• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

European Court of Justice rejects web piracy filter

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gowans

Member
The European Court of Justice has ruled that content owners cannot ask ISPs to filter out illegal content.

The ruling could have implications for the creative industries as they attempt to crack down on piracy.

The court said that while content providers can ask ISPs to block specific sites, wider filtering was in breach of the E-Commerce Directive.

A Belgian court had previously ruled that a local rights holder could force an ISP to filter content.

General monitoring
The case stems back to 2004 when SABAM, a Belgian company responsible for authorising music rights, discovered that customers of local ISP Scarlet were downloading music illegally via peer-to-peer networks.

The Brussels Court of First Instance ordered Scarlet to make it impossible for its customers to send or receive files containing music from SABAM's catalogue on such networks.

Scarlet appealed to the Brussels Court of Appeal, claiming that the injunction failed to comply with EU law.

It said that the obligation to monitor communications on its network was in breach of the E-Commerce Directive.

Seven years on, the European Court of Justice agreed.

It said that the move could affect Scarlet's ability to do business because it would have to "install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense".

The court ruled that the filtering could infringe the rights of customers and their right to protect their own data.

It could also mean that legal content was blocked.

"Such an injunction could potentially undermine freedom of information since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications," the court said in a statement.

Victory
TalkTalk and BT are currently embroiled in legal action against the UK's Digital Economy Act. They claim the law - which lays out rules for combating piracy - is also in breach of the E-Commerce Directive.

While the European ruling has "some relevance" to its case, it is not directly linked, said Andrew Heaney, TalkTalks' head of regulatory affairs.

"The idea of filtering was talked about in the UK but it came off the table some time ago. This judgement is effectively about an old issue," he said.

Internet freedom organisations welcomed the news.

Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group said: "This judgement is a victory for freedom of expression online. It draws a thick line in the sand that future copyright enforcement measures in the UK cannot cross.

"Invasive and general surveillance of users is unacceptable. This helps to nail down the limits of powers to curtail people's freedom to communicate online."
Click to expand...

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15871961
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
Why do these EU courts always seem to act in the public interest? After hearing so much news out of the United States and Australia it just seems bizarre.
 
F

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Consumer protection is one of the best things about the EU. It's not perfect by any means, but I don't want to think how royally screwed we'd be in some states if it weren't from the ECJ, specially when it comes to telecoms.
 
W

Wazzim

Banned
1Q6mj.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
EU, when not going ass broke, is fucking awesome.
 
M

meppi

Member
Great news. SABAM is a piece of shit organization.

Not that long ago a Belgium TV show took names of various products such as Kenwood and Suzie Wan, and pretended they were artist that were going to perform somewhere.
So they called SABAM and asked them if they would have to pay them royalties.
Since you are only supposed to pay royalties to Sabam for artist that have registered with them, as well as these names being from well known consumer products, they shouldn't have asked for a dime.

Yet somehow they billed them anyway, only to have them reveal that it was a box of party snacks, a bottle of something or other and some asian food product.
Afterwards they did give the money back, but it's a bit peculiar to say the least for this kind of organization to bill organizers of a party, without even checking if the are artists even exist or are registered with them. :-/

edit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZAsa9QmQO8.
 
G

G.O.O.

Member
That's awesome

But my country doesn't give a shit about what says the EU and just stocks the condemnations in a safe. That's how we roll
 
M

McNum

Member
It might also have to do with how odd the EU rules are. If you're going to lobby, you need to find out who to target. And speak their language. And the EU isn't that transparent. Plus, the EU judges seem to have a hobby in taking on multinational companies and winning. Ask Microsoft about that some time. The EU courts are kind of awesome like that.

This also stands in a pretty harsh contrast to the the SOPA thing you guys have going on in the US. Hope that thing dies in a fire, for the US's sake.
 
M

MJLord

Member
Good ! The whole piracy thing is a joke, they're claiming for sales that they wouldn't have If people couldn't pirate and still had the same means of getting hold of music & film.
 
P

Phoenician_Viking

Banned
Large Professor said:
Probably because lobbies/special interests aren't yet as powerful in the EU as they are in the US and other countries.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Lobbies are very powerful, and if law makers try to change the comsumer protection laws, there would be protest and hell would be raised. Politician don´t dare to go that far. They love staying in power.
 
M

`Moe Joe.

Banned
It's only inevitable that the internet will become a closed entity.

All you need to look at is hollywood and radio - two entities which started off open and free; only to end in severe regulation.
 
W

Wazzim

Banned
`Moe Joe. said:
It's only inevitable that the internet will become a closed entity.

All you need to look at is hollywood and radio - two entities which started off open and free; only to end in severe regulation.
Click to expand...
Well in this case, regulation on corporations isn't bad, regulation by corporations is bad.
 
O

Orayn

Member
Baconsaurus said:
What about child pornography and other illegal content like that?
Click to expand...
Can still be taken down on a site by site basis as before, just not through wide-reaching filters that would do something like automatically blocking whatever came up in a Google search for "underage girls."
 
J

jorma

is now taking requests
Baconsaurus said:
What about child pornography and other illegal content like that?
Click to expand...

Advocating filtering in regards to child pornography is the ulitmate proof that they don't really give a shit about the kids getting hurt in that business, they just use it as cover for their IP protection schemes.

Correct solution: File fucking charges and have the police investigate to see if they can actually do something about whoever provided the content, because that content is illegal almost everywhere.

Wrong solution to cp: place the url to the image in a webfilter and do nothing else. This makes more sense to big copyright holders, because keeping it out of sight of ordinary people who dont know how to bypass these filters is "good enough for now". But how does it help the kids getting hurt in the cp business?

Trying to conflate these issues and suggesting that the problems and how to solve them are similar in nature is quite frankly sickening.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Orayn said:
Can still be taken down on a site by site basis as before,just not through wide-reaching filters that would do something like automatically blocking whatever came up in a Google search for "underage girls."
Click to expand...

Is this really just what it is banning? It seems like it puts even more shackles on the owners of Copyrights.

I don´t want to sound like I support abominations like the SOPA or whatever that bill in the US is but I see no reason why countries shouldn´t be able to ban sites like the Piratebay.

Edit: read Tacitus_´s post
 
E

el retorno

Member
jorma said:
Trying to conflate these issues and suggesting that the problems and how to solve them are similar in nature is quite frankly sickening.
Click to expand...

I think the crimes are on much different magnitudes. But they are both crimes which are perpirated on the internet and if the both the sites and the producers of the product were taken down the crime would go away.. How are they not similar in that regard?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
3K
ManaByte replied
  • Locked
Politics... be always careful what you wish for.
4
685
TehDark replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
2K
AJUMP23 replied
Australia plans to ban children from social media
2 3
105
4K
farmerboy replied
Apple Sued by DOJ for Illegal Monopoly over Smartphones
2 3 4 5 6
270
19K
PaintTinJr replied
Top Bottom