7 ms·

EU Court of Justice: Censorship in Name of Copyright Violates Fundamental Rights

216 points by yogsototh 15y ago

arnoooooo 15y ago
I wonder what consequences this will have on three strike laws.
- tonfa 15y ago
  This is unrelated to 3-strike. This is more about DPI filtering.
  - Gmo 15y ago
    Well, the French 3-strikes law mandates that to ensure you won't be attacked in court for downloading, you have to install a monitoring software on your computer. So I think in this case, it could apply. Of course, in such a case, the devil is in the details so maybe it does not apply because it's not asked to the ISPs to do that.
    - tonfa 15y ago
      The French 3-strikes law does not mandate anything like that. It only says that you should make sure your access is not used for downloading illegaly, but does not specify how. (And no decree was published, afaik).
      - babebridou 15y ago
        Your analysis is right, but unfortunately the decree has been published last year. The first few third-strokes were struck in the past few months. (FR) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069414&idArticle=LEGIARTI000022402015&dateTexte=vig http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;?cidTexte...
        tonfa 15y ago
        There are still no formal definition of what securing your access means ("moyen de sécurisation").
        babebridou 15y ago
        Ah, yeah, true. And fortunately, they are not that dumb as to hurry up and make things worse than they already are... or are they? Orange (major French ISP) tried to monetize a securization solution based on a 2€/month contract that would block P2P traffic from unauthorized WLAN clients directly on the box. The solution was hacked within days (hours? not sure), simply by grabbing plain-text IP adresses of all the users with a simple /status http query to the webserver of the service provider, and injecting them on random P2P networks using IPFuck (sic), de facto forcing all customers to break the law. Orange retired their solution from the market and decided to never again try to take on that subject. Right now the only official stance from HADOPI (3-strikes organization) is a recommandation to use WPA2 instead of WEP. Still no means of securization, so if you get caught, you're to blame for not doing something nobody knows how to do.
pilif 15y ago
The cynic in me tells me that this is more about providing a huge competitive advantage over countries with SOPA like laws than it is about protecting human rights. But as they say, one should not look a gift horse in the mouth. What happens with a decision like this is that countries with SOPA like laws will be where you want to be as part of the publishing industry whereas the EU now is the place where you want to be (or at least where you want your hardware to be) if you are a content hoster like youtube. That's fine. Of course this might end up with content only being available in countries with SOPA like laws, but looking at what is available for purchase here in Switzerland, I'd say that this is already the case. As such, I'm really happy about this decision and I have in fact printed it out with the intention to hang it on the office wall.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- exit 15y ago
  > but looking at what is available for purchase here in Switzerland can you explain what you mean by that for those not familiar with switzerland?
  - tripzilch 15y ago
    Some exclusive video content about imitation cuckoo clocks, knock-off Swiss army knives and synthetic polyester lederhosen is blocked in Switzerland, because it can generate dangerous increases in blood pressure, especially among the elderly living at higher altitudes.
  - Gmo 15y ago
    I'm not in Switzerland but I'm a Frenchman in the Netherlands, and I believe the situation is the same. Basically, there is plenty of content with geographic limitations. Something that might be less visible from the US but that can be pretty annoying once outside. And that's without counting missing services such as Hulu or Netflix, for the same reasons.
    - 15y ago
smickie 15y ago
How will if effect decisions like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15459005 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15459005 ...where BT (big British isp) was told to block sites?
- mmavnn 15y ago
  I think that legally there is a large difference between them a) blocking one site for all users, and b) monitoring a users actions. In theory you could do the former without ever recording which users attempted to reach the site in question.
- asmala 15y ago
  Judging by the Court press release[1], it would seem that the unreasonable cost of filtering all P2P traffic for copyrighted material (yes, they actually asked for that) weighed heavily in the Belgian case. This would likely not be much of a factor when it comes to filtering a single domain, as mentioned in the UK case you linked to. Still, the injunction by the EU court could well shift the balance even in cases where blocking is more technically feasible. Fingers crossed. [1]: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.pdf http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011...
asmala 15y ago
This is, for once, an amazingly common sense decision, striking a good balance between IP protection, sensible business environment for the ISP, and personal freedom. From the official press release[1]: "The Court finds that, in adopting the injunction requiring Scarlet to install such a filtering system, the national court would not be respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the right to receive or impart information, on the other." I understand this isn't exactly revolutionary but amidst ACTA, SOPA, bailouts, and similar lunacy, this is a breath of fresh air and a glimmer of hope. [1]: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.pdf http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011... EDIT: Formatting.
- mattmanser 15y ago
  I totally disagree with you. This is an unelected body making sweeping decisions without any accountability on a set of laws no-one voted for and a 'nation' that no-one voted for. It may be positive for us, but in terms of democracy it highlights how ridiculous the EU and its unaccountable mechanisms have become. I also believe my country, the UK, is trying to wriggle itself out of the human rights laws of the EU as they're too strong and (apparently) being abused, so expect other countries to follow suit and this judgement to be worthless in the long run. After all this is in direct contradiction with explicitly passed laws in this country. Seriously worrying that an EU judge thinks he should start making these claims in direct contradiction to an elected body passing laws.
  - seqastian 15y ago
    the UK is part of the EU? .. let me double check that
    - MoreMoschops 15y ago
      Did you finish double-checking yet? It is.
marquis 15y ago
>the war on culture sharing What a powerful concept as an anti-dote to 'war on file-sharing'.

216 points by yogsototh 15y ago

arnoooooo 15y ago

I wonder what consequences this will have on three strike laws.

tonfa 15y ago
This is unrelated to 3-strike. This is more about DPI filtering.
- Gmo 15y ago
  Well, the French 3-strikes law mandates that to ensure you won't be attacked in court for downloading, you have to install a monitoring software on your computer. So I think in this case, it could apply. Of course, in such a case, the devil is in the details so maybe it does not apply because it's not asked to the ISPs to do that.
  - tonfa 15y ago
    The French 3-strikes law does not mandate anything like that. It only says that you should make sure your access is not used for downloading illegaly, but does not specify how. (And no decree was published, afaik).
    - babebridou 15y ago
      Your analysis is right, but unfortunately the decree has been published last year. The first few third-strokes were struck in the past few months. (FR) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069414&idArticle=LEGIARTI000022402015&dateTexte=vig http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;?cidTexte...
      - tonfa 15y ago
        There are still no formal definition of what securing your access means ("moyen de sécurisation").
        babebridou 15y ago
        Ah, yeah, true. And fortunately, they are not that dumb as to hurry up and make things worse than they already are... or are they? Orange (major French ISP) tried to monetize a securization solution based on a 2€/month contract that would block P2P traffic from unauthorized WLAN clients directly on the box. The solution was hacked within days (hours? not sure), simply by grabbing plain-text IP adresses of all the users with a simple /status http query to the webserver of the service provider, and injecting them on random P2P networks using IPFuck (sic), de facto forcing all customers to break the law. Orange retired their solution from the market and decided to never again try to take on that subject. Right now the only official stance from HADOPI (3-strikes organization) is a recommandation to use WPA2 instead of WEP. Still no means of securization, so if you get caught, you're to blame for not doing something nobody knows how to do.

pilif 15y ago

The cynic in me tells me that this is more about providing a huge competitive advantage over countries with SOPA like laws than it is about protecting human rights. But as they say, one should not look a gift horse in the mouth. What happens with a decision like this is that countries with SOPA like laws will be where you want to be as part of the publishing industry whereas the EU now is the place where you want to be (or at least where you want your hardware to be) if you are a content hoster like youtube. That's fine. Of course this might end up with content only being available in countries with SOPA like laws, but looking at what is available for purchase here in Switzerland, I'd say that this is already the case. As such, I'm really happy about this decision and I have in fact printed it out with the intention to hang it on the office wall.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
exit 15y ago
> but looking at what is available for purchase here in Switzerland can you explain what you mean by that for those not familiar with switzerland?
- tripzilch 15y ago
  Some exclusive video content about imitation cuckoo clocks, knock-off Swiss army knives and synthetic polyester lederhosen is blocked in Switzerland, because it can generate dangerous increases in blood pressure, especially among the elderly living at higher altitudes.
- Gmo 15y ago
  I'm not in Switzerland but I'm a Frenchman in the Netherlands, and I believe the situation is the same. Basically, there is plenty of content with geographic limitations. Something that might be less visible from the US but that can be pretty annoying once outside. And that's without counting missing services such as Hulu or Netflix, for the same reasons.
  - 15y ago

smickie 15y ago

How will if effect decisions like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15459005 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15459005 ...where BT (big British isp) was told to block sites?

mmavnn 15y ago
I think that legally there is a large difference between them a) blocking one site for all users, and b) monitoring a users actions. In theory you could do the former without ever recording which users attempted to reach the site in question.
asmala 15y ago
Judging by the Court press release[1], it would seem that the unreasonable cost of filtering all P2P traffic for copyrighted material (yes, they actually asked for that) weighed heavily in the Belgian case. This would likely not be much of a factor when it comes to filtering a single domain, as mentioned in the UK case you linked to. Still, the injunction by the EU court could well shift the balance even in cases where blocking is more technically feasible. Fingers crossed. [1]: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.pdf http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011...

asmala 15y ago

This is, for once, an amazingly common sense decision, striking a good balance between IP protection, sensible business environment for the ISP, and personal freedom. From the official press release[1]: "The Court finds that, in adopting the injunction requiring Scarlet to install such a filtering system, the national court would not be respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the right to receive or impart information, on the other." I understand this isn't exactly revolutionary but amidst ACTA, SOPA, bailouts, and similar lunacy, this is a breath of fresh air and a glimmer of hope. [1]: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.pdf http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011... EDIT: Formatting.

mattmanser 15y ago
I totally disagree with you. This is an unelected body making sweeping decisions without any accountability on a set of laws no-one voted for and a 'nation' that no-one voted for. It may be positive for us, but in terms of democracy it highlights how ridiculous the EU and its unaccountable mechanisms have become. I also believe my country, the UK, is trying to wriggle itself out of the human rights laws of the EU as they're too strong and (apparently) being abused, so expect other countries to follow suit and this judgement to be worthless in the long run. After all this is in direct contradiction with explicitly passed laws in this country. Seriously worrying that an EU judge thinks he should start making these claims in direct contradiction to an elected body passing laws.
- seqastian 15y ago
  the UK is part of the EU? .. let me double check that
  - MoreMoschops 15y ago
    Did you finish double-checking yet? It is.

marquis 15y ago

>the war on culture sharing What a powerful concept as an anti-dote to 'war on file-sharing'.