Court Of Human Rights: Convictions For File-Sharing Violate Human Rights(falkvinge.net)
falkvinge.net
Court Of Human Rights: Convictions For File-Sharing Violate Human Rights
http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/07/court-of-human-rights-convictions-for-file-sharing-violates-human-rights/?
21 comments
So what it means is that copyright can not be used as a means to censor free speech? Well, that's what I understood anyway.
That's still interesting. And although I also found the wording very confusing, I upvoted it (I usually do this as a bookmarking method). Please, don't hate me!
That's still interesting. And although I also found the wording very confusing, I upvoted it (I usually do this as a bookmarking method). Please, don't hate me!
Yes, that's roughly what it means, and it isn't exactly surprising, nor new. The rhetoric in the article is tabloid-style reporting.
There was a good explanation of what this ACTUALLY means on Reddit [1].
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1828u4/eu_just_t...
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1828u4/eu_just_t...
[deleted]
Thanks for the link
[–]Falkvinge 2 points 13 hours ago
The case as such and which direction the court in the specific case decided isn't very interesting. What was interesting was these two items that the court decided in passing - that the copyright monopoly stands at odds with ECHR, and that having violated the copyright monopoly law is not sufficient for a conviction.
[–]voxsanity 5 points 12 hours ago
The case as such and which direction the court in the specific case decided isn't very interesting You mean it isn't important that the court reaffirmed that copyright is a fundamental right under the Convention worthy of same protetion as all the rest? The ruling directly shits on your "copyright is a lesser [not fundamental] right" stance. It's not imporant that the court found it ok to fine 3 guys, each 3000-8000€ plus ~250,000€ in damages, because they took picture of a fashion show and posted them online? In essence the court thought that the punishment was appropriate to the infringement in question. It's an insanely high obstacle to pass before freedom of expression trumps ownership rights.
The case as such and which direction the court in the specific case decided isn't very interesting. What was interesting was these two items that the court decided in passing - that the copyright monopoly stands at odds with ECHR, and that having violated the copyright monopoly law is not sufficient for a conviction.
[–]voxsanity 5 points 12 hours ago
The case as such and which direction the court in the specific case decided isn't very interesting You mean it isn't important that the court reaffirmed that copyright is a fundamental right under the Convention worthy of same protetion as all the rest? The ruling directly shits on your "copyright is a lesser [not fundamental] right" stance. It's not imporant that the court found it ok to fine 3 guys, each 3000-8000€ plus ~250,000€ in damages, because they took picture of a fashion show and posted them online? In essence the court thought that the punishment was appropriate to the infringement in question. It's an insanely high obstacle to pass before freedom of expression trumps ownership rights.
In addition to Roel_v's very cogent dismantling of the article, I'd like to point out a separate issue: European copyright law is generally based on a different premise than American copyright law. European copyright law is generally based on the moral right of an author to control access to his original work. If you look at the history of copyright, the U.S. has in an number of cases expanded copyright domestically to match broader protections under international treaties reflecting European laws.
Yes, funny that no-one ever seems to "harmonise" away from what well connected lobbyists want, it's always in the same direction (more copyright in this particular case).
"Well-connected lobbyists" is a boogeyman. Governments have been harmonizing towards more copyright because:
1) It's easy to point to the media industry and whisper the word "jobs." There is no other word, not even "checkbook," that gets a politician to perk up his ears more quickly.
2) We're a society that understands and values property. The idea that someone should have control over their original works, even total control, is an easy sell to a society that defines even a teenager cutting across a yard as illegal trespass. Freedom to share ideas is something we also value, but: a) we associate that much more closely with political speech than creative works;[1] and b) such freedom is a newer, less fundamental idea to us than property.
A great example is moral rights in creative works. There are no "well-connected" art-industry lobbyists that got European legislatures to recognize moral rights to artistic works. It was purely the result of it being an easy sell that artists had inherent rights over their creative works, even extending to a certain ability to control the use of those works post-sale.
[1] And even to the extent we associate it with creative works, we associate it with the right of content creators to publish socially uncomfortable material (pornography, etc), rather than any "right" of content consumers to share other peoples' original content.
1) It's easy to point to the media industry and whisper the word "jobs." There is no other word, not even "checkbook," that gets a politician to perk up his ears more quickly.
2) We're a society that understands and values property. The idea that someone should have control over their original works, even total control, is an easy sell to a society that defines even a teenager cutting across a yard as illegal trespass. Freedom to share ideas is something we also value, but: a) we associate that much more closely with political speech than creative works;[1] and b) such freedom is a newer, less fundamental idea to us than property.
A great example is moral rights in creative works. There are no "well-connected" art-industry lobbyists that got European legislatures to recognize moral rights to artistic works. It was purely the result of it being an easy sell that artists had inherent rights over their creative works, even extending to a certain ability to control the use of those works post-sale.
[1] And even to the extent we associate it with creative works, we associate it with the right of content creators to publish socially uncomfortable material (pornography, etc), rather than any "right" of content consumers to share other peoples' original content.
Interesting, very interesting, maybe we will be able to steer copyright back toward its original purpose ( block plagiarism )
Copyright purpose was not preventing people from getting your work for free, it was to prevent them to pay for your work to someone you did not authorized, like some crazy publishers of 16th century that would happily sell copies of books, even books not complete yet, without paying authors.
Copyright purpose was not preventing people from getting your work for free, it was to prevent them to pay for your work to someone you did not authorized, like some crazy publishers of 16th century that would happily sell copies of books, even books not complete yet, without paying authors.
The original purpose of copyright was censorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early_...
"The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[6] Before the invention of the printing press, a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying by scribes. An elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes existed.[7] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[6] Pope Alexander VI issued a bull in 1501 against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[7]"
Later it was extended as a way for governments to grant money to special interests! Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early_...
"The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[6] Before the invention of the printing press, a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying by scribes. An elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes existed.[7] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[6] Pope Alexander VI issued a bull in 1501 against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[7]"
Later it was extended as a way for governments to grant money to special interests! Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Shakespeare was a victim of this. People would sell copies of his plays and he would get nothing.
“But Shakespeare didn’t just read these texts and imitate their best parts; he made them his own, seamlessly blending them together in his plays. Sometimes the literary approach got Shakespeare into trouble. His peers repeatedly accused him of plagiarism, and he was often guilty, at least by contemporary standards. What these allegations failed to take into account, however, was that Shakespeare was pioneering a new creative method in which every conceivable source informed his art. For Shakespeare, the act of creation was inseparable from the act of connection.”
Page 220, Imagine by Jonah Lehrer
Page 220, Imagine by Jonah Lehrer
Oh, that's very cool! Do you have any recommendations for where I should read about Shakespeare's financial situation and his various motivations for writing his plays? In my mind, because my mind wants Shakespeare to be awesome in every possible way, I assumed that he created his plays with the idea that his work would reach as many people as possible. It never occurred to me that he'd be in it for the money or feel victimized when people valued his work highly enough that they would pass it along, share it, and perform it for others.
Would we know who he was or have as many of his works if they didn't?
Exactly.
Acknowledgement of authorship and perhaps some very limited temporal monopoly on commercial use only, perhaps 10 or 15 years since publication.
That's the difference between encouraging creativity and protecting parasitical monopolies like that of paywalls' owners.
Acknowledgement of authorship and perhaps some very limited temporal monopoly on commercial use only, perhaps 10 or 15 years since publication.
That's the difference between encouraging creativity and protecting parasitical monopolies like that of paywalls' owners.
There's a long explanation of the ruling here:
http://echrblog.blogspot.in/2013/01/copyright-vs-freedom-of-...
http://echrblog.blogspot.in/2013/01/copyright-vs-freedom-of-...
[deleted](1)
Finally, the human rights act does something useful instead of giving criminals lots of extra rights, oh wait...
The linked analysis on the blog contains the real consequences of this ruling:
- posting pictures online that one took himself of someone else's dresses can constitute copyright infringement (not so interesting, this has long been the case - but it's a point that often gets the I-hate-copyright quacks up in arms)
- the distinction was made between 'for monetary benefit' or 'for the public good'. The 'public good' to be interpreted narrowly - saying 'I uploaded the new Metallica album to the pirate bay is my way of sharing culture' is not 'for the public good' (this last point was not made explicitly in the ruling or the analysis but it's implicit from all the previous case law; it would be interesting to see a judgement otherwise, but to the best of my knowledge the ECtHR has so far even refused to just hear cases based on this argument)
- furthermore, to quote from the analysis : "Speech, messages, pictures and content which are merely money driven do not enjoy the added value of the protection guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. In the Court’s view, the margin of appreciation in such circumstances is a very wide one, even in a case where the interference by the authorities takes the form of a criminal conviction or a very high award of damages, both ‘sanctions’ with a risk of having a chilling effect." This is merely reinforcing existing rulings at various levels that got the general interwebs riled up - "it's inhuman to convict somebody to millions in damages to run the pirate bay!" Sorry buddy, ECtHR just said it isn't.
- Choice idiocy, typical falkvinge style:
"When this court makes a decision, that decision gets constitutional status in all of Europe (except for Belarus, which is not a signatory)."
Oh please. OK, not everybody has to be a lawyer, but at least read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism_and_dualism_in_internati... before making dramatic claims like this. Also, using words like 'constitution' that have very different meanings between legal systems (hint: it usually functions very differently in civil law systems as it does in the US) usually only adds confusion; in this case, I'm not sure if it's deliberate or just because of general incompetence.
"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."
What? What the court said was that the 3-step test established in many other aspects of ECtHR rulings apply here as well; he even quoted it one paragraph above his claim: "Exceptions can be made to Human Rights according to a well-defined three-step test: the verdict must be necessary in a democratic society, <etc>"
How he got from that to what he claims, I can only ascribe to acute illiteracy.
Please, sensible people on the internet: don't get your case law reporting / legal advice from falkvinge.net. If you think his reasoning will help you defend your case in court if you even end up there for copyright infringement, you'll be in for a very rude awakening.