Big Music challenges ECJ Telefonica ruling
p2pnet news | Music:- The European Court of Justice has clearly and firmly ruled EU law doesn’t compel ISPs to disclose the identities or other data of people targeted by the cartels.
But according to Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s IFPI, white is black.
The court states unequivocally:
"Community law does not require the Member States, in order to ensure the effective protection of copyright, to lay down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings."
It goes on:
Promusicae is a Spanish non-profit-making organisation of producers and publishers of musical and audiovisual recordings. It applied to the Spanish courts for an order that Telefónica should disclose the identities and physical addresses of certain persons whom it provided with internet access services, whose IP address and date and time of connection were known. According to Promusicae, those persons were using the KaZaA file exchange program (peer-to-peer or P2P) and providing access in shared files of personal computers to phonograms in which members of Promusicae held the exploitation rights. It therefore sought disclosure of the above information in order to be able to bring civil proceedings against the persons concerned.
Telefónica argued that, under Spanish law,3 the communication of the data sought by Promusicae was authorised only in a criminal investigation or for the purpose of safeguarding public security and national defence.
But, "The ruling in the Promusicae v.Telefonica case confirms that Member States can continue to require disclosure of data in civil proceedings," declares the IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry) in a desperate attempt to debase the ECJ decision.
According to the members of the Big 4 organised music cartel, EU privacy law, "does not preclude the possibility for the Member States of laying down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings. It also recognises that it could not have been the intention of European lawmakers for EU privacy legislation to be used to block effective protection of property rights."
Declares the court:
As to the directives on intellectual property, the Court of Justice finds that they too do not require the Member States to lay down, in order to ensure effective protection of copyright, an obligation to communicate personal data in the context of civil proceedings.
Says the IFPI, "While the Court states that EU Member States are not obliged to provide for disclosure of data in civil proceedings, the judgment does clearly oblige them to strike a balance between respect for privacy on the one hand and the right to protection of property and to effective remedies on the other. In our view, this should ensure that copyright holders must have the ability to obtain the information they need to enforce their rights and obtain effective remedies."
Did the RIAA’s Cary Sherman have a hand in this, one wonders?
Stay tuned.
Also See:
clearly and firmly ruled - ISPs don’t have to reveal user details, January 29, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:48 am
” These are my views, Jon! ”
Not really.
” actually im not a spammer or âmedia peopleâ. im merely bored at work and making comments to get a rise out of someone. ive also posted as âpackinâ a viennaâ to argue with people about stuff. ”
This is also you, using a different name.
Texbook definition of trolling.
You’ve succeeded, unfortunately, though, in totally obfuscating the topic at hand.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:20 am
You really need to stop censoring people that don’t agree with you, Jon.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:57 am
^^ Disagreement is fine. Deliberate and repeated posts designed solely to create dissension, arenât.
Iâve already let you get away with quite a bit of this, but that stops now.
If you have anything genuine to add to any post, for against, go right ahead. Otherwise, expect to see your troll posts deleted.
Cheers!
January 30th, 2008 at 8:03 am
These are my views, Jon! I see youâve already deleted my latest post to Padonak, who attacked me and was really quite offensive [here Musico suggests I delete a post Iâd already deleted - Jon]
You really are no better than what you accuse the Creative Industries of doing. And donât forget, itâs OTHER people attacking ME when I post my views.
Show you are truly for freedom and free speach like you keep saying and leave my posts alone.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:39 am
” Show you are truly for freedom and free speach like you keep saying and leave my posts alone. ”
I am always amused when people who wish only to cause problems use
this as an excuse.
This situation is actually closer to a ‘House Party’ than a public gathering.
Analogous to a group of people invited to a private residence.
If a guest at this private party gets out of line, does nothing but start
problems, makes things uncomfortable for other guests, the property owner
has the right to ask him to leave or have him removed from his private
property. Free speech isn’t the issue in this situation at all.
This is a virtual ‘private party’. We are here as guests in jon’s private space.
He has the full right to kick out anyone who comes here just to cause trouble,
and it has nothing to do with ‘free speech’.
It’s more like cleaning the litter box.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
JON UR THE BEST!