Comments on: EU to put stop to IRMA suing filesharers? http://www.mulley.net/2007/07/19/eu-to-put-stop-to-irma-suing-filesharers/ Invisible people have invisible rights Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:10:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Lex Ferenda » Pro-Music? http://www.mulley.net/2007/07/19/eu-to-put-stop-to-irma-suing-filesharers/#comment-588342 Lex Ferenda » Pro-Music? Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:17:58 +0000 http://www.mulley.net/2007/07/19/eu-to-put-stop-to-irma-suing-filesharers/#comment-588342 [...] characteristic feature of European Union law, a preliminary reference to the ECJ). I did comment on Damien’s post back in the summer that the opinion of the Advocate General was just that - an opinion - but it [...] [...] characteristic feature of European Union law, a preliminary reference to the ECJ). I did comment on Damien’s post back in the summer that the opinion of the Advocate General was just that - an opinion - but it [...]

]]> By: TJ http://www.mulley.net/2007/07/19/eu-to-put-stop-to-irma-suing-filesharers/#comment-332227 TJ Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:10:28 +0000 http://www.mulley.net/2007/07/19/eu-to-put-stop-to-irma-suing-filesharers/#comment-332227 Oops - on a closer reading of the opinion I'd better qualify that. The AG appears to be relying on Art. 15 of Directive 2002/58 as the only permissible basis for disclosure of internet traffic records and seems to draw a distinction between information being handed over directly to plaintiffs (copyright holders) and to public authorities. Consequently (though my French is very shaky) it may be that there is a knock on effect undermining domestic rules such as the Norwich Pharmacal order that allow such data to be disclosed directly. Incidentally, the opinion recognises that a user's computer might be hijacked - a first for the ECJ I suspect. Oops - on a closer reading of the opinion I’d better qualify that. The AG appears to be relying on Art. 15 of Directive 2002/58 as the only permissible basis for disclosure of internet traffic records and seems to draw a distinction between information being handed over directly to plaintiffs (copyright holders) and to public authorities. Consequently (though my French is very shaky) it may be that there is a knock on effect undermining domestic rules such as the Norwich Pharmacal order that allow such data to be disclosed directly.

Incidentally, the opinion recognises that a user’s computer might be hijacked - a first for the ECJ I suspect.

]]> By: TJ http://www.mulley.net/2007/07/19/eu-to-put-stop-to-irma-suing-filesharers/#comment-331956 TJ Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:13:17 +0000 http://www.mulley.net/2007/07/19/eu-to-put-stop-to-irma-suing-filesharers/#comment-331956 The ruling merely says that EU law (IPRED) does not require ISPs to hand over this information in civil cases. It says nothing (from my quick scan of the French text) as to whether Member States may require this to be done as a matter of domestic law. Irish domestic law has long since done this quite independently of IPRED. The ruling merely says that EU law (IPRED) does not require ISPs to hand over this information in civil cases. It says nothing (from my quick scan of the French text) as to whether Member States may require this to be done as a matter of domestic law. Irish domestic law has long since done this quite independently of IPRED.

]]> By: Daithí http://www.mulley.net/2007/07/19/eu-to-put-stop-to-irma-suing-filesharers/#comment-331870 Daithí Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:42:23 +0000 http://www.mulley.net/2007/07/19/eu-to-put-stop-to-irma-suing-filesharers/#comment-331870 Don't forget that this is an Advocate General's opinion, *not* a court decision (your source gets this right but a LOT of the rest blurs this). Waiting on an English translation of the decision, the Court's site has a lot of other languages but not this one. OH well. Don’t forget that this is an Advocate General’s opinion, *not* a court decision (your source gets this right but a LOT of the rest blurs this).

Waiting on an English translation of the decision, the Court’s site has a lot of other languages but not this one. OH well.

]]>