Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2010 @ 12:22am

   
   

   Wow, just wow.
   
   I'm surprised the court didnt suggest "ban the interwebs"

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2010 @ 2:31am

   
   

   Next Up: Building Owners

   Because if someone plays an infringing recording in a building, a fragment of that recording is stored for a short while as it reverberates within the building. Therefore, the building owner becomes responsible for infringement!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Svante Jorgensen (profile), May 28th, 2010 @ 2:47am

   
   

   Disappointing

   I live in Denmark, and I'm very disappointed with the ruling. The only positive thing to say about it is that the court is technically illiterate enough to accept a DNS redirect as a block. So if we use the direct IP, OpenDNS or any other DNS than our ISPs default, then we get around the ban.
   But I don't know if I should laugh or cry about that.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Fletcher, May 28th, 2010 @ 3:00am

   
   

   Does passing e-mail infringe?

   Maybe Denmark is different, but I thought every original expression was automatically covered by copyright. What can the ISPs carry that doen't infringe under this ruling?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Tor (profile), May 28th, 2010 @ 4:28am

   
   

   Information society directive

   I don't understand how this can avoid contradicting the EU Infosoc directive that states:
   

   Article 5
   
   Exceptions and limitations
   
   1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable:
   
   (a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or
   
   (b) a lawful use
   
   of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.

   and:
   

   (33) The exclusive right of reproduction should be subject to an exception to allow certain acts of temporary reproduction, which are transient or incidental reproductions, forming an integral and essential part of a technological process and carried out for the sole purpose of enabling either efficient transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made. The acts of reproduction concerned should have no separate economic value on their own. To the extent that they meet these conditions, this exception should include acts which enable browsing as well as acts of caching to take place, including those which enable transmission systems to function efficiently, provided that the intermediary does not modify the information and does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised and used by industry, to obtain data on the use of the information. A use should be considered lawful where it is authorised by the rightholder or not restricted by law.

   
   
   It almost seems as if they have misread the "or" that connects (a) and (b) in Article 5 as an "and".

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2010 @ 6:56am

   
   

   can they stop google from allowing filetype:torrent ??

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2010 @ 7:33am

   
   

   Re:

   Well sure, you can support any argument with logic. I don't, however, think that is the direction they are taking.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Vic, May 28th, 2010 @ 10:22am

   
   

   I'd be in serious trouble in Denmark!

   I just have listened to some music on the radio. And while listening, I > was making mental "temporary copies of small fragments of the copyrighted work" in my brain as that music passed my ears!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Anonymous Anti-Yellow Belly, May 29th, 2010 @ 11:33am

   
   

   If an ISP can be held liable for the data passing through its network, does that mean a phone company can be held liable for everything passing through its network? I'm not sure I see a whole lot of difference between the two.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Boraxo (profile), Jun 1st, 2010 @ 12:06pm

    
    

    Phoning it in

    I was on the phone the other day, and I could hear a song playing in the background while my friend droned on with some boring story. I'd better notify the RIAA to sue my cell provider.
    Do these people realize The Pirate Bay is....a search engine? Really not much different from typing the same name in to google and adding "torrent"

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Ole Husgaard, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:14am

    
    

    Re: Information society directive

    You are absolutely right. The Infosoc directive has not been correctly implemented into danish copyright law.
    
    The highest ranking civil servant with responsibility for copyright law at the time we implemented Infosoc in Denmark was Peter Schønning. Today he is working for IFPI, and he is head of the IFPI team running the legal proceedings against Telenor.
    
    And this error in implementing Infosoc, which Peter Schønning is responsible for, is the central legal argument in the court proceedings against Telenor.
    
    It is a bit scary that Telenor did not even try to argue against IFPI on this point. But of course Telenor is just a random victim here, with no real interest in this. The parties that IFPI is trying to hit with these court proceedings (The Pirate Bay, and the danish internet users) do not even have the right to be heard by the court.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Ole Husgaard, Jun 5th, 2010 @ 8:32am

    
    

    This was not a real court case

    One important fact that almost all media seems to miss is that this is not a real court case. The court decision upheld by our Supreme Court is similar to a preliminary injunction in US law, and a real court case has not started and probably never will start.
    
    The advantage for IFPI is that with this kind of court proceedings they do not have to show any evidence. If they can convince the court that their claims are "credible", they can get what they want.
    
    This is not the first case of blocking here in Denmark where no evidence has been shown. IFPI has done the same several times before, and there has never been the following court case that our Code of Law suggests should follow a decision like this - the real court case, where IFPI actually has to prove their claims.
    
    In one case (the blocking of allofmp3.com) we know for a fact that IFPI paid the ISP a significant amount of money to avoid the follow-up court case.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    coachfactoryonline, Jan 26th, 2011 @ 6:35pm

    
    

    The coach factory onlinecreed and serial number is the number 1 topic of conversation when the authenticity of a coach outlet

    The coach factory onlinecreed and serial number is the number 1 topic of conversation when the authenticity of a coach outlet purse is being discussed. Nobody wants to buy a counterfeit bag. Everybody wants to know for sure if their bag is authentic, particularly when buying from an coach factory online store auction like eBay. But is this mysterious serial number a true indicator?
    coach bagsCoach Carly Bags
    Welcome to my
    coach store! O(∩_∩)O~ zocy00007 01.27

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2011 @ 11:30pm

    
    

    The advantage for IFPI is coach outlet that with this kind of court proceedings they do not have to show any evidence. If they can convince the court that their claims are "credible", they can get what they want.
    
    This is not the first case of blocking here in Denmark where no evidence has been shown. IFPI has done the same several times before, and there has coach outlet online never been the following court case that our Code of Law suggests should follow a decision like this - the real court case, where IFPI actually has to prove their claims.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Thomas Sabo Chains, Jul 8th, 2011 @ 2:22am

    
    

    it is great pleasure to visit your site. thanks

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment