The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the convictions of Fredrik NEIJ and Peter SUNDE KOLMISOPPI, operators of The Pirate Bay bittorrent site did not violate Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the convictions of the defendants for criminal copyright infringement did not violate their rights to freedom of expression as the convictions and jail sentences imposed by Sweden’s Court of Appeal was “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. The application to set aside the convictions was rejected “as manifestly ill-founded”.
Archive for the ‘human rights’ category
Criminal copyright convictions of The Pirate Bay operators “necessity in democratic society” says human rights courtMarch 13th, 2013
With Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act, on its way to clause by clause review Canadians have a chance to think about what values they want copyright to reflect. Canadians are being bombarded with a dizzying array of information about amendments that have been proposed including amendments related to enablement, statutory damages, TPMs and fair dealing. Much of the information is inaccurate and emotionally super-charged to garner as much visceral reaction as possible. A significant portion of it originates from Internet activist Michael Geist and is repeated throughout the blogosphere and in the traditional news media, usually with no attempt at analysis.
Information wants to be free. But, helping people to steal access to it is still a crime as an Oregon man just found out after being convicted of wire fraud for helping thousands steal internet service.
The defendant, Ryan Harris, ran a company called TCNISO. It distributed software and hardware tools that enabled customers to modify their cable modems to mask themselves as paying customers. In his defense Harris claimed assisting customers in their cable modem hacking activities was justified because it facilitated access to the internet. According to a report:
I just finished reading the fascinating reasons delivered by the Quebec Court of Appeal in the France Animation v Robinson, 2011 QCCA 1361 case. The main issue in the appeal was whether sketches and characters of the proposed TV series Robinson curiosity were infringed by the series Robinson sucro. The trial judge found infringement and the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, in part.
Recently, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression released a controversial report in which he stated he was
“alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three strikes-law” in France and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.”
In a blog post yesterday, How IP Enforcement Can Be Used To Suppress Dissent, Prof. Geist argues that “tougher enforcement measures” of IP laws are connected with civil rights abuses by governments to quell political dissent. He further claims that the USTR Special 301 report was connected to the recent Russian raids against advocacy groups and news organizations in Russia. He also postulates that enforcement of IP rights under ACTA would increase such abuses and accordingly would be “a dangerous and misguided approach that is apt to cause more problems than it solves”.
Here are the slides used in my presentation to the Toronto Computer Lawyers Group earlier today, The Year in Review: Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2009-2010). It covers significant developements since my talk last spring.
The slides include a summary of the following cases and statutory references:
Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia, 2010 SCC 4
Internet Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. v Mar LLC  EWHC 844 (Ch)
Gammasonics Institute for Medical Research Pty Ltd v Comrad Medical Sysytems Pty Ltd  NSWSC 267 (9 April 2010)
Kingsway Hall Hotel Ltd. v Red Sky IT (Hounslow) Ltd.  EWHC 965
Last week, the Irish High Court released an important decision in the EMI Records & Ors -v- Eircom Ltd ,  IEHC 108 case. The court held that a settlement agreement between an Irish ISP, Eircom, and owners of copyright protected sound recordings and videos to implement a voluntary graduated response system was compatible with Irish data protection legislation. The ruling by Justice Charleton delivered on 16th April, 2010, is noteworthy not only because it found that collecting and using IP addresses for the purposes of sending out graduated response notices to subscribers does not violate data protection legislation. It is also noteworthy because the court recognized that the right to copyright is a human right protected by the Constitution of Ireland, 1937; and that the graduated response protocol was fully justified in light of the importance of copyright and the adverse effects of unauthorized online file sharing.