TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Court: ISP Not Responsible When Subscribers Infringe Copyrights

In a case brought by EMI against one of Germany’s largest Internet service providers, a court has ruled that the ISP cannot be held liable when its subscribers infringe copyright. Music giant EMI wanted the ISP to block a certain file-sharing site but the court decided otherwise and dismissed the case.

After calls to the Russian host of a file-sharing site to shut down the service failed, in early 2010 a leading music label launched legal action against one of Germany’s largest ISPs.

Although the identities of the plaintiff, defendant and file-sharing site are redacted from court papers, the case reference (28 0 362/10) reveals a lawsuit between EMI Music and ISP HanseNet Telekommunikations.

EMI argued that HanseNet was involved in infringing its copyrights by providing Internet access to subscribers using a file-sharing links site.

To this end, the label argued that the ISP, Germany’s 4th largest, should stop providing subscriber access to the service by way of DNS blocking. Furthermore, to counter the site changing its URL or IP address to circumvent any court ordered injunction, EMI also asked for the site’s current and future IP addresses to be blocked.

HanseNet argued that as a mere conduit of information as detailed under the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC, it is not responsible for the actions of others using its services.

The ISP also argued that infrastructure for carrying out such blocking isn’t in place and, in any event, such blocks are easily circumvented making it technically impossible for it to comply fully with any banning order.

Furthermore, even if a block could be carried out effectively, HanseNet said that such action is not required by law. The ISP argued that the blocking of a website constitutes a substantial interference with the fundamental right to freedom of information, and without legal basis could not be carried out.

In its recent ruling, the Cologne Regional Court decided that as an ISP HanseNet is not liable for the infringements of its customers. Describing the lawsuit as “unfounded”, the Court dismissed the case.

Christian Solmecke, a lawyer heavily involved in file-sharing cases at the Wilde Beuger Solmecke law firm, told TorrentFreak that in his opinion the decision is correct.

“The defendant is only a technical provider. He is not allowed to track the traffic of its users. The judge said, that looking into the traffic stream would be an infringement of German communication law. Furthermore the court stated, that blocking a domain is ineffective and therefore useless,” he explains.

Solmecke says that the Cologne Regional Court usually makes decisions in favor of copyright holders so the change in this case is welcome.

“We will try to use some of the argumentation of the court in our actual file-sharing cases. Especially we will try to convince the court, that parents have no chance to control the surfing behavior of their children,” Solmecke concludes.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Systemfailure

    Epic failure on repeat.

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      Do I hear appeals? Can it be appealed for yet another failure? ;)

      I just love when MAFIAA takes it up the arse.

    • Anonymous

      ..,awesomee,, I just got a $829.99 iPad2 for only $103.37 and my mom got a $1499.99 HDTV for only $251.92, they are both coming with USPS tomorrow. I would be an idiot to ever pay full retail prîces at places like Walmart or Bestbuy. I sold a 37″ HDTV to my boss for $600 that I only paid $78.24 for.
      I use EgoWïn.com

  • Danny

    Indeed!
    We have had some good news these last couple of weeks, ‘times they are a changin’!

    • Anonymous

      You think?

      These aren’t one off attacks. We now know that every case is linked, a global push directed by the MAFIAA, backed by the US government.

      These small wins are good, but the attacks won’t stop until we take on the source.

      • pulley

        The US government, MAFIAA are the true terrorists
        They are racketeering
        shame on them

      • http://profiles.google.com/perge74 Per Gerhardt

        Every time one of these cases is dismissed however, it sets a solid precedent for the future. Courts are slowly learning how “freedom of communication” works on a digital level and how existing laws safeguarding the right to communicate is applicable to the internet.

        This is good. As can be seen from the courts judgement and summary, it appears that they have got the message – that the only way to block “unwanted” communication is to block ALL communication.

      • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

        In Hungary there is a saying: “If you don’t appreciate the small, you don’t deserve the big.” These may be small victories, but in the end these are the victories, that matter (for example by setting precedents for similar cases in the future).

      • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

        In Hungary there is a saying: “If you don’t appreciate the small, you don’t deserve the big.” These may be small victories, but in the end these are the victories, that matter (for example by setting precedents for similar cases in the future).

  • Danny

    Indeed!
    We have had some good news these last couple of weeks, ‘times they are a changin’!

  • Anon

    This is fair and a good decision. It’s not right that internet users hide and sneak and infringe content online and industry must continue to find ways to remonetize the work they and their artists do so that workers can be paid as before. Government will assist, too, because pilfered content with no purchase price doesn’t support a country’s basic economy as it always has and as it must in the future to create typical tax revenue streams. Piracy dismantling the value price equation is a problem that will eventually diminish everyone, and only the pirates are so shortsighted they refuse to acknowledge it. They are too busy making free copies.

    It’s one thing not to pay middleman industries. It’s something else entirely that the price hasn’t turned up directly to the creators and artists themselves, not in 10 years despite many ways to now legally do just that. Piracy is about getting for-sale merchandise for free and until the workers themselves collect in similar amounts and ways for similar work they do as the middle men industries once did, “something for nothing whether it harms the creator or not” will continue to define what piracy really is.

  • Anon

    This is fair and a good decision. It’s not right that internet users hide and sneak and infringe content online and industry must continue to find ways to remonetize the work they and their artists do so that workers can be paid as before. Government will assist, too, because pilfered content with no purchase price doesn’t support a country’s basic economy as it always has and as it must in the future to create typical tax revenue streams. Piracy dismantling the value price equation is a problem that will eventually diminish everyone, and only the pirates are so shortsighted they refuse to acknowledge it. They are too busy making free copies.

    It’s one thing not to pay middleman industries. It’s something else entirely that the price hasn’t turned up directly to the creators and artists themselves, not in 10 years despite many ways to now legally do just that. Piracy is about getting for-sale merchandise for free and until the workers themselves collect in similar amounts and ways for similar work they do as the middle men industries once did, “something for nothing whether it harms the creator or not” will continue to define what piracy really is.

    • Danny

      Anon did you read a different article to me?

      It was a fair decision and the judge stated that no-one in German should spy on the communications of others. That is a big blow to your bosses who are trying to push filtering so hard in every country. Its like a big middle finger in your direction!

      German money not spent on American films / music is money being spent in German and recirculated into the German economy. So its in the countries interest to allow file-sharing surely?

      All artists and members of the MAFIAA have yet to prove they have been losing any money. Their whole loss calculation is based on faulty maths. They are in fact making more money than ever, despite this so called piracy killing the industry. Troll off somewhere else!

      • YoureNotAWanker

        “Anon did you read a different article to me?”

        I think the answer to that is a most definitive “yes”. I think your comment was much more appropriate and actually related to the article than Anon’s. Then again, any chance to spew rhetoric, he’ll take it. He’s become the new Jack Murdock. Jack used to go so far off topic that you’d literally reread what he did write and say “huh” and then scroll up to double check what the article was about, now Jack just puts a simple spin and points a finger elsewhere, and Anon runs off into the woods (instead of staying on the clearly marked walking path).

      • MAFIAAFire

        Oh good!
        After reading “anon”‘s reply I was like “WTF??!”
        Did I read the article wrong because nobody could be THAT moronic… turns out I was wrong, there are indeed morons out there of a scale previously unheard of – the fact they are related to the the copyright industries cannot be a coincidence.

        • Systemfailure

          Didn’t I say Epic Failure on Anon’s view.. in fact the whole thing is a failure. is that a win?

        • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

          Yeah, because there is no way that there is anyone who disagrees with you is doing so actually because they actually believe in different values. Please, Mafiaafire, let’s not deceive ourselves here. You’re part of that system that is undermining the value of the artist’s work, you just can’t bring yourself to admit it.

          It’s amusing how people here have responded to anon’s post and completely dodged every point that he made and manage to still act like they came out on top.

        • Trespass

          @ Jack
          Actually you and Anon are disagreeing with an entire philosophy which you are indeed the minority here on this site. If you require a group hug, go to that Copyright Enforcement website I saw in another article.

          Anon made no point, his comment was an off topic RANT.

          You have adopted a thesaurus, obviously, since you have found new ways of saying “stealing”. Now we are “undermining the value”. Show me the evidence, please. Show me how file sharing has hurt all the record breaking sales I read about every year for both music and film. Show me ONE person who lost their job due to file sharing. It’s all a load of propaganda.

          We on the other hand show you proof that copying is not theft and you refuse to accept it. ( that supreme court ruling. I’m sure you’ve heard of it) So who is delusional?

          If you do not like the replies you get here feel free to leave since you are the epitome of the definition of troll as per wikipedia.

          I really cannot figure out your objective in arguing your point to a hostile crowd. Seems pretty futile to me. You are not going to endear anyone to your cause here.

          I am off topic only to reply to you, Jack. Anon was not replying to anyone.

        • http://profiles.google.com/perge74 Per Gerhardt

          @Jack Murdock

          “It’s amusing how people here have responded to anon’s post and completely dodged every point that he made and manage to still act like they came out on top.”

          If someone starts a posts with a statement which can only be described as insane – or which underscores that the author of the comment hasn’t even read the article he decides to comment on – then there is no real need to read the rest of the gibberish.

          But for the record, every point Anon made is, in effect, irrelevant both to the topic at hand and as concerns filesharing in general. They are also demonstrably false as his points relies on premises which have been disproven by roughly a dozen properly performed scientific studies over the last ten years or more.

          Just about the only argument he has remaining as factual is “Artists want money”. Fine, but that has no relevance to how freedom of speech or communication is to be handled by the body politic.

    • Ryzzo

      But… but… Piracy!!!1!

      I have an honest question for you, Anon. If all file-sharing was magically wiped out today, how many people who currently download would actually buy?

      My bet would be a very small percentage. I also believe that if there was no file-sharing available, the content owners would see a drop in revenue.

      I personally no longer spend my money on things that I am unable to confirm is worth the money spent, and I know that there are a lot of others out there that think the same way. I do not pay for games I haven’t played, I do not pay for music I haven’t heard, and I do not pay for movies I haven’t seen. The only exception is when I’m familiar with prior work and would consider myself a fan. I go to the theater without downloading a cam if I’m really excited for the film. Likewise when a favorite artist drops a new album, I’ll grab it without downloading first if I can find a high quality source without DRM that is as accessible as a pirated version.

      If file-sharing magically went away, none of the above would change. I wouldn’t suddenly feel that because I can’t preview something in order to make an educated decision on whether it is worth the money, that I should risk wasting the money on what might turn out to be garbage. I will wait to hear it from a friend or wait to watch it on TV for free, or simply do without.

      I have given more money to the content industries because of file-sharing due to finding things I like that I wouldn’t have paid for to find out otherwise. I am not alone feeling this way or in engaging in this type of “try before you buy” approach. So I ask you again, and would request you be honest with us and yourself, how many would buy if they couldn’t download?

      • Booksforall

        “I also believe that if there was no file-sharing available, the content owners would see a drop in revenue”

        Just felt like posting this video “Neil Gaiman on Copyright Piracy and the Web”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

      • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

        Why does a pirate choose to download one movie or game over another? I very much doubt they just go onto their favorite torrent site and choose torrents at random. They are clearly interested in whatever they are downloading. Hence, when the free route is removed, they would have no choice but to opt for payment.

        Now I very much doubt that this would all happen overnight. There would be the riots in the streets where they complain about their hypothetical right to free things has been disregarded.. But in the end, I doubt very few of the 100+ million pirates out there are prepared to give up all entertainment. Or maybe they can stick with the couple dozen low budget free things that are offered through vodo.

        Pirates take it for granted that they can get all the latest and greatest with no act of self sacrifice on their part. They claim that what they download has no value to them just because they think they’ve reduced the monetary value to nothing. Well, when their free option is taken away, let’s just see how little value their entertainment has for them.

        “I also believe that if there was no file-sharing available, the content owners would see a drop in revenue.”
        So the paying customers would be so incensed by the fact that people who no longer be able to rip off the creators that they would stop paying. I doubt it. The industry has asked people nicely to compensate artists, but people refuse finding more devious means of defrauding them. Well now they are given no choice but to step things up. People have had over a decade to change. But pirates were too hypnotized by the endless supply of free stuff to change.

        • Trespass

          @ Jack—Before the advent of the digital age, I recorded movies off of HBO, music from friends, bought from pawn shops, copied and sold them back. How was I helping the content owners then? I’ve always bought books from Half Price Books and other second hand stores.

          Point being, if I never bought anything new, how are the creators getting compensated? I think it is ridiculous to buy new when recycled is a fraction of the price.

        • Guest

          I am downloading a game right this second that I used to own, until it got ruined. I bought the game, played it for a bit, then it broke, so now I am downloading it, as if it never broke, I am just playing a game I paid for.

          I don’t have much money, I’m completely honest when I say that, I have a bad computer, horrible bandwidth, little money for food but get buy. I very rarely buy a game or movie, and it’s only ones I really like. I pirate everything else. I would not EVER buy them, I just don’t have the money, so I enjoy myself WITHOUT hurting the expense of others. They never would have got my money anyway.

          I just get more for the maximum amount I can afford.

        • Guest102

          The legacy entertainment industry had over a decade to change. Instead they chose to try to outlaw sharing and destroy property rights (remember, copyrights destroy property rights). The reason they call other people thieves is because deep down they know they are the thieves.

          If you don’t want something copied, don’t release it.

        • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

          “…when the free route is removed, they would have no choice but to opt for payment.”

          WRONG again evil troll.
          The choices become -
          1. want item but have to do without due to price and poverty;
          2. pay for item like a good wee citizen, then discover you’ve bought crap and been ripped off as there’s no right to a refund;
          3. view item for free elsewhere, or hear from a reliable source (eg friends or family) item is worth cash, then buy.

          Back to your dark, damp cave please …

        • IDIOCRACY

          @Jack
          It is very simple, Example: lets say I have a budget of 20 euro’s a month for movies and or games and or music, then I will download all I am interested in to see what is worht this 20 euro’s, and then I found my movie game or music, and then I buy the original or go to the theater to see the real thing. Stopping downloading will not get me buy all I downloaded before, maybe even buy me nothing because I don’t want to spend my 20 euros on garbage, and if I didn’t see it first, I don’t know what is garbage and what is not (because if I knew that in the first place, I would not even bother downloading it) so ….I really wonder where you will get the payment for all the other downloads that take place, did you know that if all downloads/ (try before you buys) over the past 10 years would be paid for (your words and figures) there would be enough money to buy the U.S. and as we all know, that is impossible hehe. oh no …in the US they just print some more…(they obviously don’t care that it weakens their economy). I think I will spent my 20 euros this month on some Heineken because I didn’t find anything worth buying… hehe

        • Ryzzo

          “So the paying customers would be so incensed by the fact that people who no longer be able to rip off the creators that they would stop paying. I doubt it. The industry has asked people nicely to compensate artists, but people refuse finding more devious means of defrauding them. Well now they are given no choice but to step things up. People have had over a decade to change. But pirates were too hypnotized by the endless supply of free stuff to change. ”

          Arrgh, Pirate Jack, glad to see trolling is still profitable for you. I think you may have missed my point all the way around, but the revenue drop issue is so far off the mark it deserves a response. I even tried to use small words to avoid confusion, but alas…

          I was never implying that customers who pay now would stop paying because file-sharers couldn’t download. What I said was that file-sharers (who have been shown to be the industry’s best customers) will buy less because they cannot readily preview the product to decide whether or not to buy. Without the ability to preview the product, people will be less inclined to branch out into unfamiliar territory to try new artists or products because it could be a costly mistake. They’ll stick with what they know and support the artists and developers they like but potentially miss out on new experiences that may have generated revenue for the new artist or developer.

          I have found dozens of bands and games that I have purchased simply because I could conveniently preview their product through file-sharing, and, I don’t know how to stress this enough, I WOULD HAVE NEVER PAID FOR THEM WITHOUT DOWNLOADING FIRST!!! Again, I am not alone in this consumption model. I spend significantly more money because of file-sharing. If you and your overlords break the internet, I will have significantly more money to spend on other things… like strippers… and booze… and law school.

        • Ryzzo

          “So the paying customers would be so incensed by the fact that people who no longer be able to rip off the creators that they would stop paying. I doubt it. The industry has asked people nicely to compensate artists, but people refuse finding more devious means of defrauding them. Well now they are given no choice but to step things up. People have had over a decade to change. But pirates were too hypnotized by the endless supply of free stuff to change. ”

          Arrgh, Pirate Jack, glad to see trolling is still profitable for you. I think you may have missed my point all the way around, but the revenue drop issue is so far off the mark it deserves a response. I even tried to use small words to avoid confusion, but alas…

          I was never implying that customers who pay now would stop paying because file-sharers couldn’t download. What I said was that file-sharers (who have been shown to be the industry’s best customers) will buy less because they cannot readily preview the product to decide whether or not to buy. Without the ability to preview the product, people will be less inclined to branch out into unfamiliar territory to try new artists or products because it could be a costly mistake. They’ll stick with what they know and support the artists and developers they like but potentially miss out on new experiences that may have generated revenue for the new artist or developer.

          I have found dozens of bands and games that I have purchased simply because I could conveniently preview their product through file-sharing, and, I don’t know how to stress this enough, I WOULD HAVE NEVER PAID FOR THEM WITHOUT DOWNLOADING FIRST!!! Again, I am not alone in this consumption model. I spend significantly more money because of file-sharing. If you and your overlords break the internet, I will have significantly more money to spend on other things… like strippers… and booze… and law school.

        • gae

          You fail to relaise that even if I may want to watch a movie and there was no way to download it, if I don’t have the money for it or am not prepared to pay the asking price then that is it – the company selling the movie will not get any of my money and nothing they could do can change that. Just because they create something this does not give them an automatic right to my money.

          And as for ‘People have had over a decade to change’ then the content creators have also had this same decade to change but have fought against change all the way. Just remember how when they first discovered you could send music to people anywhere in the world instantly over the inertnet with almost zero distribution costs, they spent years trying to stamp it out befoere finally giving up and creating (drm filled) legal music services. As for movies, they are still so far behind with satisfying what customers want that they are almost encouraging piracy themselves.

    • Guest102

      Remember linux “cost” over a billion to develop in a conservative estimate, and you can get that for free. Perhaps we should just give whiny self-entitiled toddler copyrightists who think it’s okay to censor a free ubuntu cd, and maybe a glass of milk and a cookie and send them to bed. The information that’s already freely available to those poor starving artists is more than anyone could ever hope to produce in a lifetime. Unlawful doesn’t mean wrong. It’s right to break unjust laws, and you don’t get many more unjust than copyright monopoly law. If you don’t want something copied, don’t release it.

      Yhey have no right to any control over copies other than their own. They retain full control over their copy, the actual physical product of their work. It is their choice to release a copy. Remember, physical property law and copyright monopolies are actively incompatible, as demonstrated by N. Stephan Kinsella. If you’re for copyright, you’re against property.

      http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

      Beware of the dangerous mistake of regarding all copies as “one thing”. They’re not – if you have two copies, and destroy one copy, the other still exists. Different things, QED. Copyrightists have a persistent “whats mine is mine and what’s thine is mine too” attitude that is frankly disgusting.

      • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

        A great example of how pirates love to deflect everything. They call hardworking artists “self entitled” when the freeloaders themselves want everything there is to download but believe they have a god given right to not pay back a single penny for any of it.


        Yhey have no right to any control over copies other than their own. They retain full control over their copy, the actual physical product of their work. It is their choice to release a copy. Remember, physical property law and copyright monopolies are actively incompatible, as demonstrated by N. Stephan Kinsella. If you’re for copyright, you’re against property.”
        No matter who copies it, it was still their work which they invested their time and money in it. Having not invested anything in the work’s creation, what gives YOU the right to it? Hm?

        The line between physical property and digital property is superficial at best. Many people seem to believe that just because digital property is easier to steal that means that there shouldn’t be laws against stealing it. Whoever wrote that little attack on copyright you linked to apparently never realized that this isn’t the 21st century and not the middle ages. Scarcity is not something relevant unless you live in a third world country. If you live in somalia, a piece of food is very valuable because it is scarce. I guess the author has never heard of something called supply and demand? The fact that many people choose not to pay for intellectual property does not devalue said ip because there are still a considerable number of people are still willing to pay for the product. In fact, if anything it drives the price up. If you don’t like the price of things, maybe you have yourselves to blame?

        People like to believe that merely being able to choose to pay for things removes all value from a creative work and you would be wrong.

        • Guest102

          You have no understanding of economics. I suggest you actually read the article. Oh, and against intellectual monopoly by boldrin and levine. It absolutely demolishes any argument from your pathetic thieving copyrightist side.

        • Guest103

          THEIR copy is their work. And time and money put into something’s creation are not relevant – you still suffer from a labor theory of value fallacy, eric.

        • http://goo.gl/bFts Needlez

          @ Jack: I just want to point out somethings with your arguement that fall a bit short. ” The line between physical property and digital property is superficial at best. ” Jack there isn’t a difference between the physical property and the digital property. If they don’t want it copied at all then they shouldn’t have released it to the public. It’s like with the Linux OS. If they had never released it to the public not many would use it or even know about it, but since they did it grew and grew, and guess what how much does Linux cost? nothing. Most a company charges for the shipping rates and that’s about $5. Wow, big deal, but companies like Microsoft want $150 + for XP which is an outdated system and 200+ for 7 which frankly isn’t any better. Now back to my point. If they release the content to a library which most things are released to and I go and rent it for free did they make any money? NO. Furthermore, if I tell my friends to rent it from the library would they? No, they’d ask me for the movie and I’d let them watch it, then take it back. And if they liked it they could buy it or rent it again. So really whats the difference between me doing that and me making a copy of it for me to preview and then paying to see it in the cinema? There is no difference. Not at least from a standpoint that gains any amount of money. See what you fail to realize I think is that before the internet was around people shared movies, cds, and all forms of information manually. The internet just made the process faster, easier, and allowed for us to keep a copy while sharing with the world that work of art. Do the artists make money if I rent it for free from a library? No. not directly, and do they make money if I download it for free? No, not directly. So what’s the difference? If you can prove that there is a difference between these similarities besides the arguement that the library has the content licensed and so the artist already made money off that sale please let me know. Because most libraries or places like that get there CD’s as donations for free or even their copies are pirated.

        • GoddamnButYoureAWanker

          “A great example of how pirates love to deflect everything.”

          Look who’s talking. I’ve seen you ignore the entire content of articles and change the subject to something else, just to keep calling people thieves or pointing fingers at pirates.

          As for “self entitled”, I believe most people refer to the middlemen. Not necessarily the actual creators. Middlemen feel they’re entitled to continue profiting off the work of others, in addition to feeling they have a right to be protected through legislative processes that they essentially put in place, and then feel that the cost of said processes must be paid for by the public. That is self-entitlement to the upteenth degree, more so than any pirate.

          As for the line between physical and digital property, while you may feel it’s “superficial at best”, courts currently have ruled that there is a distinction, and it’s enough to allow for a difference between in how it’s viewed in the eyes of the law. Sort of like the difference between stealing and copyright infringement.

          And f*ck it, as for your thing about no one refuting Anon up above, no one has to. He went completely off topic. He didn’t even discuss the article at all and went off on a major tangent, it deserves no response beyond “wtf are you saying”. Literally. It made no sense. You yourself do the same. And on a regular basis.

          So what now? Do we really wanna do the you talk, I refute the points you make dance, over and over? It seems to be a waste of time. You speak of refuting points made, but you yourself don’t do that. I find myself more and more astounded by the level of hypocrisy you exhibit. You’ve never refuted a single thing anyone’s actually said, never presented proof to support your claims (or better said, your OPINIONS), etc. But you feel a need to lecture others about refuting claims, presenting evidence and citing sources, etc. Maybe you should think about what you’re saying before you say it. You only make yourself look more and more foolish and desperate to state your already established points of view.

          Get some new material or go away. There are plenty of sites where your diatribe would be better suited to the environment.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          “The line between physical property and digital property is superficial at best.”

          No it’s not. One of the first americans to discard that idea was Thomas Jeffersson – followed closely by any number of genius economists.

          Physical items and information are so far apart the only possible way to even make a comparison is by writing a line of words stating that they are comparable. Which doesn’t alter reality.

          The only way to keep information a “property” is by not distributing it in the first place – i.e. keep it a secret. Once it is no longer secret it is for all intents and purposes the property of anyone who has come in contact with it.

          Once you can copy a physical item an infinite number of times at negligible cost or effort, THEN your statement about superficial differences applies. Otherwise not.

          Seriously Jack…what you are displaying is such nonsense it makes one wonder just how badly off you are both in intelligence and education. Children at the age of five could probably disprove your statement with simple logic.

        • Fredrika

          > “Having not invested anything in the work’s creation, what gives YOU the right to it? Hm?”

          People are already the owners of their own physical property, they do not need any right to do with it as they wish, like for instance manufacture their own copies.

          > “The line between physical property and digital property is superficial at best.”

          There’s no digital property involved in filesharing. The only property that’s involved is the physical property that the filesharer own himself.

          > “Many people seem to believe that just because digital property is easier to steal that means that there shouldn’t be laws against stealing it.”

          Absolutely no person believes what you just claimed. However, your claim is only relevant to Bitcoins and other unique items in digital communities and games. It has no relevance to filesharing and intrusions into legislative monopolies, such as copyright infringements.

          > “I guess the author has never heard of something called supply and demand?”

          Nor you it seems? Since people can manufacture their own physical copies, with their own physical property, in an endless supply, there’s no longer any demand for the business model of manufacture, distributing and selling physical copies.

          > “The fact that many people choose not to pay for intellectual property does not devalue said ip because there are still a considerable number of people are still willing to pay for the product.”

          Consumers do not pay for intellectual property. They pay for physical copies, if they buy them. The intellectual works, or the physical copies, does not constitute intellectual property. You seem to have misunderstood that basic fundamental fact. The copyright monopoly is what constitutes an intellectual property. An intellectual work is not property.

          > “In fact, if anything it drives the price up. If you don’t like the price of things, maybe you have yourselves to blame?”

          No. The sellers chose themselves what prices they set on their products. Since they have no understanding of how to price their products to make them worth their price, people no longer buy them, but instead manufacture their own physical copies with their own physical property, since that comes at a much lower price. Free. That’s basic capitalism.

          > “People like to believe that merely being able to choose to pay for things removes all value from a creative work and you would be wrong.”

          No, people do not believe that, and you seem to confuse the value of the physical copy, with the value if the intellectual work. Those are two different things.

          The value of an intellectual work is what makes it possible to use that in different business models that are built up around the use of the intellectual work, and that then adds additional value. The additional value it what the consumers pay for.

          However, the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies no longer adds any additional value, since people can perform that work themselves, free of charge.

          It’s a business model of that past, that society no longer has any need for.

    • http://joshesforchange.wordpress.com/ Josh C

      Just because you pirate something, doesn’t mean you won’t go buy it.

    • Trespass

      “This is fair and a good decision.”

      After the above line, I cannot see how the rest of your comment relates even remotely to the article.

    • towlie

      Anon you DOG OF MAFIAA
      how much did the MAFIAA PAY YOU to write this shit
      go BURN like the rest of them

    • gae

      ‘piracy is about getting for-sale merchandise for free ‘

      Not always, there are people like me who pirate stuff because I refuse to allow my money to go towards an industry that will use that money to force through changes in laws, privacy and freedom in the name of profits.
      I do buy a lot of media but only when I know that the money is going to the right people.

    • Rob

      Agreed but you are too soft. When you say piracy is about getting for-sale merchandise for free, call it what it is. It’s stealing, theft, larceny, pilfering, filching. I’m sure there are many more colorful words for describing it but that’s what it is.

      There are a lot of folks who justify theft since they don’t like the price. I agree that buying a CD with one good song and a lot of garage music is ridiculous. However, there are usually ways to legally acquire JUST the good songs for a resaonable price. Even if there wasn’t, theft is never justified. I’m sure few like the price of a new car but that doesn’t justify theft. (Of course it’s almost trivial to steal music through the Internet with little chance of being caught while it’s considerably higher risk to steal a car.)

      That said, I do approve of the ruling. I know that the industry is doing all it can to protect itself but this is no different than seeking damages from the post office/UPS/FedEx because they delivered a package whose contents are illegal. Although difficult, the sender and receiver are liable, not the delivery mechanism.

  • Anon

    This is fair and a good decision. It’s not right that internet users hide and sneak and infringe content online and industry must continue to find ways to remonetize the work they and their artists do so that workers can be paid as before. Government will assist, too, because pilfered content with no purchase price doesn’t support a country’s basic economy as it always has and as it must in the future to create typical tax revenue streams. Piracy dismantling the value price equation is a problem that will eventually diminish everyone, and only the pirates are so shortsighted they refuse to acknowledge it. They are too busy making free copies.

    It’s one thing not to pay middleman industries. It’s something else entirely that the price hasn’t turned up directly to the creators and artists themselves, not in 10 years despite many ways to now legally do just that. Piracy is about getting for-sale merchandise for free and until the workers themselves collect in similar amounts and ways for similar work they do as the middle men industries once did, “something for nothing whether it harms the creator or not” will continue to define what piracy really is.

  • Anon

    This is fair and a good decision. It’s not right that internet users hide and sneak and infringe content online and industry must continue to find ways to remonetize the work they and their artists do so that workers can be paid as before. Government will assist, too, because pilfered content with no purchase price doesn’t support a country’s basic economy as it always has and as it must in the future to create typical tax revenue streams. Piracy dismantling the value price equation is a problem that will eventually diminish everyone, and only the pirates are so shortsighted they refuse to acknowledge it. They are too busy making free copies.

    It’s one thing not to pay middleman industries. It’s something else entirely that the price hasn’t turned up directly to the creators and artists themselves, not in 10 years despite many ways to now legally do just that. Piracy is about getting for-sale merchandise for free and until the workers themselves collect in similar amounts and ways for similar work they do as the middle men industries once did, “something for nothing whether it harms the creator or not” will continue to define what piracy really is.

  • Foff

    Yes EMI f#ck the h#ll off! You and scum like you are not going to make ISP’s into internet cops. It is like saying let’s deny all phone service to anyone convicted of a crime because they might use the phone for a future crime. Doesn’t fly f@ckface EMI!

    You label idiots have lost your window of opportunity. There is too much free shyt all over the internet I doubt you can even begin to offer a digital product anyone would buy now. Sorry you missed the boat fools you are dead!

  • Pingback: Court: ISP Not Responsible When Subscribers Infringe Copyrights

  • I’m_Kinda_Scared

    Well done Germany for not selling out like it’s European lapdogs.

  • http://Twitter.com/elisaknockout Elisa ? Knockout™

    lol something called “KARMA”. :)

  • Pingback: Court: ISP Not Responsible When Subscribers Infringe Copyrights | Links Daily

  • Anonymous

    Right in the balls, ooow!

  • http://profiles.google.com/orfetheo Orfeas Theofanis

    Would you fucking ban a train if it goes to a high-criminal activity city? NO.
    Let the ISP do their job and give the people internet, it’s a free country.

  • Wellyaknowmynameissimon

    AND hollywood asks why? Cause then hammer makers are responsible for crazy people hitting them on head with hammers, OR car makers for running them over. GUN makers when the revolution comes and we shoot all the lawyers….ya know its logic stupid.

    • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

      Yup, terribly important and good point Simon.
      The fascist consequences of the MAFIAA and specifically EMI’s court bid is indeed anti-humane in that EVERYONE would continue to suffer these awful industries and their restrictive practices had the Court found in their favour.

      Instead, the Court realised the TRUE implications of their decision and made the correct choice for ALL of humanity – not just Germany or the ISP.

      The MAFIAA are now being legally shut down and if they want to continue in business they MUST change their practices by adapting to the 21st century … or DIE.

      WIN!!!

      • gae

        But you know the one thing they will never do is change, they refused to accept the technological changes of the past and chose instead to fight them and lose, and they will continue this way in the future until they finally run out of money!

  • Pingback: P2PTalk » Court: ISP Not Responsible When Subscribers Infringe Copyrights

  • Theresa May Tortured Me!

    Court: ISP Not Responsible When Subscribers Infringe Copyrights.
    The day this decision changes is when we are all in grey jumpsuits /w barcodes on our heads.

  • Anonymous
  • Pingback: Court: ISP Not Responsible When Subscribers Infringe Copyrights | Torrents & File Sharing News

  • Silly Con Valley Is Gonna Burn

    The Internet provides a computer with access to intangible computer data
    -no copyright infringement…not illegal-

    A computer provides a digital media player with access to files
    -no copyright infringement…not illegal-

    A digital media player provides the user with access to tangible content
    -Mucho copyright infringement…should be illegal-

  • Pingback: Court: ISP Not Responsible When Subscribers Infringe Copyrights | TorrentForce Blog

  • Sanity_Vocal

    The implications of this case are intriguing.

    In the first instance, on the side of EMI, one can understand the need to protect their intellectual property. However, let us consider their method of getting that protection, ie, suing the ISP.

    If someone builds a road, and collects toll for it’s use, does the owner of, say, stolen property, being transported on that road go to court and sue the road builders for providing access? Can they demand that access to that road by the thieves be stopped, and for all other vehicles that thieves of same syndicate also be barred?

    The question arises first as how do you stop someone out of millions that might use that road, from using it? Also, how would the road builders know every single current and future member of the syndicate?

    It’s really quite unreasonable when you think about it.

  • Guest

    Once (for whatever reason) you move beyond targetting the actual infringer or on-line resource itself, you then start to look at indirect action against and/or involving third parties. And the more remote that those parties are from the actual infringement, the more expensive, difficult, inaccurate and expensive those attempted measures become.

    Eventually, boundaries will be reached which are judicially and politically unacceptable to overstep, and if the infringement takes place beyond those boundaries, then the rights holders will just have to grin and bear it.

    And I think, in a number of situations in various places, we are starting to see signs that those boundaries are being approached.

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Anonymous
  • PRIVACY is priveless to me

    “Unlimited supply (E.M.I)
    There is no reason why (E.M.I)
    I tell you it was all a frame (E.M.I)
    They only did it ‘cos of fame (E.M.I)
    I do not need the pressure (E.M.I)
    I can’t stand those useless fools (E.M.I)
    Unlimited supply (E.M.I)
    Hello E.M.I
    Goodbye A & M”
    (Sex Pistols)

    They are really stupid if they can think to get ISPs responsible for anything that goes through them and why does EMI still exist anyway!!!

  • http://www.unazonageek.com Tecnología

    Who are then?

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Pingback: Court: ISP Not Responsible When Subscribers Infringe Copyrights - elblogdepaola's posterous

  • Pingback: The Technology Blog: Court ISP Not Responsible When Subscribers Infringe Copyrights

  • Pingback: Hansenet siegt gegen EMI: Keine Internetsperren bei Filesharing von Alice Kunden | EMI,Filesharing,Hansenet,Urteil,Alice,Alice DSL,eDonkey,Landgericht Köln | www.tutsi.de

  • Pingback: ISP HanseNet no se hace responsable cuando sus suscriptores infringen derechos de autor | Tecnocápsulas

  • Pingback: German Court Says ISP Not Responsible For Users Who Infringe « waweru.net

  • Pingback: Court: ISP Not Responsible When Subscribers Infringe Copyrights | Unión Andina de Patentes

  • Pingback: Business Matters: Pandora Stock Falls 11% on Debut of New Clear Channel … | How To Trade Singapore SGX Stocks Profitably

  • Pingback: IMPORTANT: Bing News RSS feed has moved! : The Web Hosting World

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.