UK ISP Says It Will Not Follow Digital Economy Bill Rules

from the civil-isp-disobedience dept

As anger towards the Digital Economy Bill grows, some are fighting back against the bill in a variety of ways. ISP Talk Talk, who had been vocally against the bill ever since it was first proposed, has apparently now announced that it will not follow the more draconian aspects of the law. In an official blog post by the company, it says that it will fight in court any attempt to force it to do things it feels are unwise, and will continue to fight against the law politically:

After the election we will resume highlighting the substantial dangers inherent in the proposals and that the hoped for benefits in legitimate sales will not materialise as filesharers will simply switch to other undetectable methods to get content for free.

In the meantime we stand by our pledges to our customers:

  • Unless we are served with a court order we will never surrender a customer’s details to rightsholders. We are the only major ISP to have taken this stance and we will maintain it.
  • If we are instructed to disconnect an account due to alleged copyright infringement we will refuse to do so and tell the rightsholders we’ll see them in court.

Who knows if it will actually help, but it is nice to see an ISP willing to not just give in at this point.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “UK ISP Says It Will Not Follow Digital Economy Bill Rules”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

What I would like to see is more organized resistance against corrupt laws. The ACLU is organized and this fact plays a huge part in why they were able to get such a prominent court to generally rule against gene patents (at least for now). Organization is very important, it’s one thing to have a group of people independently opposed to something, it creates a lot more power when they work together and organize. Heck, Wikileaks doesn’t even consist of that many people, but the key here is they’re very organized, which largely contributes to their many huge accomplishments. Organization is very powerful, a lot more powerful than most people give credit to. Look at organized crime and even Al Qaeda and how ineffective our government has been against them despite the fact that the U.S. completely outnumbers them. Why? They’re organized (and of course I am not in favor of terrorist groups and organized crime and I do think they should be stopped, but my point is to illustrate the mere power of being organized).

Andy says:

TalkTalk are all Talk Talk

Obviously TalkTalk are concerned about losing pirates’ huge business as there are over 400 million illegal filesharers in the world, and they dont want to lose customers even when their internet service clearly stipulates in the contract of service that people are not to engage in illegal activities and they can be disconnected without notice.

They are concerned about their own business but not about the businesses of the creative industries who have been ripped off ruthlessly by filesharers who have premium accounts with them!

Any Mouse says:

Re: Re: TalkTalk are all Talk Talk

Let us not forget that it also is not their responsibility to prop up someone else’s business. True, they are concerned about their own business and not the businesses of the creative industry. More importantly the sales industry that leeches off the creative industry. And why should they? Why should they throw away their money to protect a business in which they hold no stake?

Dom S says:

Re: TalkTalk are all Talk Talk

If there are *400 million illegal filesharers* in the world, why are the so-called creative industries not finding ways to embrace online filesharing rather than trying in vain to push through dodgy legislation (via bribery/wining and dining etc) which gives them rights they are not entitled to??

i think you clearly stand on the side of the RIAA et al in as much as you still havent recognised that what you refer to as “the creative industry” is in fact just an archaic sales/distribution industry who claim to be there for artists when in fact (and this IS a fact) they screw their artists out of vast amounts of money.

maybe you should take a good long look at the creative industry and see it for what it is… OUTDATED, DYING and of course CORRUPT.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: TalkTalk are all Talk Talk

“If there are *400 million illegal filesharers* in the world, why are the so-called creative industries”

If there are that many illegal file sharers why is it that a such a small group of people, the uncreative industry bosses, get so much legislative priority over everyone else to control everyone else. Enough is enough, those 400 million people need to organize stronger groups against corrupt governments that destroy our lives for no good reason.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: TalkTalk are all Talk Talk

“over 400 million illegal filesharers in the world”

Cite this figure, please. That’s more than the total number of broadband subscribers in the world according to the latest figures I can find (2007).

Not to say you’re lying, but when you consider that much of the filesharing in the world is 100% LEGAL (public domain & CC, WoW patches & other software upgrades, Linux distros, etc.), you’ll forgive me for thinking that sounds extremely inflated.

“ripped off ruthlessly by filesharers”

They have yet to prove this. Any “ripping off” would depend on a sale unquestionably having been made if said file sharing wasn’t available. This is an assumption that has not yet been proven, and is not the basis for law – especially when many studies show that the biggest file sharers are often also the biggest legal purchasers of content.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: TalkTalk are all Talk Talk

“Not to say you’re lying, but when you consider that much of the filesharing in the world is 100% LEGAL (public domain & CC, WoW patches & other software upgrades, Linux distros, etc.), you’ll forgive me for thinking that sounds extremely inflated.”

Most of the laws being passed are designed exactly to restrict the legal file sharing of free content just like most of the laws outside the Internet are designed to restrict the legal sharing of free content and have pretty much accomplished this task.

Governments give ISP’s an unregulated monopoly making it easier for them to restrict the legal file sharing of free content.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: TalkTalk are all Talk Talk

businesses of the creative industries who have been ripped off ruthlessly by filesharers

The “creative industries” is mostly a cover name for a bunch of middle men who have been ruthlessly ripping off actual creative individuals for centuries.

In the meantime creative individuals who have learnt how to work with the new technology are doing just fine.

Those who still want to make a living by taxing a zero cost process had better learn that it doesn’t work. It’s like a government, addicted to fuel duty revenue, trying to find a way to tax the fuel for solar powered cars.

andy says:

pay for your entertainment


if you pay for your media then there is no need for running around using various encryption techniques to HIDE what you are doing to stop being cut off!

People HAVE TO PAY for their gear to play their stolen pirate booty why not pay the artist as well… I just dont understand the mind of a pirate – I guess that they can get it FREE – and dont really care about the provider of their entertainment because it can be gotten free – it sucks!

bishboria (profile) says:

Re: pay for your entertainment

Anyone is free to keep concealed what they do, it is their choice, regardless of whether they are file sharing or not. I hate hearing the old “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide” bull shit argument.

If someone is looking for free stuff then they probably weren’t going to buy it in the first place, so no lost sales.

If someone file shares, likes what they’ve downloaded and then buys it, what’s wrong with that?

If someone file shares, finds that the content is crap and then decides not to buy, what’s wrong with that?

Richard (profile) says:

Re: pay for your entertainment

HAVE TO PAY for their gear to play their stolen pirate booty why not pay the artist as well… I just dont understand the mind of a pirate – I guess that they can get it FREE – and dont really care about the provider of their entertainment because it can be gotten free – it sucks!

You just totally miss the point.

The freedom that the “pirate” wants is not free beer (like you seem to think) it’s free speech.

It’s the freedom to say to a friend “Hey I really like this band, here have a listen to this mp3 of one of their tracks”.

All the evidence (much quoted on this site) is that those who pirate actually spend MORE on “paying the artist” than people who don’t.

The problem is that too many people are locked into the model of “paying for a copy” – which is nonsense when the copy has a zero cost.

The reality has actually been different for a long time. For many years people have “bought to support”.

For a long time the Album was the purchase mode of choice for actually acquiring the ability to listen to the music – and yet how many fans bought the single too (when they didn’t need to – they already had the song on the album) just to see their favourite artist rise up the charts.

Look at the recent Christmas No1 battle between the X factor and Rage against the Machine. How many people downloaded the Rage against the Machine track – and never listened to it? (I was one). How many people spent money for no return voting on the X factor (lots – you can look up the figures).

The fact is people don’t want to be hamstrung by copyright when they are spreading the news of their favourite music. Equally they don’t mind shelling out money to support the artist – even without a direct payback in the form of a physical CD or digital file.

Bottom line is this. Trust the customer. They are not stupid. They know the music needs financial support and they are quite happy to spend what they can afford. There just isn’t any sense these days in linking the money mechanistically to the copying process.

Free Capitalist (profile) says:

Re: pay for your entertainment

The day after ACTA is forced down our throats, please check Amazon for a great deal on my second-hand Blu-Ray, DVD and console titles. The torrents will be available after midnight. (Lord of the Rings theatrical will be first — yes I AM a fool and a sucker.)

The Pirate Party’s charter is the future of the entertainment industry, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

mike allen (profile) says:


Andy another troll?
Understand this it is not that the bill goes after pirates it is the way it does it. on mere accuations NO PROOF REQUIRED NO CHECKS AND NO REAL REDRESS.
It is the same as a murder being committed outside your house police then kick in your door arrest you and give you your family even any kids or babys a life sentance NO COURT CASE NEVER MIND YOU WERE NOT IN AT THE TIME NO REDRESS that is what is wrong with this crazy law. that apart the fact the gov. are spying on where you go on line. looking at who you talk too even in instant messages etc IT HAS TO GO. no if or buts get rid of the crap.

Andy says:

@mikeallen – so why am I a troll because I have a differing opinion on this???

and yeah committing a murder outside your house is the same as filesharing – what a hysterical comment to make ?

buy stuff, like you buy things like ISP connection, media players, ipods, big screen tv for your home entertainment systems = give back freeloaders to the providers of your joy and entertainment!!!! BE Honest and buy

Brian (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

So its honest and right to restrict how and when I can and cannot use MY purchased product? Telling me I MUST have an internet connection to play a single player game or embedding hidden information in my files, or using other DRM to effectively punish a legitimate customer or making me sit through all these different screens to watch my movies. Well that seems a bit shady and dishonest to punish those who payed you money now doesn’t it.

Dom S says:

Re: Re:

The analogy made is a reasonable one. its an indirect comparison.
it shows that if an ISP can cut you off for ALLEGED filesharing (REMEMBER alleged, not PROVEN), it would be the same as you being locked up for being ACCUSED of murder without any hard evidence.

I dont think its fair to say that all fileshrers are freeloaders who just dont want to pay for things. many people i know (including myself) will fileshare just to assess whether something is worth buying… therefore negating any *loss* to the industry when we decide it is and we buy it.

it may be worth highlighting (although i dont think you’ll pay any attention) that the people you are trying to defend are serial offenders in the art of taking content without consent (see remixes, samples etc) and manipulating laws to their own ends.
The biggest problem i personally have with this industry is that over the past i dont know how many years, they have constantly falsely inflated the price of their products to make high value gains (at the loss of the artists BTW). illegal filesharing exists because we dont believe that the 20track album consisting of pop trash is worth the ridiculous amount of money being demanded for it (i.e. up to £1 per track).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Listen and learn

I have paid thousands of pounds to listen to music over the years and because the music industry does not give me the opportunity to replace a damaged lp cd tape etc when it is damaged, saying MY ONLY OPTION was to buy it again or don’t listen to it , i will now download all my music free, yes free,and why , because now I HAVE THE OPTION THAT I DID NOT HAVE BEFORE. They encouraged this sharing of music by fans by having such a crappy attitude To customers over the years , and i say to the artists shame you will not make 20 million this year or 10 000 this year , find something that you can do if your not good enough to make a living from music. We need to have people creating music because they enjoy creating , not because they want to become billionaires, hopefully in the future all those greedy artists will disappear and decent music will be released by people who just love creating.And for all those saying it is stealing to share music freely…..go F$%K yourselves you greedy bastards.

Call me Al says:

Re: Re: Listen and learn

A very important point. The music industry took advantage of their position for years and milked the consumer of huge amounts of money. I remember the days of buying an album for £15 and then discovering that actually only four or five songs were any good and the rest was just filler. The internet and filesharing has destroyed that and rightly so, now I can pick and choose and try and buy to my hearts content. I now spend more money on music then ever before precisely because I can find it and buy it happily because I feel I have been treated fairly.

It is also worth bearing in mind that music is old, its as old as we are. In human history the period in which musicians are among the rich people of society is at most 60 years. As far as I’m concerned that was an abberition and we are now returning to the norm, where musicians work hard for their money and their music has more worth as it is not simply another piece of mass produced, homogenous rubbish.

Andrew (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: legally shareing music online

Their problem comes when they try to take people to court , in England if you lose a case you pay the defendants costs from bringing the case against them. There will possibly be a few cases because of this new law but when the music industry realises they will lose most of the time they will stop. There are too many valid reasons to argue a case. The first that comes to mind is downloading instead of ripping the cd which you have in your posession or digitising damaged cd’s lp’s etc. And if you don’t have the cd in your possesion it is easy enough to get one from a friend or ebay for the court to see. This is known as fair use, the music industry itself has said repeatedly you are buying the right to listen to the songs on a cd/tape to justify their high prices.I am sure that there are intelligent people on here can think of some other valid legal arguments for sharing music online.

songwaters says:

Re: Re: Listen and learn

dude seriously?

what is/will be your profession? how much do you get paid for your work? so you get paid money.dirty boy.

i hope sad donkeys like you are fired and are replaced by people who do all the work you do,for free. if someone becomes a billionare its cz they are good at making music otherwise no one would buy their stuff. even taylor whats her name must have some talent that appeals to whatever age group and i respect her for that. what is wrong with wanting to make money doing something you are good at?

that being said, record labels DO rip off artists. theyll go down anyway at least the bill will stay on to help genuine labels.

Call me Al says:

Re: Re: Re: Listen and learn

Yes I get paid for it and yes I work hard for it.

I was never demanding that we get everything for free but rather complaining that we’ve been paying too much in recent decades. I’m perfectly happy for them to make a decent living but I don’t think that being a maker of music entitles you to be a millionaire.

btrussell (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I like Linux.
I get it via torrent and help the community by seeding back. Encrypted.
I have no desire to lose my connection because the **AA accuses me of file sharing.

Here is a scenario for you.
I stayed at work late to help a customer.
Got home a half hour after movie started on tv causing me to miss it. Free on cable tv that I have paid for, but illegal to download?

Next time you are making purchase, I will walk out half way through helping you so I can go watch a movie on their schedule.

mike allen (profile) says:

you still havnt understood

First I will answear your question I dont need to buy i get enough music sent to me by arteists or music companies wanting me to put their music on my radio shows. as too anyone else i cant answear.
what i said was the same thing only much more gross than just fileshearing. which compared to murder is miniscule. but the same principal is i there in that senario people are accused with no day in court so you now answear my question would you like your whole family to be given a life sentence for a murder none of you committed.

CMK (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Annoying, aren’t you?
Let’s suppose I am in a foreign country, and want to watch some TV in English. Let’s suppose the country has relatively slow Internet, so downloading a movie takes a few days. Let’s suppose that I get homesick and want to hear my native language. Lets suppose there’s a file sharing system that lets me download a movie. Then maybe I’d download it and watch it, hey?
Now, let’s suppose I have to buy it for $40 because that’s the only option. I think I wouldn’t buy it because it’s a want, not a need. When I get home, I might buy it if I want something in decent quality with the subtitles and packing… if (and only if) it’s really worth while… but it was on TV, so if it isn’t worthwhile getting the DVD then I won’t buy it.
Now let’s suppose there’s some freakin’ person who keeps saying “you have to buy it”… do you think I’d like them? You aren’t making friends, here.

Dom S says:

Re: Re:

You’re totally missing the point!

illegal filesharing wouldnt exist (at the current level at least) if the corporates hadn’t falsely inflated their prices.
effectively, the content industry has double-f*cked their artists by almost forcing people to start filesharing to get what they deem to be value.
putting it simply, i buy a cd which works out to cost me £15 for a 15track album (£1 per track)
i dont believe this is worth this amount. therefore i download 15 more tracks from another album (lets say from the same artist) for free (making the cost effectively 50p per track). this would seem more reasonable to me. therefore i feel my filesharing was justified because as a consumer it should be up to me to decide what value i apply to the products i buy, not the corporate money-grabbers who feel they have the right to dictate unfair pricing to me!

illegal filesharers are not to blame. the industry is.

pretty simple really

Richard (profile) says:

Re: 400 million stats I got that from TorrentFreak site

pay for your media people

The media costs nothing – so why should I pay for it.

What you want is to be able to have your cake and eat it (sell copies and still retain the rights).
There is no moral right to have your cake and eat it!

These days I generally avoid the people who insist on asking for money in this way because I do not find their attitude morally acceptable.

I am very happy to contribute money back to the artist – either by attending a live event (concert or teaching session and maybe buying CDs as memorabilia of the event), by buying media from those places that don’t impose oppressive downstream restrictions on use (eg Magnatune), or even by simply making a donation.

So Andy, if you are actually a musician and you want my support (or those of others like me) then you had better change your tune.

Andy says:

there are many legal ways to sample before buying

people free download because they can

I have friends with a terabyte external drive that they take with them to social situations… none of the illegally acquired content will every be bought by them ever or his friens but they still enjoy their fav artists and share with others with nothing going back to the artist – surely this makes sense to people that have their own business and are trying to make a living from it ?

what a mad mad world where the artists that you love the most – do not see a cent of your appreciation

Dementia (profile) says:

Re: there are many legal ways to sample before buying

I’m going to guess your command of the english language isn’t as good as it could be, because it seems to me that you said your friend has a terabyte drive loaded with music that they share with other people. Assuming this is what you said, then guess what: YOUR FRIEND IS A PIRATE. Whether he pirates using P2P or sneakernet, the end result is the same. He distributed files without compensating the copyright holder. So, once again, your argument is false. Have a nice day.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: there are many legal ways to sample before buying

Here is the point. No one owes anyone a monopoly on anything, if an artist doesn’t like it he can stop making content. No one is forcing him to make content. But, as the number of CC content that’s out demonstrates (and CC licenses are designed exactly to circumvent current copywrong laws), plenty of people are perfectly willing to make and release free music without copywrong laws and most artists don’t even make their money from record labels but from things like concerts.

I don’t want copywrong laws restricting and increasing the cost and price of perfectly good file sharing systems, like Napster, that can be used to facilitate the distribution of free content, and restricting and increasing the price of peoples Internet access (ie: like the laws that have limited wireless Internet open access points ), invading my privacy, just because a bunch of selfish lobbyists that do nothing to promote the progress want retarded laws in place.

No, I want these laws gone, and the record labels et all should be forced to find their own business model that doesn’t include using broken laws to exploit the public and destroy any technology that allows people to compete with them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: there are many legal ways to sample before buying

and I don’t want retarded laws that allow corporations to send a DMCA takedown of content they do not own creating huge incentive for content distributors to take down content first and ask questions later and then, when it is discovered that the content does not infringe, the corporations who made these false takedowns get away with virtually no punishment because they didn’t know they didn’t own the content and so it wasn’t intentional (but individuals can’t do the same to corporate content of course because the laws were designed to to stop that by labeling that intentional. These laws were made that way on purpose so that corporations can play this evil game on individual content). NOT ACCEPTABLE, IP maximists have already done enough damage, lets eliminate these retarded laws completely.

mike allen (profile) says:

still no answear

please answear the following
1 are you now saying it is wrong for artists etc to send their music to myself and people in broadcasting in the hope we may give it airtime?
2 would you like your whole family to be given a life sentence for a murder none of you committed.
with question 1 remember UK radio stations pay copyright around £5 per play which should go to the artist i doudt the artist sees much of that due to money grabbing record companies.

Call me Al says:

Back to the article

I think Talk Talk is making a grab for the educated net user. Pretty much any regular reader of Techdirt and other such sites will now seriously consider Talk Talk as an alternative broadband provider. Happily mine is up for renewal in a couple of months so I may go and sign up for their service then.

I have no doubt that there is an element of cynicism in Talk Talk’s stance, they are a business and they recognise where their money comes from. They are positioned much more as a telecommunications company wheras Sky and Virgin Media, two other hefty broadband providers, are also content producers. Talk Talk is therefore unlikely to lose out due to this stance and could benefit greatly.

However I also think that they believe what they preach on this issue. They’ve been talking about it ever since DEB was first drafted and have made their position clear. For that they should be commended.

Anonymous Coward says:

Andy does your employers at the MPAA, the RIAA et al know that your working so much overtime. The costs of you writing Lame ass comments so early in the morning (assuming the time of your comments are correct) must be a big strain on their ever decreasing profits. If you werent working so late they would have more money for the artists. No wait more money for the politicians that they keep buying.
Keep up the good trolling especially when on overtime cause you’ll be unemployed as soon as they’ve got the dracional laws they want and they’ll fcuk you over just like they do to the artists.

NUKE intellectual property says:

Economic Terrorism by hollywood

no people download for many reason your simple minded slow witted style reaks a a , lawyer don’t be fooled this type a troll is everwhere today. they get paid to do this.

A tv and a vcr
how is that differant then say
a computer and a hard drive

and if you hollywood numb nuts hadda got on the ball eral early before kids lerned to rip out commericals youd a been spotted in.
BUT again your slugs old world ancient relics of a time long ago. YOU just don’t know your dead already.

NON of this matters and shortly you will see
when half a million get disconneced and have free time to wander over to parliament and voice displeasure
your going to see the party inpower now blsted to literal bits by kids that usually dont vote

a last note that since this copyright madness began my own membership of my hacker organization has increased ten fold in 2 months

you knw what that means yet andy?
IT means were united and thats the real membership NOT the associates or those that have forums and let everyone join
that figure again is a factor of ten.

its kinda scarey but ya know we will fight you and you undemocratic economic terrorism

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Economic Terrorism by hollywood

“its kinda scarey but ya know we will fight you and you undemocratic economic terrorism”

No, the reason why they can get away with these kinds of laws is because they know we are all talk. Sure, we’ll bitch and moan about it on the internet, but in the meat-space it takes more than an active, vocal minority to affect change; and we’re an inactive, non-vocal minority. So no, we wont fight them. And they’re counting on it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Economic Terrorism by hollywood

“No, the reason why they can get away with these kinds of laws is because they know we are all talk. Sure, we’ll bitch and moan about it on the internet, but in the meat-space it takes more than an active, vocal minority to affect change; and we’re an inactive, non-vocal minority. So no, we wont fight them. And they’re counting on it.”

We are not a vocal minority, if it was a minority they wouldn’t bother would they?

Second, the battle won’t happen in congress on in the court of law, it will happen inside homes everywhere. Where people already made their feelings extremely well known.

Anonymous Coward says:

“if you pay for your media then there is no need for running around using various encryption techniques to HIDE what you are doing to stop being cut off!”

Pay more?

We pay when we go out to dine, to see movies, theather, shows, we pay when we go to the gym, we pay when we shop, they even try to make people pay in church and in schools.

I really believe those artists should go “#$%&.

I’m not paying those people any more, not a penny, they took the joy out of the arts and transformed into something ugly.

They can find other jobs, because if they counting on my money to have a living they can forget about it, cause it ain’t happening. No more hand outs to the MPAA the RIAA or the Sofware Alliance, and if I can help it no more money to the big pharma either.

I’m fed up with those people crying wolf, lying through their teeth and trying to impose ridiculous laws that encroach on my civil rights and some even violate human rights.

I don’t even fileshare, but I do find a lot of alternatives all legal and free as in freedom and as in beer. So if those people don’t want to produce movies, music or any other thing for me that is fine.

I do believe people also have responsibility on the matter, when they use that crap from those artists and entities they are giving away their liberties.

Killer_Tofu (profile) says:

Go Talk-Talk

Talk Talk certainly has my respect. Any company that is willing to stand up for its users / customers is a good company.
I kind of wish Talk Talk or iiNet was an ISP here in the US.
The only choices I get for high speed in my area is Wild Blue satellite (not acceptable for gaming, and has a ridiculously small usage cap) or Comcast.
No competition. =(

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“they will likely change their tune when they start spending more on laywers every day.”

They can probably go before an EU court on a point by point basis. Each request that comes in go before a judge with a different violation of what ever passes for a constitution in the UK, and also how it violate EU law. Being a layman I can see 18 violation of EU and UK law, there are probably alot more.

The new Internet Freedom Provision of the EU Telecoms Reform states.

“Any of these measures regarding end-users‚Äô access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process. Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.‚ÄĚ”

Just read that one section and you find 7 different ways to fight this in the EU court.

1) principle of presumption of innocence
2) the right to privacy
3) A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed
4) the right to be heard
5) effective judicial protection
6) due process
7) their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards

Then you also have the fundamental rights issue …

OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (applicable sections)

Article 8
Protection of personal data
1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the
person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to
data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

Article 11
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions
and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless
of frontiers.

Article 13
Freedom of the arts and sciences
The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.

Article 36
Access to services of general economic interest
The Union recognises and respects access to services of general economic interest as provided for in national laws and practices, in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community, in order to promote the social and territorial cohesion of the Union.

Article 38
Consumer protection
Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection.

Article 41
Right to good administration
1. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union.
2. This right includes:
¬ó the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her
adversely is taken;
¬ó the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;
¬ó the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.
3.Every person has the right to have the Community make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States.

RD says:

And what if its not available?

“pay for your media people”

Uh huh. Ok fine then, I put it to YOU to tell me where I can purchase things like seasons of The John Larroquette Show? This is a show I liked (mostly the first season) but thanks to copyright, I cannot legally buy or download it. The copyright holder WILL NOT release it in ANY form for me to purchase. Same goes for the following TV shows: VR.5, The Visitor, The Fugitive (from 2000, and was the VERY FIRST SHOW (series) EVER broadcast in hidef in America), and MANY MANY other shows that I enjoyed and would love to obtain legally, but cannot due to the people who hold the copyright REFUSING to provide me with a legal means.

Please answer this question, you smug corporate shill.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: And what if its not available?

The Larry Sanders Show! Six seasons were aired but only one is available to purchase! Why?

They had musicians play music and only got the licensing for the broadcast version and it’s too expensive to license for the DVD versions.

How is this promoting anything? But if you received the first season as a gift and loved it and wanted more, where would you go?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ¬Ľ

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...