SABAM v. Netlog: ECJ confirms general filtering systems installed for the prevention of copyright in

SABAM v. Netlog: ECJ confirms general filtering systems installed for the prevention of copyright infringements are disproportionate

www.timelex.eu

SABAM v. Netlog: the ECJ confirms that general filtering systems installed for the prevention of copyright infringements are disproportionate
The European Court of Justice has issued a ruling today in the case SABAM v Netlog NV where it confirms its prior decision in the Scarlet case. The facts of both cases are similar. In Scarlet, the Court had to know about the conformity with the European legal framework of the request made by a Belgian copyright society, SABAM, to an ISP, Scarlet, to implem

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
curia.europa.eu

The European court of justice has today come to a verdict concerning in the case SABAM VS Netlog. The court rules out that it´s illegal within th EU to survey and filter contents on websites with European origin in the soul purpose of hunting filesharers.
The verdict means that the mediacompanies NO longer can sue in the purpose of stopping cultural sharing.

Internetfreedomfighters VS Mediabigdogs 1-0!

This is just wonderful news in Europe!



www.timelex.eu
(visit the link for the full news article)

Bless them. At least some governmental bodies aren't fooled by blatant greed. It does make you wonder how they come to some of the other conclusions they do though, doesn't it? Well, at least we see sense rising to the surface on this occasion. It's a start!

WOW! Just when it looked like an all out aattack on file sharing, we get a win!!! Awesome!

nice...some people wake up in europe - for exampel in germany the ACTA discussion in parlament was during a non-public AGRICULTUR and FISHING!!! discussion....

seriously - this is not america, you cannot fool us this hard...

and austria did a big research and the result - huge damage via piracy is a myth, the opposit is the case...

reply to post by m4ng4n


So, we are winning?

I'm curious: If you all made a living and supported your families by creating intellectual property and getting royalty payments from it, how would you feel if your hard work was being passed around for free?

Is it ok to do this because the perceived intellectual property owners are so "rich"? How low does income level of those you are stealing from have to go before it's no longer acceptable?

reply to post by m4ng4n


So happy these anti-piracy acts have not passed. The entire internet would pretty much shut down if these stupid politicians actually went through with the bill.

Originally posted by MattNC
I'm curious: If you all made a living and supported your families by creating intellectual property and getting royalty payments from it, how would you feel if your hard work was being passed around for free?

Is it ok to do this because the perceived intellectual property owners are so "rich"? How low does income level of those you are stealing from have to go before it's no longer acceptable?

And what you don´t understand is that the most important part of his discussion is concerning freedom on the internet and a NON controlled environment where both sides have a saying and YOU as a individual has a saying and a possibility to make up your own mind about everything.

Take the Libya discussion, Iran or Syria where it´s very important that the whole truth comes out!

If you just listen to the news it´s TPTB´s version of truth and the truth they want YOU to hear.
The verdict is not so much about sharing movies and music so don´t go in that dead end.

With this verdict we still have an option! It´s called the truth!

reply to post by m4ng4n


I'd like a direct answer if you are able.

Originally posted by MattNC
I'm curious: If you all made a living and supported your families by creating intellectual property and getting royalty payments from it, how would you feel if your hard work was being passed around for free?

Is it ok to do this because the perceived intellectual property owners are so "rich"? How low does income level of those you are stealing from have to go before it's no longer acceptable?

I see your point man, but there's something else you're missing. For the 'little guys' file sharing is a boon as it increases market exposure and helps put your work out into the public eye in a way which would not be possible unless you were affiliated with some large corporation. The net result (assuming you're any good and it has to be assumed that your work would only be widely shared if it were any good) is increased exposure and increased demand for your product.

It is only when you get quite large that file sharing really has any potential to eat into your profits, and even then it is still quite ambiguous whether this is the case or not. This is quite an interesting discussion paper on the issue comparing file sharing profit loss vs. increased concert ticket sales.

Downloading digital products for free may harm creators and intermediaries because consumers may no longer buy the version for sale. However, as we show in this paper, this negative effect may be overcompensated by a positive effect due to sampling: consumers are willing to pay more because the match between product characteristics and buyers' tastes is improved. This indeed holds under sufficient taste heterogeneity and product diversity. Source

A recent overview of the current literature on the effect of filesharing on record sales shows that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profits from filesharing. Source

So to answer your question directly, if I were a struggling musician or any other artist and my work was being shared amongst thousands of people around the world I'd be thrilled.

Originally posted by MattNC
reply to post by m4ng4n

 

I'd like a direct answer if you are able.

You had one, from my point of view.

reply to post by m4ng4n

Good news.
If our minister of justice stays true to her word, then this means that ACTA is pretty much dead in Germany.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

I see your point man, but there's something else you're missing. For the 'little guys' file sharing is a boon as it increases market exposure and helps put your work out into the public eye in a way which would not be possible unless you were affiliated with some large corporation. The net result (assuming you're any good and it has to be assumed that your work would only be widely shared if it were any good) is increased exposure and increased demand for your product.

Regardless of business strategy, if I don't want my stuff shared for free, what gives someone the right to offer it for free?

Originally posted by m4ng4n

Originally posted by MattNC
reply to post by m4ng4n

 

I'd like a direct answer if you are able.

You had one, from my point of view.

That's a cop-out, from my point of view. Many people on this site are anti-business, anti-police, anti-etc, etc... that is of course until when they need service or protection from one of those sources they rally against.

Originally posted by MattNC

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

I see your point man, but there's something else you're missing. For the 'little guys' file sharing is a boon as it increases market exposure and helps put your work out into the public eye in a way which would not be possible unless you were affiliated with some large corporation. The net result (assuming you're any good and it has to be assumed that your work would only be widely shared if it were any good) is increased exposure and increased demand for your product.

Regardless of business strategy, if I don't want my stuff shared for free, what gives someone the right to offer it for free?

Do you also think that libraries should be closed?

reply to post by freethinker123



No. They are a wealth of free information.

Originally posted by MattNC
Regardless of business strategy, if I don't want my stuff shared for free, what gives someone the right to offer it for free?

You asked for my point of view and I gave it. If you don't want your stuff being shared around then don't put it out there in the first place.

If you have an idea and tell someone else, and then they tell someone else is that really different from you recording that idea and it being shared, or painting that idea and then someone downloading it and using it as their avatar? Once your idea is out in the public domain its fair game.

In my opinion the only right you have is the rights associated with being the originator. If people are merely sharing your idea and there's no profit involved then so be it. Its gonna happen and that's simply human nature. I mean next you could suggest that only the person who buys a CD has the right to listen to it.

But if people are profiting directly from your idea then yeah I agree with you........ sue the pants off them.

But it does not become public domain until the orginal intellectual property says it's public domain. File sharing sites can't make that decision. Only the owner of the property.

Originally posted by MattNC
But it does not become public domain until the orginal intellectual property says it's public domain. File sharing sites can't make that decision. Only the owner of the property.

When it's in the public domain in my opinion it's public domain. Now if somone stole it form your hard drive and stuck it out there then by all means sue that person. But don't go sueing all the kids who are sharing it with each other. But if you've stuck it onto Myspace, or on Deviantart or something like that then imho too bad.

Most file sharing sites only profit indirectly from advertising and it's my opinion that you're not really entitled to that. If they're actually burning it on to disks and selling it for 2 bucks a pop in Thailand then yeah go for it. Otherwise your just gonna have to suck it up for being stupid and putting it out there before you were ready.