European Court Of Justice Says ISPs Cannot Be Forced To Be Copyright Cops
from the good-for-them dept
Last Thursday, as many of us in the US were getting ready for a nice turkey dinner, the European Court of Justice issued a very nice ruling we should all be thankful for, saying that it is against EU law to require an ISP to set up a filtering system to prevent copyright infringement.EU law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an internet service provider to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files.We had mentioned this was likely earlier this year, when the Advocate General had recommended such a ruling, and now the court has agreed. The specific case involved a fight between Belgian anti-piracy organization/collection agency SABAM and ISP Scarlet. A Belgian court had ruled that Scarlet had to implement a filter that would magically end infringement, or it would face "periodic penalty." Of course, that's an impossible request. The courts ruling says that a copyright holder can file for an injunction, but it must "respect the limitations" of EU law, including a prohibition on "general monitoring of information" that goes over an ISP's network.
Such an injunction does not comply with the prohibition on imposing a general monitoring obligation on such a provider, or with the requirement to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the right to intellectual property, and, on the other, the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information.
In this regard, the Court finds that the injunction in question would require Scarlet to actively monitor all the data relating to each of its customers in order to prevent any infringement of intellectual-property rights. It follows that the injunction would impose general monitoring, something which is incompatible with the E-Commerce Directive. Moreover, such an injunction would not respect the applicable fundamental rights.The court also makes a good point. While intellectual property should be respected, nothing in the law says it should be "absolutely protected" in such a way that tramples many other rights. It seems that many supporters of more stringent copyright laws always seem to forget this point. They don't much care about the collateral damage.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, eu court of justice, europe, filtering
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
CRITICAL
European Court of Justice rules in favor Fundamental Rights.
Man, we need more good SAN checks like this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fingers crossed
Particularly since we're slowly building our own Great Firewall here in the UK.
(I appreciate that there's a difference between blanket website blocking and scanning for copyrighted material, but at least it's a step in the right direction)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Or reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: fingers crossed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In the past, the clandestine monitoring of personal communications (aka wire tapping) was considered illegal and not just in Europe. In the UK it has become common place thanks to News Corp. Hopefully this ruling will put an end to the attempts at legalizing such activity for the privileged while keeping it illegal for the peons (ex: video tapping police).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rule of Law and Due Process
Furthermore, those who claim that the legal system owes them protection are undertaking a massive "land-grab" to assert ever greater control over so-called "intellectual property". Like a drug addict, they need an ever bigger fix. Time to put an end to the "land-grab". Those who buy products are also entitled to the rights of ownership.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What ye be blatherin about, mate?
"Shameful day for copyright"? Nay, lad, if the ill-named Court of Justice had ruled the opposite way, then it would be a shameful day! For then one class of people would force another class of people to enforce artificial laws! This manner of injustice is what leads men to spit on their palms, raise the black flag and set to slitting throats!
And what unholy, heathen palaver be this "IP"? Pray, how can an idea be made "property"? If I copy your rigging, how can you tell? Further, we both sail faster! "Property"? An idea can no more be "property" than a Man can be "property"! "IP" is slavery, ye scurvy freshwater swab!
Sea gherkin! Ectoplasm! Pithecanthropus!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: BT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What ye be blatherin about, mate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What ye be blatherin about, mate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: BT
The ruling only applies directly to cases where an ISP is being asked to set up a system where they have to:
(1) monitor all communications going through their network,
(2) from all customers,
(3) as a preventative measure,
(4) at their own expense, and
(5) for an unlimited time.
In the Newzbin2 case, the ruling was very specific that (1) didn't apply, as BT doesn't have to do any monitoring; the Hollywood studios are responsible for identifying IP addresses and URLs (and liable for any wrong ones) and giving them to BT to block. All BT has to do is add them to its existing blocklist.
However, if the case does get appealed (or if future cases are brought), or in the DEA judicial review appeal, this case is likely to be useful as an indication that it is OK to ignore copyright if enforcing it would be too onerous, invasive or impractical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's easy.
Just block all communication.
Will some legal communication get caught in the net? Sure, but hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
It's all about Pyrrhic victory. And if you freetards can't see that, well, tough beans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And the more collateral damage they cause, the less people care about their "rights".
[ link to this | view in thread ]