During the last elections five years ago the Pirate Party surprised friend and foe by gaining two seats at the European Parliament. This year it is hoped that this success will be equaled or improved upon, a realistic aim according to current polls.

To increase the chance of a good result the Pirate parties have been on the campaign trail over the past few weeks. Today, these efforts are increasing thanks to a secret weapon no other party has access to: The Pirate Bay.

The Pirate parties struck a deal with the notorious torrent site which is now displaying localized banners in ten countries. The banners are featured on TPB’s homepage and replace the site’s iconic logo. This is in addition to a general Pirate Party banner that had been up and running for a few days already.

The prominent placement guarantees hundreds of thousands of eyeballs per day, some of which may end up in the voting booth. Rick Falkvinge, founder of the first Pirate Party, is delighted with the “pirate” partnership.

“I’m very happy that our brothers in arms are providing this great exposure to the political arm of the movement”, Falkvinge tells TorrentFreak.

“Most offline-born politicians wouldn’t realize that this exposure roughly equals buying the whole cover of every single newspaper in Europe, every day for the whole duration of the campaign.”

As in previous elections, the Pirate parties are calling for more transparency, better privacy protections, and decriminalization of file-sharing for personal use. The latter is of course a good match with TPB’s core philosophy.

And there’s another Pirate Bay connection in this year’s election race. In Finland, TPB co-founder and former site spokesman Peter Sunde is one of the candidates. Sunde is also calling for changes to current copyright laws.

“Non-commercial file sharing should of course become legal and protected, and we must re-think copyright all together. Copyright is not the thing that makes ARTISTS money, it’s only for their brokers and distributors,” Sunde told us previously.

While a few Pirates in Parliament might not get this done without help, the track record of the current Pirate MEPs, Christian Engström and Amelia Andersdotter, shows that a difference can be made.

Below are the banners for all the Pirate parties that are currently being promoted through The Pirate Bay in their respective countries. In a few days we will know whether the Pirates can continue their presence in the European Parliament and with how many.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Contrary to most other countries, however, downloading and copying movies and music for personal use is not punishable by law. In return, the Dutch compensate rightsholders through a “piracy levy” on writable media, hard drives and electronic devices with storage capacity, including smartphones.

In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Justice has declared this system unlawful. The case was brought by several electronics stores and manufacturers, whose products were made more expensive because of the levy.

In its judgment the Court held that the levy system is a threat to the internal market and that it puts copyright holders at an unfair disadvantage.

“If Member States were free to adopt legislation permitting, inter alia, reproductions for private use to be made from an unlawful source, the result of that would clearly be detrimental to the proper functioning of the internal market,” the Court noted in a briefing on the verdict today.

“Similarly, the objective of proper support for the dissemination of culture may not be achieved by sacrificing strict protection of copyright or by tolerating illegal forms of distribution of counterfeited or pirated works.”

As a result the Court ruled that the Dutch system, in which people are permitted to copy files from pirated sources, can not be tolerated.

The Court believes that “legalizing” file-sharing encourages the distribution of counterfeit and pirated works. In addition, it explains that the system poses “an unfair disadvantage to the copyright holders.”

The Court further notes that the Dutch system also punishes those who buy their digital movies and music from authorized sources, as they also pay the piracy levy on the devices and media they record them to.

“All users are indirectly penalized since they necessarily contribute towards the compensation payable for the harm caused by private reproductions made from an unlawful source. Users consequently find themselves required to bear an additional, non-negligible cost in order to be able to make private copies,” the Court notes.

Today’s judgment is also likely to affect other European countries with similar systems, such as Switzerland where downloading pirated works for personal use is also permitted.

Ironically, copyright holders may be worse off if the Netherlands does indeed outlaw downloading pirated material. This would result in millions of euros in lost revenue through the piracy levy, which may be hard to match by an increase in legal sales, if there’s any increase at all.

Update: The Dutch Government confirmed to Tweakers that downloading copyrighted material for personal use is no longer allowed, effective immediately.

The Government also clarified that in general offenses will be prosecuted through civil cases, not criminal ones. We have updated this article accordingly.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Under the Directive Internet providers and other telecom companies were required to log and store vast amounts of information, including who their subscribers communicate with, and what IP-addresses they use.

The local authorities could then use this information to fight serious crimes, but it was also been frequently used by third parties, in online piracy cases for example.

Today the Court ruled that the data collection requirements are disproportionate. In a case started by Digital Rights Ireland the Court effectively annulled the directive, and it’s now up to the individual member states to change local laws accordingly.

“The Court is of the opinion that, by adopting the Data Retention Directive, the EU legislature has exceeded the limits imposed by compliance with the principle of proportionality,” the Court states.

“By requiring the retention of those data and by allowing the competent national authorities to access those data, the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data,” it adds.

The judgement has far-reaching implications for large telecom companies, but also for smaller businesses including many VPN providers. With the new ruling these companies are no longer required to log extensive amount of user data as was required under the EU Directive.

While many ISPs are waiting to see what local Governments decide, the Swedish provider Bahnhof immediately announced that it would wipe all subscriber data it stored.

“Bahnhof stops all data storage with immediate effect. In addition, we will delete the information that was already saved,” Bahnhof CEO Jon Karlung says.

There’s also resistance against the Court decision. The Dutch Minister of Justice Fred Teeven, for example, wants local ISPs to continue storing user data for law enforcement purposes.

The European Court of Justice judgement is a clear victory for privacy activists, but mostly for the public who will regain some of their online privacy. While the ruling specified that some data retention may be needed, broad and mandatory retention laws and NSA-style data dragnets are no longer the standard.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The three committees are Legal Affairs (JURI), Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), and Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE).

ITRE had previously recommended that it be rejected, and the proposal to that effect was written up by Pirate MEP Amelia Andersdotter and was voted on today. It passed 31 to 25

Meanwhile, the “pro-ACTA” proposal by author and lawyer Marielle Gallo (France, Modern Left party) was defeated narrowly in the JURI vote, 12 to 10 with 2 abstentions. Their new proposal will now be written by Evelyn Regner (Austria, Social Democrat)

The biggest defeat for ACTA came in the LIBE committee, where the proposal that ACTA did not comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights passed 36-1 with 21 abstentions. Their concern, stated in the EU press release on the topic, noted that any agreement should “ensure full respect for private life or full protection of sensitive personal information” and that “ACTA entails various layers of ambiguity” where fundamental rights are concerned.

One last committee, the Third World Development Committee (DEVE) is left to give their recommendation, which will happen June 4^th. INTA is due to make their own vote on June 21^st, before it then goes to the full Parliament in early July, which Rick Falkvinge has termed the “end-of-level boss fight”

These three votes may not be a knockout punch yet, but they increase the likelihood of the EU rejecting ACTA, which could leave it dead in the water.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

SABAM hoped that through aggressive legal action, funded by its paymasters in the international music industry, that it could force Scarlet to install filtering devices in its network to monitor customer communications and stop them if they attempt to send or receive copyrighted music.

In 2007 they succeeded, with the Brussels Court ruling that Scarlet should install the industry-approved Audible Magic music fingerprinting system. The ISP objected, saying that by spying on its customers it would be acting illegally. Adding insult to injury, Audible Magic did not perform meaning that Scarlet could not comply with the court order to stop all infringement with the tools it had been given.

The court reversed its decision and the case went to the Brussels Court of Appeal which immediately handed it over to the European Court Of Justice. The outcome would be crucial, since it would indicate whether ISPs could be held responsible for subscriber behavior and be forced to block or introduce filters.

In the last 24 hours, an advocate general of the European Court of Justice has handed down his advice in the case.

Advocate General Cruz Villalón said that “the installation of that filtering and blocking system is a restriction on the right to respect for the privacy of communications and the right to protection of personal data, both of which are rights protected under the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

“By the same token, the deployment of such a system would restrict freedom of information, which is also protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”

Villalón said that the rights within the Charter can be restricted, “on condition, inter alia, that any such restriction is ‘in accordance with the law’” and if it were “adopted on a national legal basis which was accessible, clear and predictable.”

Villalón also expressed concern that decisions made by the filter would be made without judicial oversight.

The court order would apply “…in abstracto and as a preventive measure, which means that a finding would not first have been made that there had been an actual infringement of an intellectual property right or even that an imminent infringement was likely.”

Furthermore, Villalón said that a pro-filtering ruling would not only affect Scarlet users in Belgium but those contracted to other ISPs in different countries, since Scarlet customers may very well be communicating with them on the Internet

Taking the above into consideration, Advocate General Cruz Villalón ruled that the installation of this kind of blocking and filtering systems would amount to a restriction on the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data, both of which are rights protected under the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

“By the same token,” adds Villalón, “the deployment of such a system would restrict freedom of information, which is also protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”

The European Court of Justice are not obliged to act on the advice given by Advocate General Villalón but his opinion will add significant weighting to the decision process.

Court of Justice Release (.pdf)

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Today we bring another example, one that’s perhaps even more worrisome.

Those who read TorrentFreak regularly will be familiar with music industry lobby group IFPI. Crowned as the most active DMCA sender of 2010, IFPI are known for their aggressive anti-piracy tactics. Among other legal efforts, they were one of the driving forces behind the Pirate Bay trial.

At the same time IFPI has been lobbying in the political arena for more tools to combat online piracy, with varying results. However, due to a new appointment at the copyright and enforcement unit of the European Commission, it appears that IFPI’s influence might increase significantly.

Maria Martin-Prat, who was formerly employed as Director of Legal Policy and Regulatory Affairs at IFPI, has now been selected to lead the EU unit that deals with copyright and enforcement issues. Among other things, she will be in charge of trying to get the controversial ACTA anti-piracy agreement accepted.

This means that Martin-Prat, whose previous job was to convince politicians that more restrictive copyright legislation is needed to deal with online piracy, is now responsible for shaping future copyright laws at the European Commission. Needless to say, it’s likely that her view on copyright won’t be the most objective one.

Pirate Party MEP Christian Engstrom is not happy with the appointment, to say the least. However, knowing the ins and outs of the European Commission and the dominance of lobby groups, it comes as no surprise.

“Welcome to the European Union, where the big business lobby organizations are calling most of the shots at the Commission, and where citizens are just seen as a nuisance to be ignored. I guess the only real news is that they don’t even bother to try to hide it any more,” he said in response to the announcement.

With the appointment of Martin-Prat, Europeans should brace themselves for more restrictive copyright legislation, and more effective enforcement of current laws. Meanwhile, IFPI members will be cracking open bottles of Champagne and dancing with excitement in their offices.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The Legal Affairs Committee in the European Parliament has approved the resolution to extend the copyright term, as we have discussed in the past, from 50 years to 95 for recordings. This will now move on to a plenary vote in March.

Opposition for the extension has been considerable. Last month, the Open Rights Group (ORG) held a roundtable with several academics and MEPs, including at least one member of the Legal Affairs Committee, while scathing critiques on the proposal have appeared in influential newspapers over the past year.

Crucially, the main ‘benefit’ touted by Commissioner McCreevy – that it’s for the benefit of session musicians and the like – is significantly weakened by an amendment from the committee that gives the administration over to collecting societies. Of course, that’s assuming you can prove your entitlement to this money. According to veteran producer and musician Mike Collins, speaking at the ORG roundtable, records relating to session musician participation were not common until recently.

Perhaps worst of all, the commission has now been asked by the committee to perform an impact study based around extending the term of video performances by a similar amount. Although the study will doubtless find that there will be little benefit to any but the major content producers in performing such an extension, it will likely be ignored (as the study that said the same thing in this case was ignored) and the proposal will proceed.

There is a slight ray of hope though, in that there is a requirement to review the social situation of artists in 3 years time, and then every 4 years, to see how this has improved things. This might curtail any further extension on this subject, but the non-existent change in artist benefits from this, might prompt them to put things back how they were. Or, they could decide to make the terms even longer….

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

At this stage, little is known about ACTA, but what we do know is that the RIAA has put forward some radical proposals. One of their suggestions was to force ISPs to become ‘copyright cops’, ordering them to filter out pirated files on their networks, and making the ISPs liable if they fail to respond to the demands of copyright holders. That, in addition to the request for an official crime unit to track down and bust alleged pirates.

Most governments that have commented on the ACTA negotiations have refused to reveal any information about its contents, but were quick to refute rumors. According to the New Zealand government (ppt), ACTA is aimed at commercial piracy only, and no one has to be worried about getting their iPod through customs. Nevertheless, they also stress that “draft versions of the text will not be made available.”

According to the FFII, all this secrecy goes against EU regulations, and in response they have filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the EU Council for concealing ACTA documents. “Making agreements to keep texts secret goes much further than allowed. The Council deliberately obstructs access to ACTA documents,” FFII analyst Ante Wessels commented. FFII requests that the documents should be made public. Alternatively, the EU could withdraw from the negotiations, they say.

Bottom line is this: we don’t know what the plans for ACTA are, and it is impossible to remedy this since requests for information are denied at all levels. There is no good reason to keep them secret either, other than to prevent the public and other institutions voicing their opinion on the proposal before it is signed. Convenient perhaps, but not very democratic.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The amendment, drafted by Guy Bono and other members of the European Parliament, was supposed to put a halt to the march of the anti-piracy lobby. However, despite the fact that is was adopted by an overwhelming majority, with 573 parliament members voting in favor with just 74 rejections, the European Council went against this democratic vote.

In September, Bono stated in a response to the vote: “You do not play with individual freedoms like that,” going on to say that the French government should review its three-strikes law. Sarkozy had other plans though, and in his position of President of the European Council, he convinced his friends this Thursday to reject the proposal.

The rejection also goes against conclusions from the EU culture ministers last week, who sided with the more balanced view of the European Commission, by encouraging copyright holders to work on offering “high quality, accessible, easy to use and consumer friendly” content online – instead of chasing pirates.

Guy Bono was appalled by the recent decision of the Council, which he referred to as “an arrangement between friends.” Not all is lost though, the amendment might pass in January or February 2009, when it will be proposed again. However, as Bono noted, this initial rejection is likely to result in a negative image of European democracy.

It seems that the lobbying efforts of the MPAA, RIAA and others have paid off, and for France and other European member states the road to a ‘three-strikes law’ for alleged pirates is now wide open again.

In France, Sarkozy will now go forward with implementing his controversial three-strikes law. We can only hope that other European countries wont follow this example. What a great demokarzy Europe has.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Both the MPAA and RIAA have pushed other countries to adopt similar legislation as well, but it will be hard for them to succeed in Europe. In April, the European Parliament spoke out against these anti-piracy measures, by saying it would be “conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness”. Yesterday, this statement was backed up by an official vote.

The amendment, drafted by Guy Bono and other members of the European Parliament, was adopted by an overwhelming majority. 573 parliament members voted in favor while only 74 rejected. Satisfied with this outcome, Bono stated in a response to the vote: “You do not play with individual freedoms like that,” and said that the French government should review its three-strikes law.”

The vote was welcomed in other member states as well. Swedish EU parliamentarian Christofer Fjellner said in a comment: “What’s important about this decision is that now it’s clear that you can’t force [internet service] providers to ban people from the Internet without a legal process.”

It is scary to see how lobby groups are awarded powers that should only belong to law-enforcement agencies. Evidence should never be collectedly by parties who gather it in their own interests, and it is a relief to see that the European Parliament agrees on this.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.