Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday June 17 2017, @09:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-now-the-policing-begins dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

The European Court of Justice handed down a ruling against The Pirate Bay yesterday, one which could have implications far beyond the torrent site. Platforms such as Google and YouTube, which play an active role in the way content is presented, could be seriously affected, experts warn.

After years of legal wrangling, yesterday the European Court of Justice handed down a decision in the case between Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN and ISPs Ziggo and XS4ALL.

BREIN had demanded that the ISPs block The Pirate Bay, but both providers dug in their heels, forcing the case through the Supreme Court and eventually the ECJ.

For BREIN, yesterday's decision will have been worth the wait. Although The Pirate Bay does not provide the content that's ultimately downloaded and shared by its users, the ECJ said that it plays an important role in how that content is presented.

"Whilst it accepts that the works in question are placed online by the users, the Court highlights the fact that the operators of the platform play an essential role in making those works available," the Court said.

With that established the all-important matter is whether by providing such a platform, the operators of The Pirate Bay are effectively engaging in a "communication to the public" of copyrighted works. According to the ECJ, that's indeed the case.

"The Court holds that the making available and management of an online sharing platform must be considered to be an act of communication for the purposes of the directive," the ECJ said.

Add into the mix that The Pirate Bay generates profit from its activities and there's a potent case for copyright liability.

Wait, you mean the EU is even more in the pocket of corporations than the US? Huh...

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-ruling-is-bad-news-for-google-youtube-experts-says-170615/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 18 2017, @12:42AM (5 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday June 18 2017, @12:42AM (#527225) Journal

    First off, copyright is a privilege granted by the government. Be grateful they don't charge a property tax on it.

    Now, copying material that has a copyright and selling it to other people as your own can be seen as stealing. Giving it away is sharing a copy that belongs to the person possessing it.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by weeds on Sunday June 18 2017, @02:26PM (4 children)

    by weeds (611) on Sunday June 18 2017, @02:26PM (#527467) Journal

    Giving it away is sharing a copy that belongs to the person possessing it.

    When you keep a copy for yourself, the result can only be called stealing. Try telling adobe that you paid for a copy of photoshop and it's your right to "share" it with anyone and as many times as you like.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 18 2017, @03:14PM (2 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday June 18 2017, @03:14PM (#527481) Journal

      I don't care what Abode thinks. My copy is my copy to do as I wish. It's not stealing if I don't take their copy. Respect is a two way street. They need to at least say 'please don't copy that floppy'. A prohibition of indefinite duration deserves nothing but contemptuous 'fuck you' in response.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @06:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @06:05AM (#527762)

        Anybody care to say why this is 'flamebait'? Probably not, because it isn't. Somebody is just shillin'...

      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday June 19 2017, @08:53PM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Monday June 19 2017, @08:53PM (#528142)

        A prohibition of indefinite duration deserves nothing but contemptuous 'fuck you' in response.

        Exactly this. Copyright is supposed to be for a limited duration of time. Only the most pernicious pedant would claim that current copyright laws fit that definition. If corporate interests are going to pervert the laws using their undue monetary influence, people are going to fight them the only way they can, which is to ignore them.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by urza9814 on Monday June 19 2017, @02:52PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Monday June 19 2017, @02:52PM (#527932) Journal

      When you keep a copy for yourself, the result can only be called stealing.

      Copyright infringement can *only* be called stealing? It can't be called ANYTHING else? Like maybe "Copyright infringement"??

      Copying isn't taking. Infringement isn't stealing. Breach of contract/license isn't theft. You desperately need to buy and read a dictionary sometime.