Copyright? Copywrong?  Why do fundamental rights matter in copyright policy? Read 

A Copyright Masquerade: how corporate lobbying threatens online freedoms

'Recommend it heartily' Society for Computers & the Law (SCL) 'valuable resource' Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

Available worldwide in paperback or download  Amazon Kindle: United States   -  UKGermany  - France   -  Italy - Spain

EPub: Waterstones EPub  -    Angus and Robertson E-book Instant Download (Australia)    

The European Advocate General  says  that network filtering for copyright will breach privacy and free expression rights.  But his Opinion has further relevance for any mandate on ISPs to install filtering systems for copyright purposes.

 

The European Advocate General  has said that filtering and blocking systems which monitor users  in order to prevent downloading or transmission  of copyrighted content is a restriction on the right to privacy and data protection.

 

The Advocate General's statement is written in his Opinion issued today,  relating  to a case which is current in the Belgian courts. The case of Sabam v Scarlet, where Sabam is the Belgian music copyright society, and Scarlet is a Belgian ISP. The judge in the case had referred  a number of questions to  the ECJ  in order to obtain its  views before making a ruling.

 

The questions relate to the  use of network filtering technologies for  copyright enforcement, and to the imposition of a mandate for ISPs to install filtering technology for that purpose. In Sabam v Scarlet, the ISP was being asked to filter all content for songs in Sabam's repertoire and to block transmissions of that content by users. Scarlet was being asked to pay for the filtering and blocking system entirely out of its own funds.

 

The Advocate General's Opinion has three important statements. Firstly, he

 states that the installation of such a filtering and blocking system is a restriction on the right to privacy, as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It would  also, he says, restrict freedom of expression.

 

There is no parallel provision to safeguard Internet users against any intrusion or breach of their privacy.

 

And the mandate placed on the Scarlet  would have the effect of delegating the legal responsibility  - ie liablity  - for copyright enforcement onto the ISP. He considered that it constitutes a general obligation to monitor (which is not permitted under EU law).

 

Interestingly, he comments that such a mandate would exist on a perpetual basis. And that blocking would take place  - not in respect of any specific accusation against a user - but as a general preventative measure.  In this respect, the measures entailed are quite different from 3-strikes measures.

 

La Quadrature du Net said that the ruling should put a spanner in the Commission’s anticipated proposals for its review of the IPR Enforcement directive.
 

 The Advocate General is recommending that, in its formal  answer to the Belgian court,  the European Court of Justice  should make a declaration consistent with the following legal position  :

 

"that EU law precludes a national court from making an order, on the basis of the Belgian statutory provision, requiring an internet service provider to install, in respect of all its customers, in abstracto and as a preventive measure, entirely at the expense of the internet service provider and for an unlimited period, a system for filtering all electronic communications passing via its services (in particular, those involving the use of peer-to-peer software) in order to identify on its network the sharing of electronic files containing a musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which a third party claims rights, and subsequently to block the transfer of such files, either at the point at which they are requested or at the point at which they are sent. "

 

 

Flattr this  

 

 

The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2011)    http://www.iptegrity.com  14 April 2011.This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed.

 

 

Iptegrity takes a break

I took advantage of the European elections and break in the EU policy schedule to give myself a break after nearly 7 years. In August I sprained my wrist & have symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome. I will resume when the symptoms have subsided. I hope my readers will understand.

PS 21 October. My wrist is mostly healed now. I will take up the blog again by the end of this month.

Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten,  policy writer and Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics & Political Science. She is an independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee on Cross-border flow of Internet traffic and Internet freedom (MSI-INT). She was shortlisted for The Guardian Open Internet Poll 2012. Iptegrity  offers expert insights into Internet policy. Iptegrity is read by lawyers, academics, policy-makers and citizens, and cited in the media. Please acknowledge Iptegrity when you cite or link.  For more, see IP politics with integrity

Iptegrity.com is made available free of charge for  non-commercial use, Please link-back & attribute Monica Horten. Thank you for respecting this.

Contact  me to use  iptegrity content for commercial purposes