Swiss Supreme Court Refuses To Order ISPs To Block 'Pirate' Sites
from the silver-lining dept
Site-blocking is now officially a thing in many corners of the world, with rightsholders using the court system to restrict access to sites they complain are "pirate" sites. Between that practice and legislation being introduced by many countries in the full throes of regulatory capture, in which moneyed interests convince politicians to protect their own antiquated modes of business over the interests of the every day citizen, the censoring of the internet and the opening of wide avenues of potential abuse are in full swing.
But this isn't the case everywhere. In Switzerland, for instance, some specifics in how that country operates have led its courts to do things differently. For one, Switzerland is not a member state of the EU, and so it is not bound by the same rules as most other European nations. In addition to that, Swiss copyright law is such that personal downloading or streaming of content, even if unauthorized, is not illegal. Both of those specifics came to a head when film company Praesens-Film asked the courts to order Swisscom, an ISP, to block what it said are pirate sites. The court refused. Praesens-Film decided to appeal the decision until it eventually reached the Swiss Supreme Court. That court, too, has now refused to order the blocking of pirate sites.
“In order for Swisscom to be obliged to block the Internet sites in question, it would need to be a participant in a copyright infringement by third parties, by making a legally relevant contribution to it. That’s not the case,” the Court wrote this week.
The Court agreed that the operators of the sites in question (and the companies making the movies available via hosting services) are breaking the law, but it refused to connect the ISP to those infringements.
“[S]wisscom can not be accused of making a concrete contribution to these copyright infringements. The activity of Swisscom is limited to offering access to the worldwide Internet,” the Court added. “The films are not [released by Swisscom] but released by third parties from unknown locations abroad. These Third parties are neither customers of Swisscom nor are they otherwise in a relationship with them.”
Frankly, this is as it should be. The job of the ISP is to provide internet service. It's right there in the name. It is not the job of the ISP to play copyright police throughout the world and to restrict access to sites based on the claims of an entertainment industry that has showed itself to be wholly inept at determining what is a "pirate" site and what isn't. While the court pointed out that legislators could go ahead and change copyright law in the country, the law as written wouldn't justify this kind of censorship request.
The infringements in such cases are not only carried out by pirate sites, they’re also carried out by the customers of ISPs, who illegally stream or download copyrighted content to their home connections. In Switzerland, however, downloading or streaming content – even when that content is from an unlicensed source – is not illegal.
“[T]here is no copyright infringement on the part of the users,” the Court said. “Copyright law allows this use of published works for personal use, regardless of whether the source is lawful or unlawful. Legislators rejected the copyright revision, which would have prohibited the duplication of works from illegal sources for their own use.”
It would be nice if these versions of copyright laws could be exported throughout the world, if only to disrupt the gross censorship of the internet that has already begun and will only get worse now that that door has been cracked open. While the infringement of copyright sucks for the rightsholder, that pain doesn't justify a tidal wave of site-blocking across a public that, by and large, doesn't commit copyright infringement. It appears that understanding that personal downloading and/or streaming is not something worth addressing in the criminal code is at least one antidote to site-blocking.
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, piracy, site blocking, switzerland
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ISP
Stands for Internet Service Police, and therefore all mail (physical or electronic) should be stopped and vetted before being delivered, duh.
Stopping the potential infringement of billionaires movies is far far more important that you rights to privacy or secure communications. Corporations own copyrights, so they can inspect your uploads at will, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments on the right side of this argument.
Jhon Smith throwing a tantrum on the scale of Hiroshima in 3, 2, 1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Verbal aggression, cowardly bullying, and tantrums are your thing and that of others on the site, not mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, what you do is threaten police action on behalf of a poorly constructed pseudonym on the grounds that someone's feelings got hurt on the Internet.
How's that John Steele defense fund coming along bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
More like I see people calling for riots and killing government officials, and like any good citizen, I report it. Once I do that, it's out of my hands.
That some would resort to such extreme measures doesn't help the protestors.
There's a lot more concerning Masnick and some of those with whom he associates, but the MSM is already on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which didn't happen in this article, but thanks for admitting to being such a wilful white knight ambulance chaser. I suppose something has to impress the girls after your mailing lists failed to bring them to the yard.
Shiva Ayyadurai's defeat really tore a gaping hole in the void you call a heart, didn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having fun inventing your own facts?
Well at least you have this ruling to neutralize Article 13 so enjoy your victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having fun inventing your own facts?
You're the one who claimed that pirates sell mailing lists to make bank, after yours got stolen so you couldn't bring the guy who plagiarized books to justice because his name's too big to be sued, so you spend your time trying to intimidate users on a sight you claim nobody reads and could never, ever influence national policy. Such as SOPA.
Inventing facts is how copyright enforcement gets anything done, including artists being too devastated to afford another solid gold Humvee thanks to all the dead grandmothers pirating their leaked sex tapes.
Shame for you judges are finding it harder to buy your brand of bullshit. Too much stench.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"users on a sight?"
The value of a mailing list is universal, has very little to do with just me, and was noted to prove that even "noncommercial" piracy has clear commercial value (or they wouldn't pay for the bandwidth duh).
Masnick's influence will always be limited because he uses slanted language, writes like an eighth-grader, and allows harassment and defamation in his comments section. He has ties to some VERY questionable people that can be outlined at any time I or someone else chooses. He's just such a pathetic gnat that he's very low on the priority lists, except for those DEATH THREATS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIALS which appear on his site.
The same dozen or so names keep circling around his universe but there's no depth beyond that. No real influence. Article 13 shows who has the real power and it really isn't any of you.
Unlike the parasitic thieves who steal work, I have actual fans. One thing piracy has done is restored the patronage model. I have actual patrons too, something you may not have ever experienced. This frees me up to do a lot of things, all earned by my work.
All you have are anonymous rantings on a slime website. Some legacy. No wonder you lash out at me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The value of a mailing list is universal"
To spammers and scam artists like yourself, yes.
"Unlike the parasitic thieves who steal work, I have actual fans"
I very much doubt it.
"One thing piracy has done is restored the patronage model. I have actual patrons too"
Cool, so you found a way to stop pirates from affecting your income. Why, then, do you spend so much of your working day complaining on here rather than supporting your paying customers?
"All you have are anonymous rantings"
Coming from the guy who literally spends all day ranting anonymously here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop feeding the trolls. Just flag him and move on. Showing your ass just adds clutter to what would normally be an intelligent conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
, said the anonymous ranter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So much self loathing
Jhon boy you are currently projecting so hard that we could use you to carve “I heart Shiva” into the moon for hamilton.
“All you have are anonymous rantings on a slime website. Some legacy”
This right here is caviar for people who like to watch idiots self-immolate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if Masnick's influence is so little, why would death threats against officials - which anonymous commenters make, not the website - pose any danger?
You literally said that this is a small legacy of anonymous comments. Facebook doesn't even investigate every instance of negative commentary levied at political figures.
You're so desperate to fling shit you can't even stay consistent within your own narrative, in the same post.
Send your SWATs, Jhon. We'll be waiting.
Calling your bluff, sweetheart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “Having fun inventing your own facts?”
Only the best projectionists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My lovers go for creative-genius types, not money.
Perhaps you have to buy women so that's your reference point. It would explain a great deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry you're so lonely. :( Maybe try match.com?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think Grindr on the DL is more Johns speed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Old man can’t keep his lies straight
So have the cops blocked your number yet? Or are you being charged for filing false reports? Speaking of when’s the expose on what kind of milk Mike prefers gonna drop. It’s 2% isn’t it? That scoundrel!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That wishful thinking of yours is quite amusing.
Police don't take multiple public death threats against government officials lightly. The recent mass shootings have caused them to take internet threats like that very seriously.
What they do with the info is up to them. They now have probable cause to investigate a host of things, not just those threats. That makes Masnick a liability to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No surprise there
So what you’re saying is you lied... again. I mean you promised SWAT raids a half a year ago. And so far there’s been... nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Verbal aggression, cowardly bullying, and tantrums are your thing and that of others on the site, not mine."
Except every time someone confronts you with the fact that you've been lying through your teeth on one statement or other whereupon you throw a tantrum filled with ad hominem attacks and threatening everyone around here with the attention of your "friends in the FBI".
So on being a coward, a bully, and throwing tantrums at the drop of a hat you stand guilty as accused. But by all means keep projecting - it's more or less all you've got left, Baghdad Bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“Verbal aggression, cowardly bullying, and tantrums are your thing and that of others on the site, not mine.”
Everyday it’s a gourmet buffet of projection from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You still mad you lost the war German?
😎
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well that's a convenient global loophole, quite consistent with the Perfect 10 rulings in America.
Unlike some who can't seem to get over an adverse ruling for their side, I don't waste my energy with what I know government will deal with. I've already adjusted to a "post-copyright" world anyway, though this is obviously not the ruling I think should have been made. I wouldn't be like Masnick, however, and resort to childish, slanted language to voice that.
Wonder if the WTO will get involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've already adjusted to a "post-copyright" world anyway
So Article 13 is meaningless then, thanks for confirming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for confirming you have no arguments so you have to invent them based on falsehoods.
Article 13 will hopefully work as intended. Like piracy? Move to Switzerland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I love the way you can't even keep your bullshit straight between comments. This comment:
"Article 13 will hopefully work as intended. Like piracy? Move to Switzerland."
Your comment one minute beforehand:
"Well at least you have this ruling to neutralize Article 13 so enjoy your victory."
So, is it neutralised or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have to understand, the vote for the link tax just got called off.
Jhon Smith has to grieve because his Hollywood sugar daddy can't tap that sweet Google advertising ass.
I might feel sorry for him if he wasn't a scam artist trying to masquerade as a self-help book author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick is getting credited for allowing all this verbal abuse on his site.
Just shows what kind of person he is. Actually, he's the ultimate coward because he lets others do his dirtywork for him.
That's just his public face. Wait until people see the rest of his pathetic existence. This is just a symptom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" Masnick is getting credited for allowing all this verbal abuse on his site.
Just shows what kind of person he is. Actually, he's the ultimate coward because he lets others do his dirtywork for him.
That's just his public face. Wait until people see the rest of his pathetic existence. This is just a symptom."
Says the one who "tells the LEO's" and calls everyone a coward while hiding behind an anonymous tags. And if you are a self-help author then I am fu**ing GOD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just shows what kind of person he is. Actually, he's the ultimate coward because he lets others do his dirtywork for him.
That's just his public face. Wait until people see the rest of his pathetic existence. This is just a symptom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ugh, thanks Markdown, for only putting 1/3 of that in quote form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, markdown really doesn't like line breaks. You need new quoteblocks for every time you hit the enter key.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me guess all your “lovers” live in Canada
Any day now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The AC here thinks deliberately misspelling names is cute, or says something about anyone but it.
Can't seem to find ANYTHING about the "link tax" being called off, nor Article 13 being slowed down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bro we took that spelling from you...
Maybe next time grow a pair and log in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're lucky I'm anonymous or you'd be sued for libel.
Nobodies who never create anything always hate on those who do.
In the real world, cowards like the AC don't mouth off like that, and they dare don't lie. This site is really all they have.
Masnick is really bush-league for allowing this. Perhaps one day his sponsors will get sick of it, or maybe a complaint to the FTC to unmask who his REAL gravy train is might be in order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You're lucky I'm anonymous or you'd be sued for libel."
Nah, you're keeping anonymity as if people knew who you are, the success and authority you claim to have would be laughably non-existent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“You're lucky I'm anonymous or you'd be sued for libel.”
Cool story you bro.
“You’re just lucky my friends are holding me back....”
High school bullies make better threats than you do.
“This site is really all they have.”
How many hours have you spent here today alone bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little blue pill
Poor Jhon. Someone should tell him about viagra and he might stop acting like the confused, bitter, impotent, old fuckwit, that he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I forget, not everyone recognizes sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not in plain text form. Especially when the person trying to be "sarcastic" has a long record of stating ridiculously stupid things quite seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your opinion, not really relevant beyond you.
I still can't find a reference to the link tax vote being called off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Your opinion, not really relevant beyond you."
This is a free public forum provided for the express purpose of people stating their opinion.
"I still can't find a reference to the link tax vote being called off..."
Did I say it had?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for confirming you have no arguments so you have to invent them based on falsehoods.
Every once in a while you demonstrate a modicum of intelligence and self-awareness. Never fails to disappoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
“Thanks for confirming you have no arguments so you have to invent them based on falsehoods.”
You just can’t stop talking about yourself. It’s kinda sad bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it’s uncanny
“Unlike some who can't seem to get over an adverse ruling for their side,”
He said one sentence after lamenting a case from more than a decade ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it’s uncanny
Technically the case didn't finish over a decade ago.
It might have stayed that way if not for the fact that Perfect 10 chose to double down, getting worse and worse judgements every time, and had their ass handed to them so much that Norman Zada's definition of a graceful defeat was to transfer his assets to someone else. Just so he could avoid paying the fines the court asked of him, that law-abiding citizen.
Any surprise why Jhonny boy feels such a close kinship with this sort of bottom-scraping amoeba?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it’s uncanny
Article 13 is a direct consequence of rulings like Perfect Ten.
There's always the option of suing the individual infringers, of course, or jailing them.
Hollywood is much more powerful than this nothing website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it’s uncanny
Then why are you so worried about this website? Is it an insignificant trashpile that can't affect anything or a major influence on tech policy that only you, a white knight upon a fiery steed, can take down for good? Because if you really thought the site was insignificant, you wouldn't be trying so hard to destroy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it’s uncanny
You whine like a child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it’s uncanny
" Article 13 is a direct consequence of rulings like Perfect Ten."
So in other words since Perfect 10 got themselves smacked down by every judge in the land, we get...article 13, which has zip and nada to do with that set of lawsuits, not to mention, is on the wrong continent?
Unbelievable. That's like claiming that because of apples, we now have a pope.
"There's always the option of suing the individual infringers, of course, or jailing them."
They tried both twenty years ago and not only did it not work, the fallout of that was so bad the entire copyright cult backed off in a hurry. But hey, don't let us stop you from advocating again and again that which was already proven to fail.
"Hollywood is much more powerful than this nothing website."
Because "this website" is, apparently, the grand centre of organized anti-copyright protest as opposed to, say, the multiple million citizens who cared enough to protest in person.
Oh, but of course Masnick regularly pays a few million people to swing placards in his name, amirite, Baghdad bob?
I said it before on TorrentFreak and I have to say it again here. There is no way a comedy act such as yours shouldn't earn a nickle or two so why you don't put out a hat and take your skit to the streets is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it’s uncanny
Masnick will never be taken seriously as a journalist as long as he allows ridiculous levels of verbal abuse in his comments. It really says a lot about who he is.
All he is doing by allowing this is putting himself under increasing scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it’s uncanny
All he is doing by allowing this is putting himself under increasing scrutiny.
I thought you said nobody reads this site...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it’s uncanny
You need to step up your game. If this is the best fantasy you can come up with your imagination is pretty limited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it’s uncanny
"Masnick will never be taken seriously as a journalist as long as he allows ridiculous levels of verbal abuse in his comments. It really says a lot about who he is."
Yeah, him not meaningfully banning your ass from puring vats of slander and marginalization on every topic you come across DOES undercut the meaning of his articles a bit.
Then again he may rightly be leery about not allowing anonymous posting. Freedom of speech by necessity means even incurable trolls and delusional liars like you do get a textbox to shit in, and worse, show everyone the result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfavorable journey through the Swiss court system? Next stop: a corporate sovereignty lawsuit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"corporate sovereignty" .. lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
Some corporations think they should be above the law .. of all nations. This is clearly not a good way to go if you are not a corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Switzerland response: do you know....how many things we have on you in our banks?
Corporations:😱
[ link to this | view in chronology ]