberties that we should all enjoy. And nobody can deny that probably the biggest entertainment industry is in U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly IP laws are needed and useful.
That's debatable. [dklevine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly IP laws are needed and useful.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about having or not having IP laws. Clearly IP laws are needed and useful. It's about the corporations abusing those laws and going as far as screwing basic liberties that we should all enjoy. And nobody can deny that probably the biggest entertainment industry is in U.S.
It's not so obvious... copyright, for example, was made into law long before economics had developed far enough to quantify the costs and benefits. (The benefit being more works being produced, and the cost being those works becoming available to fewer people.) Now that we know more, more and more evidence accumulate for the harmfulness of copyright, but almost nothing for its benefits. For example, all independent studies on music sales suggest that online piracy have a roughly zero net effect on sales.
Re:Go EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Speeding ticket? Speeding puts lives of others in danger. Copyright infringement is more like testing the grapes at your supper market.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even less harmful than testing the grapes at your super market, since the downloader doesn't prevent the song's owner from seling their song to someone else.
At most, the downloader deprives the song's owner of a potential sale. But not even that seems to hold true in practice - independent studies show that people spend their money on concerts or on other artists when they download songs, and that the availability of a song on filesharing networks has a roughly zero net effect on total sales.
Re: (Score:2)
This is absolutely silly, this notion that the US is on the only country that has concerns about piracy and copyright violation. Europe has IP laws too. This central argument... that if mean ole' America went away, everyone would happily download pirated content all day with support from governments... is ludicrous.
While it's true that Europe has its fair share of greedy corporations that push for harsher IP laws, the USA has been the main driving force for at least two decades. The diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks ("Cablegate") revealed that the USA is consistently working to get other countries to adopt more restrictive IP laws through diplomatic channels and trade agreements. There's no other country besides the USA who has both the clout and motivation to do this. (China has the clout, but not yet the moti
Ruh roh!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, the MAFIAA is sure gonna be pissed about this!
With every passing day, they become more and more irrelevant, and that's just fine with me...
Re:Ruh roh!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ruh roh!! (Score:5, Insightful)
risk and (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
yeah. and the "AA" doesn't even have to be next to each other for it to happen. ;)
how do they say it so well on apina/reddit/whatever? fap fap fap ad infinitum
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, in the case of the actual *AA's, America no longer operates under the rule of law.
Re: (Score:1)
Credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
whooo (Score:3)
I've often thought that even if I could get cheap unlimited hosting, and as much as I want to host my own stuff myself and would like to extend that 'service' to others -- I just wouldn't want to have to monitor everything 24/7. I mean, I'm cool with a "report abuse" feature, and I realize one would have to react to that, but that's a long shot from being "responsible for what your users do, period". So this is awesome, and I'm not thinking of downloading music at all.. sanity like this simply makes it possible to do fuck all that's actually interesting on the web without having to hire a bunch of lawyers and whatnot. Yay!
Another step in a long death-dance (Score:4, Informative)
I have to give it to them, criminal and greedy as they are, they really know how to die slowly.
As by now it is quite clear that negative effects of filesharing on people that write books or music and make movies is at worst minimally negative and at best significantly positive, this is definitely going in the right direction.
For now (Score:2)
Online social networks can't be forced to police downloads - for now. It will all change after ACTA passes, which is why I hope it won't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right now ACTA cannot pass in the EU, as long as (specific) political parties/bodies don't suddenly turn 180.
Both the European Parliament as well as all the different countries have to sign/accept the treaty. Right now Poland said it wouldn't ratify ACTA. Others bodies/countries said that they wouldn't accept ACTA if it conflicts with existing European law.
As long as those standpoints don't change, ACTA will not happen in the EU and it won't change the law. Of course the law could change first and then ACTA
Search Engines/You tube vs. Social network (Score:3)
Re:Search Engines/You tube vs. Social network (Score:4, Insightful)
Search Engines and Youtube are- not really considered part of a social network. As it is, EU appears to have a real hard-on about going after Google or other American businesses. So, will EU extend this new ruling to You Tube/Search engines?
I don't think the EU go after American businesses in particular. You will likely find that the reason you hear about so many American businesses getting into trouble in Europe is that a lot of Americans are very anti-Europe and thus kick up a lot of fuss when they see them challenging anything remotely American. Just look at the amount of anti-Europe rhetoric (ZOMG he speaks French?!?!) in the Republican primaries, or the anger levelled at Britain after the BP oil spill (BP operates in over 80 countries and has its largest division in the US).
Re: (Score:3)
As to citizens/politicians, I agree that we see issues here (and in europe, btw). I get tired of that mentality.
When In Rome. (Score:2)
Just because all you hear about the EU has to do with those two American companies does not mean they have a bias.
Your attitude is profoundly arrogant in my opinion. I cannot understand why so many of your fellow Americans don't understand the situation? If a company operates in a European jurisdiction, either as a local legal entity or offers services and goods, it has to follow local laws and courts. It's that simple, or leave!
The EU's courts go after European companies every day, you just don't read abou
Re: (Score:2)
And as to my news source, I grab it from all over. That includes the BBC, spiegel, al jazerra, denverpost, and CNN.
Very rarely, I will get it from trash like Fox (neo-con's POV), The Sun (murdoch POV), Xinhuanet(China's POV), or Pravda(Russia and just plain bizzaro POV).
And other than questioning some of European ruling, please e