Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EU court: 'convictions for file sharing violate human rights'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EU court: 'convictions for file sharing violate human rights'

    huh? I'm a complete dork (and might fail to translate some of those complicated english terms correctly) when it comes to such juristical babble, so can anyone explain that in terms an ordinary person understands ??

    This means that people can no longer get convicted for violating the copyright monopoly alone. The court just declared it illegal for any court in Europe to convict somebody for breaking the copyright monopoly law when sharing culture, only on the merits of breaking the law. A court that tries somebody for violating the copyright monopoly must now also show that a conviction is necessary to defend democracy itself in order to convict. This is a considerably higher bar to meet.

    http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/07/cour...-human-rights/
    "Women don't want to hear a man's opinion, they just want to hear their opinion in a deeper voice."


  • #2
    Defend democracy?!?

    Seems jurisprudence on both sides of the pond is smoking wacky tabaccy, just with different results.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting.

      What they are saying is that you can not be convicted for copyright infringement purely because you're infringing copyright. Your human rights supersede copyright law. Your human rights _do not_ supercede democracy, so if your copyright infringement is adverse to [the survival] of democracy as well, than you may be convicted.

      I am not sure whether this relates to criminal law only or includes civil law.
      Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
      [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
        Defend democracy?!?

        Seems jurisprudence on both sides of the pond is smoking wacky tabaccy, just with different results.
        Reading a bit more it actually makes sense. Art. 10 is simply a freedom of expression clause but that freedom of expression is limited to utterances that are dangerous to society/democracy. If such utterance is then also protected under copyright, then copyright law applies as well.

        This is a decent analysis and the blog-guy got it mostly wrong: http://echrblog.blogspot.in/2013/01/...xpression.html

        It is not ruled that it is a human right to infringe on copyright. Certainly not on a commercial basis (which is why Art. 10 actually was irrelevant in the case, the infringers remained fined). It is just that if you actually have something to say then what you say is not subject to copyright law (even if someone else owns the copyright to what you say).

        No, allowing movies to be downloaded by torrent remains illegal.
        Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
        [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

        Comment

        Working...
        X