Comments on: Belgian Ruling: ISPs Must Protect Copyright

By: V

Sat, 07 Jul 2007 07:13:50 +0000

There’s too much ambiguity. Since nobody can build a magical copyrighted content detector, what specifically would allow an ISP to fulfill this requirement?

By: V

Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:13:50 +0000

There’s too much ambiguity. Since nobody can build a magical copyrighted content detector, what specifically would allow an ISP to fulfill this requirement?

By: Dushyant Patel

Dushyant Patel — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:13:45 +0000

Recital 27 of the Copyright Directive "the mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication does not itself amount to communication within the meaning of the Directive".

This makes it express that the Directive will not apply to ISP's. I hope this decision gets appealed to the ECJ, but it clearly wrong.

By: Dushyant Patel

Dushyant Patel — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:10:25 +0000

Wow, so the ISP's have 6 months to comply with the judgment, if not they are fined 2.5k euros a day. This is an awful decision. It would prove to be costly to invest in technology that would curb copyright infringement, the only cheap way would be a mass blocking of P2P protocols. This would effectively stem innovation and be such a blunt tool.

Also the assertion by the IFPI that a ruling in a lower Court in Belgium sets an EU wide precedent is ludicrous. Only the European Court of Justice can do that.

Furthermore, each State has its own implementing measures for the EU Directive (it isn't a Regulation), this varies country by country. The Belgium decision would only set precedent for that countries Statute.

Secondly, I know vicarious liability is excluded in the UK's implementation of the Copyright Directive by Sections 97a and 191(j)(a) which requires a service provider to have "actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright". So unless the ISP is specifically informed about infringement they won't have to do anything.

The UK legislation also has common carrier provisions, I can't recall them right now but it's just copyright Nazi propaganda that this will speak for the entire EU. It probably won't even speak for the rest of Belgium unless it gets to Appellant. level.

By: Dushyant Patel

Dushyant Patel — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:13:45 +0000

Recital 27 of the Copyright Directive "the mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication does not itself amount to communication within the meaning of the Directive".

This makes it express that the Directive will not apply to ISP's. I hope this decision gets appealed to the ECJ, but it clearly wrong.

By: Dushyant Patel

Dushyant Patel — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:10:25 +0000

Also the assertion by the IFPI that a ruling in a lower Court in Belgium sets an EU wide precedent is ludicrous. Only the European Court of Justice can do that.

Furthermore, each State has its own implementing measures for the EU Directive (it isn't a Regulation), this varies country by country. The Belgium decision would only set precedent for that countries Statute.

Secondly, I know vicarious liability is excluded in the UK's implementation of the Copyright Directive by Sections 97a and 191(j)(a) which requires a service provider to have "actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright". So unless the ISP is specifically informed about infringement they won't have to do anything.

The UK legislation also has common carrier provisions, I can't recall them right now but it's just copyright Nazi propaganda that this will speak for the entire EU. It probably won't even speak for the rest of Belgium unless it gets to Appellant. level.