EU court: Web sites need not check for IP breaches

February 16, 2012 By DON MELVIN and RAPHAEL SATTER , Associated Press
A man uses Facebook on his laptop at a coffee shop. Social networking websites cannot be forced to install filters preventing users from illegally sharing music and videos protected by copyright, the European Union's top court said on Thursday.

A European Union court ruled Thursday that social networking sites cannot be compelled to install general filters to prevent the illegal trading of music and other copyrighted material.

The decision is a victory for operators of social networking sites in the EU, but a setback for those who seek to protect copyrighted material from being distributed without payment or permission.

It also comes as protests are growing in Europe against ACTA, the proposed international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is meant to protect intellectual property rights.

In Thursday's decision, the EU Court of Justice, which is based in Luxembourg, ruled that requiring general filters that would cover all the site's users would not sufficiently protect personal data or the freedom to receive and impart information.

SABAM, a Belgian company that represents authors, composers and music publishers, filed the lawsuit leading to Thursday's ruling. In it, the company objected to the practices of Netlog NV, a social networking site, saying users' profiles allowed protected works to be shared illegally.

Michael Gardner, head of the intellectual property practice at London law firm Wedlake Bell, called the ruling a further blow to copyright owners because it appears to rule out forcing operators of social network sites and Internet service providers - at their own expense - to impose blanket monitoring and filtering aimed at stopping infringements.

In November, SABAM lost a separate case in which it sought to require Internet service providers to install filters that would prevent the illegal downloading of files.

Gardner said the ruling would not stop copyright owners from seeking more limited injunctions against social networking sites or Internet service providers, but he said the injunctions would have to be more "proportionate" in scope and effect.

"Under EU law, there has to be a balance between the interests of copyright owners and the rights of privacy and freedom of expression," he said. "So far, the courts seem to have rejected the draconian solutions urged on them by the rights owners."

Mark Owen, head of the intellectual property practice at London law firm Harbottle & Lewis, said the new ruling shows how difficult it can be to protect intellectual property.

"As clouds continue to gather around Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and other attempts to control online use of copyright works, today's ruling from the European Court provides a useful illustration of the practical challenges enforcement poses," Owen said.

Explore further: EU court rules against web filters to block file sharing


Related Stories

German court orders wireless passwords for all

May 12, 2010

(AP) -- Germany's top criminal court ruled Wednesday that Internet users need to secure their private wireless connections by password to prevent unauthorized people from using their Web access to illegally download data.

Dutch court: Web site must remove copyright works

August 26, 2009

(AP) -- A civil court on Wednesday ordered Dutch Web site Mininova to remove within three months all files on its servers that point to copyrighted works or face a fine of up to euro5 million ($7.16 million).

EU agrees on new Internet user rights

November 5, 2009

(AP) -- EU lawmakers and governments agreed on new rights for Internet users Thursday, aiming to protect them from arbitrary crackdowns on those who illegally download music and movies on the Internet.

Recommended for you

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Feb 17, 2012
The only reason why copyright was invented in the first place was so that publishers could make more money.

Without copyright, publishers could not secure exclusive rights and the prices remained low. If someone tried to ask more than what was necessary, the business would shift in favor of a competitor. The real supply, the author, had great bargaining power and could get rich if the demand was great.

It was basically free market as it should work.

But by arguing that the author had some rights to a piece of work even after it has been sold, the publishers secured themselves the power to negotiate a monopoly over the works, and thus the ability to profit greatly through limiting the supply. The authors now had to enter a contract with a publisher before they could get their work printed, because nobody would do it without. The result was that prices went up, authors got a smaller share, and open access to information was lost.

Copyright is simply a legislated market failure.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.