We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE EUROPEAN COURT of Justice has ruled that web hosting companies and services cannot be ordered to install filtering software monitoring uploaded content for potential copyright infringement.
In a ruling handed down this morning, the court ruled that any obligation to install filtering software for content uploaded by users would threaten the balance between the ability or rights holders to protect their copyright, and the right to entrepreneurship.
“That injunction could potentially undermine freedom of information, since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications,” the Luxembourg-court said.
Any national court which allowed an injunction enforcing such filters, the court added, “would not be respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, on the other”.
The court had been asked to rule on the case by the District Court of First Instance in Brussels, which had asked whether EU directives authorised a court to order web hosts to impose a copyright filtering system.
The original Belgian case had been brought by the music rights group SABAM, which had previously been on the receiving end of another major ECJ ruling, against the Belgian-based music sharing social network Netlog.
In that case, known as the ‘Scarlet ruling’, the group was told it could not ask ISPs to issue blanket bans on file-sharing.
TJ McIntyre of the Digital Rights Ireland group said the ruling was “not that exciting in its own right”, describing the ruling today as a “copy and paste” of the Scarlet ruling.
“Maybe it’s significant in that they’re applying the same criteria to uploaded content as network traffic,” he remarked, saying the court could potentially have decided that hosting content meant a greater liability than an internet service provider which was merely carrying the traffic from a host to a user.
“It doesn’t differentiate hosting from simply transmission of data, and doesn’t put extra liability on hosts than on a service provider,” McIntrye said. ”From that point of view it’s another victory for the digital rights movement.”
The ruling comes as junior research minister Seán Sherlock prepares controversial secondary legislation which will allow copyright holders to seek injunctions blocking access to certain websites.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A good day for internet freedom!
Two fingers to SOPA!! :-D
I find it odd that no politicians are asking a simple question WHY are we the tax payers expected to fund large corporations in the protection of their private property ? Are the government expected to pay for aour private property disputes (though were tax payers ) NO .It actually costs us millions a year to protect these private corp’s property why?
For the same reasons we are bailing out private banks probably.
So what does this ruling mean for ACTA/Sopa Ireland?
If they want to block sites they do it manually as automatic blocking threatens “the balance between the ability or rights holders to protect their copyright, and the right to entrepreneurship” according to the ECJ.
Music companies wanted a guilty until you prove you’re innocence system like the one in force in the US ,this hopefully prevents that ,but with so many pet politicians dont think we’ve seen the end of this
“That injunction could potentially undermine freedom of information, since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications,” A 2 year old could of told them that.
This is why judicial activism in the ECJ is sometimes a good thing.
Great news, for the time being, I’m sure the US will make some noise over it.
*cannot in the headline :P
Can’t is short for cannot
We the people of Ireland have a right to freedom of speech, but Sean Sherlock decides to block people from all sites” but the FG / LB government have not blocked their own sites” totally wrong ” Rita Cahill
have your say