European Court Finds Copyright Doesn't Automatically Trump Freedom Of Expression 214
First time accepted submitter admiral snackbar writes "The European Court of Human Rights has declared that the copyright monopoly stands in direct conflict with fundamental Human Rights, as defined in the European Union and elsewhere. 'For the first time in a judgment on the merits, the European Court of Human Rights has clarified that a conviction based on copyright law for illegally reproducing or publicly communicating copyright protected material can be regarded as an interference with the right of freedom of expression and information under Article 10 of the European Convention [on Human Rights]. Such interference must be in accordance with the three conditions enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention. This means that a conviction or any other judicial decision based on copyright law, restricting a person's or an organization's freedom of expression, must be pertinently motivated as being necessary in a democratic society, apart from being prescribed by law and pursuing a legitimate aim.'"
Re:Details (Score:5, Interesting)
No, because it was a purely commericial issue.
The clarification of the court concerns things like leaked documents that trigger a political scandal, which in the past have been successfully taken down on copyright grounds. The court has made it clear that it intends to stop this practice.
It is interesting that the court felt the need to clarify this issue even though it had no bearing on the case at hand.
Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (Score:4, Interesting)
Louis XVI had some progressive velleities, but lacked political acumen (though he wasn't as stupid as he is often portrayed - by today's standards, he was a huge nerd).
La Fayette initially came to the help of the newborn USA by his own decision and with his own means, when France was reluctant to confront the English. Later, he convinced Louis XVI to help. I won't go into details but a lot of occult funding was involved, with the implication of the famous playwright Beaumarchais at a point.
Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that at least some parts of Magna Carta are technically still enforce I don't think you can say England is very much like a constitutional monarchy, it *is* a constitutional monarchy.
Re:Explains a lot (Score:4, Interesting)
Well no, that's a lot of bullshit. What he doesn't agree with is that a fetus is not the same as a person.
The argument doesn't rely on that. If we are distinguish a fetus from a person, it's still a matter of an hierarchy of values. IMHO, it'd look roughly like this (subject to lots of refinements):
a) Liberal: person life > women rights over body > killing society threatening life > fetus life
b) Libertarian (typical): women rights over body > person life > killing society threatening life > fetus life
c) Conservative (typical): killing society threatening life > person life > fetus life > women rights over body
d) Conservative (Catholic): fetus life > killing society threatening life > person life > women rights over body
And so on and so forth. Mix and match to find other minor political ideologies.
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Interesting)
Mankind sort-of made a pact with horses. They let you ride on their back and agree to be used for labor, but in return you promise not to kill them for food.
Similar deals have been made with for instance donkeys, dogs, cats and falcons. They hunt for us, guard us or carry our loads.
Cows appear much less intelligent and you won't be able to make such a deal. They are basically a meat-milk-excrement factory, barely intelligent enough
to stay awake. All they do all day is stand around and eat. Therefore we are allowed to eat them.
On a sidenote, this is the reason I don't eat pig. They are way too intelligent to be brought to the slaughterhouse.