Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

European Court Finds Copyright Doesn't Automatically Trump Freedom Of Expression

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the some-drop-science dept.

EU 214

First time accepted submitter admiral snackbar writes "The European Court of Human Rights has declared that the copyright monopoly stands in direct conflict with fundamental Human Rights, as defined in the European Union and elsewhere. 'For the first time in a judgment on the merits, the European Court of Human Rights has clarified that a conviction based on copyright law for illegally reproducing or publicly communicating copyright protected material can be regarded as an interference with the right of freedom of expression and information under Article 10 of the European Convention [on Human Rights]. Such interference must be in accordance with the three conditions enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention. This means that a conviction or any other judicial decision based on copyright law, restricting a person's or an organization's freedom of expression, must be pertinently motivated as being necessary in a democratic society, apart from being prescribed by law and pursuing a legitimate aim.'"

cancel ×

214 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

At last! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830395)

I, for one, welcome our new european overlords!

Land of the free (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830425)

Home of the french. Unfortunately.

Take a look at that statue of liberty. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830479)

There's something you owe the french.

Your freedom.

And most of your constitution.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830593)

Can they ask the french for a refund or a replacement for faulty merchandise ?

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (5, Insightful)

qbast (1265706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830773)

Your constitution is fine. You are just holding it wrong.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (5, Funny)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830829)

Have you tried restoring it to it's default settings?

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (4, Funny)

six025 (714064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830837)

Have you tried repair permissions,?

FTFY. You're welcome.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (3)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830977)

Have you tried restoring it to it's default settings?

I'm afraid such an operation will require a reboot: the default settings don't make sense anymore in the context of such an advanced state of internal corruption and aberrant operational mode.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (3, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831003)

The hypervisor that runs the constitution was rooted.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830619)

And some statue of a woman with a torch. Which, ironically became the symbol of hope/freedom for Europeans fleeing to the U.S.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830651)

And which ironically is a plagiarism of another statue, and therefore copyright infringment?

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (3, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830673)

No, that's something we owe Louis XVI. France was most assuredly not a democratic state at the time. As for the Constitution, Montesquieu was a large influence, no doubt, but again was not exactly a democrat or even a supporter of American independence. Freedom wears a crown, eh?

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (4, Informative)

JAlexoi (1085785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830745)

No, that's something we owe Louis XVI. France was most assuredly not a democratic state at the time. As for the Constitution, Montesquieu was a large influence, no doubt, but again was not exactly a democrat or even a supporter of American independence. Freedom wears a crown, eh?

A) You're confounding democracy with freedom. It's the same mistake people make when they talk about capitalism, while thinking of free market. Or socialism/communism and totalitarianism/dictatorship.
B) Freedom may wear a crown. Remember that constitutional monarchy failed in France, yet England's monarchy was/is very much like a constitutional monarchy(it's limited by many laws, yet there is no formal "constitution"). The constitution of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was written by the king!

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (3, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830897)

Given that at least some parts of Magna Carta are technically still enforce I don't think you can say England is very much like a constitutional monarchy, it *is* a constitutional monarchy.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (5, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830905)

Also, many European countries have a civil law system thanks to Napoleon. He may have been a dictator but he was a rather enlightened dictator for the time and swept away privileges, charters and other laws going all the way back to medieval times and replaced them with a civil code that enshrined many personal freedoms.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830947)

Bit of terminology nitpicking here: one usually speaks of "civil law system" as opposed to "common law system". It's different than speaking of a civil code.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (3, Interesting)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830881)

Louis XVI had some progressive velleities, but lacked political acumen (though he wasn't as stupid as he is often portrayed - by today's standards, he was a huge nerd).

La Fayette initially came to the help of the newborn USA by his own decision and with his own means, when France was reluctant to confront the English. Later, he convinced Louis XVI to help. I won't go into details but a lot of occult funding was involved, with the implication of the famous playwright Beaumarchais at a point.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (0, Flamebait)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830675)

I think I'd look into Thomas Jeffersons role and philosophy, with it's roots, before I gave the French much credit for either. The Age of Enlightenment had more to do with it.
However, my view of Europe as a whole, just brightened manyfold candlepower. Now if we could just get Comrade Obama on the same page here in the U.S.S.A.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830825)

Actually, the Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen, the first French constitutional text, was drafted by La Fayette when he came back from the USA, and heavily borrowed from the constitution of Virginia IIRC.

We can talk about a lot of cross-pollinisation instead of making it one-way.

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830929)

Yes, if weren't for the French help during the Revolutionary War us Americans would all be stuck speaking English today!

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830959)

1918
1945
Paid in Full and then some

Re:Take a look at that statue of liberty. (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831045)

What about Normandy? Lots of American soldiers buried there.

Re:Land of the free (2, Informative)

cbope (130292) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830771)

Hate to tell you this, but only a minority of Europeans actually live in France, there are a few other countries in the EU...

Thanks for your attention, I hope you enjoyed your geography lesson.

Re:Land of the free (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830819)

Hate to tell you but the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU court but a COE (council of europe) court.

Re:Land of the free (2)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830849)

They eat horses you know.

Re:Land of the free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830945)

At least they know they are eating horses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21377601

Re:Land of the free (1, Flamebait)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831111)

I was hoping someone would pick up on this. I live in the UK, but I'm vegetarian, so I get to laugh and point at all my friends who delight in eating mystery meat. Personally, I don't see much difference between horse and cow; why eat one and not the other?

Re:Land of the free (2)

deimtee (762122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831163)

I've never understood the aversion to eating horse. It's basically just a tall skinny cow, so what's the problem?

Re:Land of the free (3, Interesting)

sosume (680416) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831247)

Mankind sort-of made a pact with horses. They let you ride on their back and agree to be used for labor, but in return you promise not to kill them for food.
Similar deals have been made with for instance donkeys, dogs, cats and falcons. They hunt for us, guard us or carry our loads.
Cows appear much less intelligent and you won't be able to make such a deal. They are basically a meat-milk-excrement factory, barely intelligent enough
to stay awake. All they do all day is stand around and eat. Therefore we are allowed to eat them.
On a sidenote, this is the reason I don't eat pig. They are way too intelligent to be brought to the slaughterhouse.

What? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830461)

What?

An organisation has freedom of expression?

That's not good. It's members maybe, but an abstract legal entity?

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830533)

Could you explain why you think it's not good?

Would you like to see political groups broken up for saying something that an individual would have been fine saying? It's happened all over the world in the past - the "legally elected government" cracking down on opposition parties simply because they oppose them, I'd say protecting the right of any organisation to express rational opposition to another is absolutely a requirement of civilised society.

Re:What? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830717)

This is the fundamental reasoning behind the Citizens United decision, which takes power out of the hands of media corporations and gives it to others. This pisses off people who don't want the rabble to talk about things they don't like. Some people are incapable of seeing beyond the political moment to recognize when fundamental rights are involved, and others are just thugs who don't care.

Re:What? (2)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830875)

I will defend to the death the absolute right of Fox News to talk bull****!

Or I would if I actually lived in America, we don't have TV like that in the UK. That sort of rhetoric gets buried in the columns of disreputable newspapers like the Daily Fail. *cough* Mail.

Re:What? (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830973)

'Daily Wail' is also acceptable.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42831073)

Money is not speech, and organisations are not people!

More specifically -

Money is not in any way freely distributed a great many people have none or at least almost none to spare. If you treat spending money as speech all the time then your freedom of speech becomes dependent on your existing power and some people have no "voice". This defeats or at least massively frustrates the point of freedom of speech in the first place, which is that everyone can express their opinion to others without fear of suppression, since if you are drowned out by other peoples money you fail to be able to express your views properly regardless of whether or not you are punished for it.

Organisations only have rights by borrowing the rights of their members, not on their own. Many organisations such as (but not limited to) corporations take interests which diverge substantively from the vast majority of their members. It might be wrong for the government to have the ability to shut them down by fiat, or selectively restrict their spending to the detriment of the members, but that does not mean they have their own rights especially when they act against their member's interests. Blanket bans or limits on specific behaviours, such as political spending, should not be prevented unless they can be shown to act against the rights of individuals within *as individuals*. Although I do think restrictions must be for good reason, such as preventing money from distorting politics towards the already powerful.

(the citizens united ruling seems to agree with me on the latter point, as it bans direct political donations from organisations to politicians so on this I simply think they did not go far enough in their limitations)

Re:What? (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830537)

An organisation has freedom of expression?

I'm not sure about this, but an organization might not be regarded as a legal person in EU law. (It certainly isn't in tax law: corporations are taxed using a completely separate set of taxes to actual people.) That said, it would also be wrong to restrict organizations except in accordance with the other basic principles from having freedom of (collective) speech. That is, all restrictions have to be necessary to support democractic society, as prescribed in law, and following a legitimate aim (the aims that are legitimate are set out elsewhere). The "necessary to support democratic society" part is critical: it stops a lot of possible abuses.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830901)

The ECHR is not an EU court but a COE (council of Europe) one.

Eat me, Euroskeptics! (4, Insightful)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830473)

While the EU has had a lot of criticism (some of it justified) for it's costs, it's impenetrable bureaucracy, and it's tendency to focus on the minutia rather than bigger problems, I think that it would be impossible to practically enact vital laws and opinions such as this on an international scale without it. Big government may be out of fashion on the other side of the pond, but it certainly has it's merits over here (where our governmental needs are different) and this kind of check against the increasing pressure and influence of fanatical commercial interests on the interpretation and drafting of legislation is exactly what we need right now to restore a little sanity to the situation.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830515)

it's = it is

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830645)

"it's = it is"

One of the least intuitive rules in the English language. Contractions without apostrophes are common, whereas using an apostrophe to indicate the possessive is universal everywhere except in the case of "it". So if you were starting from scratch, and you had to choose whether to use "it's" as a contraction of "it is", or for the possessive, it would be a no-brainer to contract "it is" as "its", and maintain the consistency of apostrophe use for the possessive of "it".

Now if you had criticised him for using the singular "minutia" instead of the plural "minutiae"...

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (1)

Theleton (1688778) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830739)

As well as consistency with he's and her's?

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830753)

So get rid of his and use he's instead - works for me.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830823)

There's no confusion between "his" and "he's", because, you know, different letters. It is the fact that "it's" and "its" are identical apart from the arse-backwards apostrophe usage that leads to confusion.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (4, Informative)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831083)

It's simple really. Just remember that the apostrophe ALWAYS represents one or more letters having between removed. In the case of the possessive, it's due to a missing "e" that used to be used (the possessive form was made with "es" - e.g. "Peter's cat" really represents "Peteres cat"). This is quite visible in other Germanic languages, but quite hidden in English due to the weird history of our language.

In the case of the possessive "its", it was never written "ites" and therefore does not receive an apostrophe. Similarly, "his" and "her" also never had the "es" ending and therefore also do not contain an apostrophe.

"It's" contains an apostrophe for the missing "i" from "it is" (or in some cases the missing "ha" from "it has") and so it becomes very clear that the apostrophe is required.

If all that is too confusing or simply too hard to remember, relate things back to "his" and "her". You can grammatically replace "its" with "his" and still make sense, so it similarly doesn't take an apostrophe ("Its impenetrable bureaucracy" -> "His impenetrable bureaucracy" (no problem)). "It's" on the other hand can never be grammatically replaced by "his" ("It's got impenetrable bureaucracy" -> "His got impenetrable bureaucracy" (meaningless)).

The alternative (and more common, but less obvious to me personally) method is to go the other way around and mentally try replacing "its"/"it's" with "it is" to see if that fits.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830785)

Not sure what happened there - a total typing fail followed by a re-reading brain fart seems the most likely combination at this time. ;)

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830535)

While I agree with your main point, this ruling is from the European Court of Human Rights which is not an EU institution. All member states of the EU, and indeed the EU itself, is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights -- but so are several other countries that are not EU member states.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (4, Informative)

foobsr (693224) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830879)

European Convention on Human Rights

Just for some thoughts, quote: "The Convention prohibits in particular: torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, slavery and forced labour, death penalty, arbitrary and unlawful detention, and discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention."

(to be found at http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/The+Court/Introduction/Information+documents/ [coe.int] )

How is that in the US of A?

CC.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42831021)

It's progress, with some places lagging behind. Schools are granted exemptions to allow them to preserve their religious ethos. In Ireland this is exacerbated by the curious role of the church in running the majority of primary schools. Good luck getting a job as a teacher if you're an openly gay Hindu. I don't see how this is any different to allowing the KKK to run schools, and allowing them to prioritise white applications so as to preserve their ethos.

We'll get there when it's a level playing field, where exclusions aren't handed out for such nebulous and discriminatory reasons.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830545)

From Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights ):

"The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR; French: Cour européenne des droits de l’homme) in Strasbourg, France is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. ... . The court, as is also the Council Of Europe, is not part and is a completely separate body from the European Union and its court, the European Court of Justice. The latter is based in Luxembourg."

Therefore, it has nothing to do with European Union Project that tried to pass ACTA and other copyright friendly policies.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830603)

The ruling has a bit more than nothing to do with the EU: The same wikipedia page also states about the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ): "Therefore, the ECJ refers to the case-law of the Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human Rights as though it was part of the EU's legal system."

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830699)

Yes, ECJ is bound by ECtHR, not the other way around. The legal system has "national law" subject to ECJ subject to ECtHR. With respect to Human Rights, the European system has been in forefront, the larger international organizations (other regional and UN based) has followed, or will follow.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830677)

It's not "big government", it's "unpopular decisions". The EU isn't that big.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (4, Informative)

foobsr (693224) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830919)

The EU isn't that big.

Wikipedia: "With a combined population of over 500 million inhabitants, or 7.3% of the world population, the EU, in 2011, generated the largest nominal world gross domestic product (GDP) of 17.6 trillion US dollars, representing approximately 20% of the global GDP when measured in terms of purchasing power parity."

CC.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831059)

The EU isn't that big.

If it were a country, it would be the 7th largest in the world. It has the largest GDP in the world and 503 million inhabitants, making it the third largest in population.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830873)

While the EU has had a lot of criticism (some of it justified) for it's costs, it's impenetrable bureaucracy, and it's tendency to focus on the minutia rather than bigger problems, I think that it would be impossible to practically enact vital laws and opinions such as this on an international scale without it.

An ironic comment, given that this ruling was made by the European Court of Human Rights, which is not a part of the EU machinery (and in fact applies in far more countries and has been around for far longer).

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (1)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830885)

The European Court of Human Rights is NOT part of EU. Its an independent court.

So your yelp at EU sceptics is way out of line. Given the decisions from the EU Court I can only say its my opinion that it would naver have reached the same decision. Its very pro-EU.

 

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830995)

Your comment is ironic as EU sceptics are the first to confuse the EU and the EHCR whenever it suits them. Particularly all the uproar blaming the EU about the EHCR decision on blanket loss of voting rights by prisoners in the UK.

Re:Eat me, Euroskeptics! (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830989)

This European ruling is still more limited than US fair use rights, and the entire repressive copyright regime was created by international organizations in the first place, mainly driven by Europeans.

Instead if being an example of the benefits of big government, this is an example of big government passing more laws to fix problems that it itself created.

Details (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830487)

TFA is crap, but links to a post with more details. [blogspot.com]

the applicants were Robert Ashby Donald, Marcio Madeira Moraes and Olivier Claisse, respectively an American, a Brazilian and a French national living in New-York, Paris and Le Perreux-sur-Marne. All three are fashion photographers. The case concerned their conviction in France for copyright infringement following the publication of pictures on the Internet site Viewfinder of a fashion company run by Mr. Donald and Mr. Moraes. The photos were taken by Mr. Claisse at fashion shows in Paris in 2003 and published without the permission of the fashion houses. The three fashion photographers were ordered by the Court of Appeal of Paris to pay fines between 3.000 and 8.000 euro and an award of damages to the French design clothing Federation and five fashion houses, all together amounting to 255.000 euro

Notably,

In the case of Ashby Donald and others v. France the European Court of Human Rights did not need to undertake itself such a balancing exercise, as it found that the French judicial authorities have done this exercise in a proper way. As the Court stated, it saw no reason to disagree with the findings by the French courts

I.e., the ruling didn't do squat to help the defendants in this case.

Re:Details (4, Interesting)

rmstar (114746) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830613)

I.e., the ruling didn't do squat to help the defendants in this case.

No, because it was a purely commericial issue.

The clarification of the court concerns things like leaked documents that trigger a political scandal, which in the past have been successfully taken down on copyright grounds. The court has made it clear that it intends to stop this practice.

It is interesting that the court felt the need to clarify this issue even though it had no bearing on the case at hand.

Re:Details (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830915)

It is interesting that the court felt the need to clarify this issue even though it had no bearing on the case at hand.

It's interesting because they're obviously interested in not accidentally (or otherwise) limiting freedom by issuing a bad ruling. They made it clear why they were doing what they were doing. This doesn't change the law unless they already have no fair use law.

Re:Details (2)

JAlexoi (1085785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830693)

TFA is not about the particular case. It's about the principle, that has been confirmed and can be cited for consideration.

Explains a lot (4, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830489)

Might go some way towards explaining the massive right-wing hate for the European Court of Human Rights and petty tabloid hate of 'European human rights' in general.

Human rights and (rightwing politics, elite interests) of all colours generally don't get along.

Re:Explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830661)

I don't know why, the MAFIAA and artists are generally very left-wing.

Re:Explains a lot (5, Insightful)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831191)

I don't know why, the MAFIAA and artists are generally very left-wing.

Only from a US (and to a somewhat lesser extent, UK) point of view. Remember that "left" from a (mainland) European perspective is generally viewed as significantly further left of "left" from a US perspective. Some policies of the US left are seen as draconianly "right" by many Europeans.

It tends to be the case that in Europe, the word "liberal" still contains the core meaning of the word "liberty". It's definitely a moderated and controlled liberty (so, not "libertarian") but the goal is to promote as much freedom as possible for the greatest number of people.

This is the case whether you agree or disagree with HOW it is done (e.g. higher taxes may seem to be the opposite of "liberty"; but it's viewed in context of using the money to promote the liberty of those who have less without impinging TOO greatly on those who have more, increasing the baseline liberty enjoyed by citizens overall (remembering for an extreme case of the opposite that in a Dictatorship, the Dictator himself has "complete liberty" at the expense of all others; this represents the most possible liberty for one; but the least for the population as a whole. At a lesser scale, the US at present provides a high level of liberty for those of moderate to high income, but less for those that are in the lowest income classes)).

In my understanding, the US left tend to be more in favour of the "war on drugs" than the US right; but the typical European left tends to be against it, with the typical European right being moderately in favour of it.

The biggest problem of course comes from the fact that "left" and "right" are pretty crappy descriptors of politics. Being in favour of higher taxes and a strong social welfare/benefit system really has almost nothing to do with your policies on gun control, which in turn usually has nothing to do with your policy on immigration. I can easily imagine multiple parties all with different platforms on each of these that would never fit in to the neat "left"/"right" divide that is so commonly thrown about.

Re:Explains a lot (4, Insightful)

alexgieg (948359) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830685)

Human rights and (rightwing politics, elite interests) of all colours generally don't get along.

Sometimes in the effects, but not in the causes.

For example, libertarians are usually all for human rights. What they are against are the "human duties" that come with many of those rights. So, as long as the right is something like "an human has a right to pursue happiness", that's fine. If it says "a man has a right to be happy", and this means someone else having the obligation to make him happy, not so much.

Conservatives, on the other hand, generally aren't agains the rights themselves, but they have serious issues with the hierarchy of said rights. For example, abortion. A conservative (a western one at least) does think a woman should have right over her own body. If he didn't think so he'd be against anti-rape laws, which are entirely based on the right for a women to decide who she lets or doesn't let inside her body. What he doesn't agree with is that said right be placed above a human (fetus or not) right to live. Which in turn they don't think should be placed above the right of society to kill those humans who threaten it the most.

It should be noted too that, from the perspective of many rightwingers, it's the left that doesn't respect many human rights, such as the right to fully express one's own personal beliefs wherever one is just because of one's profession by, for example, forcing one to remove religious symbols from one's work desk or wall.

Gray areas. This theme is full of them.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830899)

Conservatives, on the other hand, generally aren't agains the rights themselves, but they have serious issues with the hierarchy of said rights. For example, abortion. A conservative (a western one at least) does think a woman should have right over her own body. If he didn't think so he'd be against anti-rape laws, which are entirely based on the right for a women to decide who she lets or doesn't let inside her body. What he doesn't agree with is that said right be placed above a human (fetus or not) right to live. Which in turn they don't think should be placed above the right of society to kill those humans who threaten it the most.

Well no, that's a lot of bullshit. What he doesn't agree with is that a fetus is not the same as a person.

Re:Explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830969)

I don't believe in a magical sky faerie, so I don't believe someone magically becomes a person at the point they get pushed out or cut out of a woman.
My right wing friends believe in the magical sky faerie that magically makes people become a person when they're conceived.
My "think they're progressive" friends are irrational and believe that a fetus magically becomes a person when they are too inconvenient to disregard.

Re:Explains a lot (3, Interesting)

alexgieg (948359) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830991)

Well no, that's a lot of bullshit. What he doesn't agree with is that a fetus is not the same as a person.

The argument doesn't rely on that. If we are distinguish a fetus from a person, it's still a matter of an hierarchy of values. IMHO, it'd look roughly like this (subject to lots of refinements):

a) Liberal: person life > women rights over body > killing society threatening life > fetus life

b) Libertarian (typical): women rights over body > person life > killing society threatening life > fetus life

c) Conservative (typical): killing society threatening life > person life > fetus life > women rights over body

d) Conservative (Catholic): fetus life > killing society threatening life > person life > women rights over body

And so on and so forth. Mix and match to find other minor political ideologies.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831201)

The argument doesn't rely on that. If we are distinguish a fetus from a person, it's still a matter of an hierarchy of values.

You're still attempting to reframe the debate with typical bullshit tactics the same as the douchewad that I was talking to about some property he owns (inherited, did not earn) and he spits out "the problem with this country is that we're still killing babies". We all know that you claim the right to define what is or is not a lifeform, and THAT is what this debate is about.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831077)

It should be noted too that, from the perspective of many rightwingers, it's the left that doesn't respect many human rights, such as the right to fully express one's own personal beliefs wherever one is just because of one's profession by, for example, forcing one to remove religious symbols from one's work desk or wall.

The problem here is (often) that these people are all for expressing their own beliefs, but don't spent a thought on how that affects other peoples freedoms.
No freedom is really unlimited. They all find bounds where other people come into play. And with most of us living in a society with other people, that happens sooner rather than later.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

tbird81 (946205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830701)

That's not true at all. Right-wing is about civil liberties and personal freedoms and responsibilities. Left-wing is about granting control to the government for them to act in the best interest of everyone. (e.g. "The left" will increase taxes, because the government thinks they should be able to take someone's money and give it to who they think deserves it. Lefties also make laws that might restrict freedom for the "greater good" - an example is the ban on rare-earth magnet toys in many countries.)

Corporatism is a left-wing trait. Basically the government grants power to an organisation (e.g. MPAA) to override the rights of citizens, because "it's the right thing".

People don't like the EU because it tends to restrict freedoms. It also is full of many many corrupt politicians, and has little accountability to the people. Corrupt politicians come in all colours, but the left have definitely had their fair share.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

Velex (120469) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830751)

Why does the right wing support things like the TSA and marijuana prohibition? Please, no "no true Scotsman" fallacies.

Re:Explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830975)

Marijunana? That's easy -- Because Republicans started the War on Drugs and have a general prohibition component still around.

TSA? I have no freaking idea. I was a Republican and flipped on the party and GW Bush the moment the Dept. of Homeland Security was created.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831001)

Because the right isn't just one ideology. The political right and religious right are often in conflict, but they are kept unified because they know they need each other to defeat their mutual enemies.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

smpoole7 (1467717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831125)

> Why does the right wing support things like the TSA and marijuana prohibition?

I think this comment is an insight into your *perception* of conservatives, rather than what we actually believe. In particular, if you read the right-wing sites and blogs, you'll see that most of us *HATE* the TSA. Passionately. From Breitbart to Drudge to you name it. (And for the record, were complaining loudly even when Bush was in office.)

This shows me that you don't regularly read what we're actually saying. Instead, you engage in the very confirmation bias that you assume that WE have. For example, you may read a liberal blogger's *summary* of "what we believe," rather than reading the original "conservative" blog. (Perhaps out of fear of being "tainted." Hey, I can roll with that.) :)

And many conservatives have one foot on the Libertarian side of the aisle these days, and fully support the decriminalization of marijuana. (If not outright legalization.)

The fact is, these labels are inaccurate. On some issues, you'd probably consider me hard right wing. But my own right wing friends consider me almost liberal on other issues.

Example: I am extremely concerned about the way the MPAA/RIAA can just harass and engage in legal "shakedowns" based on very weak evidence (note to the courts: you CANNOT reliably identify someone by IP address!!!).

On gun control, I agree with DC v. Heller, that the "militia" argument is specious; we have a right to "keep and bear arms" in the US. Period, thank you. BUT ... I also have no problem with proper training, screening and licensing. (Try uttering the latter words around a true 2nd Amendment-huggin' redneck and watch what happens.) :)

And on this case: I am keeping a close eye on fair use, and on the ways that the courts and Congress in the US have tried to water down that fundamental right. TLDR on the actual article, but if the EU has actually done something useful in this regard, I say we send them a bag of candy.

Re:Explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830755)

In theory maybe.

In practice? Not so much.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830781)

That's not true at all. Right-wing is about civil liberties and personal freedoms and responsibilities. Left-wing is about granting control to the government for them to act in the best interest of everyone.

This only applies to in-groups. It is right-wing to be for liberties for your personal friends, people who think like you or who have the same nationality like you. It is not right-wing to be for liberties for (or be concerned about at all) those other out-group people that are not your personal friends, don't think like you or are not the same nationality like you. The concern for out-group members also naturally translates into left-wing thinking for a country - if you don't care what happens to out-group members, then giving them freedom to shoot themselves in the foot and die of gangrene because they didn't have money for health care is no cost to you and in return you get to do whatever you want to do yourself.

This is what the OP was talking about. Humans right aren't about in-groups - you are probably going to treat your friends OK regardless of laws. Human rights are about out-groups - it's about minorities, enemies in war and in general just people who you don't have a connection to. That's why right-wing groups are so against human rights and of course it gets even worse when an out-group court gets to decide human rights matters.

Re:Explains a lot (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830857)

Its easy to become confused. Both sides talk about rights. The difference been a libertarian and your typical leftist comes down to where the obligations lay.

The libertarian believes everyone has a right to any health care need or want, but to him the meaning of that is nobody should stop anyone from having procedures performed.

The leftist believes everyone has a right to health care based on need, and its societies job to ensure they get it.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830757)

Are right- or left-leaners more likely to support the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which protects the ability of organizations to speak? It's the most analogous legal finding over here, and yet it's almost universally abused by the left side of American politics, which is populated by people who apparently can't imagine ever being out of power.

Re:Explains a lot (2)

bagpuss7 (947574) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830861)

Does American politics have a left side?

Re:Explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42831109)

Does American politics have a left side?

America is a one party system. The only thing that changes is who ends up being the beneficiary of government grants.
Republicans shit on society and give hand over fist $ to corporations. Democrats do the opposite.

Question is: would this have deterred Ortiz? (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830571)

(mutatis mutandis of course).

Surprise, or maybe not so much... (1)

jopsen (885607) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830585)

It's long been common practice that copyright couldn't be enforced if it was violated in order to provide information in the interest of the public.
I don't see this ruling going any further...

More information? (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830667)

That's interesting. Could you provide links to more information? I think that's the way it should be.

Re:More information? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830907)

That's interesting. Could you provide links to more information? I think that's the way it should be.

It's called fair use. We also have whistleblower laws. If you were genuinely interested you'd know this already.

Like this will work in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830735)

Don't like the 2nd Amendment? Ignore it, or make up self-serving crap about a simple explanatory clause somehow being related to the fundamental right being guaranteed!

Don't like due process? Ignore it. Use them drones to whack US citizens!

ECHR and UNHCR far, far left/anarchist/fascist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830801)

A good example of the Human Rights Court anarchist and far, far left trend. You do not have to be a right-winger to see the issues here. If they can undermine the 'capitalistic' underpinnings of copyrights, then much of our information/technology/innovation sharing and growth will grind to a halt. We will innovate like the Russians and Chinese do - not.

Re:ECHR and UNHCR far, far left/anarchist/fascist (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42831099)

You seem to ignore the fact that copyright protection is something that society GRANTED the copyright holders (by way of laws). So its just natural that society can limit copyright protection where necessary.

I am expressing myself! (0)

hessian (467078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830809)

These 2.3 terrabytes of bit torrent downloads are not piracy.

They are performance art.

Some express themselves through defecating paint on canvas, or inserting nostalgic objects into their vaginas, or even collecting garbage in a room and calling it art.

My art is poetry formed of the sequence of downloads I am undertaking.

Now please stop troubling me with your talk about "piracy" and "illegality" because it's simply not true.

Also because I'm in the EU, can I get welfare benefits for heavy metal addiction [thelocal.se] ?

That's what I'm downloading. Help me!

Re:I am expressing myself! (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830817)

Meh, just claim fair use on all the individual packets.

Re:I am expressing myself! (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42830941)

Good luck convincing a court of that.

To my mind, freedom of expression shouldn't necessarily be free of consequences. e.g. If I was a serial killer, I could claim that my murders were actually performance art, but then the punishment should also form part of the artwork. A lot of artists suffer for their art, and serving a prison sentence could be considered part of the whole "murder" performance.

That said, I don't agree with how copyright is used/abused these days and I think it's an outdated idea. Human culture and advancement has always been built on the basic human desire to share good ideas/music/art/recipes etc.

Re:I am expressing myself! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830983)

I's been done. [theregister.co.uk]
Nice to see your derivative art is scaled appropriately by Moore's law, though.

You'll be fine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42831005)

as long as it's

2.3 terrabytes

of whatever; as soon as we're talking terrorbytes, thing might go ugly...

What have they been up to this time ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42830895)

What have the politicians been up to this time?

Their corporate handlers are going to be *so* cross.
It just goes to show: You can never really rely on them being housebroken.

Wildest dreams (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42831037)

Holy crap, I'm feeling like my wildest dreams have come true! Finally acknowledging, that copyright must be in balance with society and is no absolute right, whereas freedom of expression is an absolute right.

I DO in general despise the EU (they do regulate a lot of our daily lives, which is kind of strange for all those little things) but the high courts seem to have a deep insight into humanity and society as of late.

Re:Wildest dreams (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42831237)

I DO in general despise the EU (they do regulate a lot of our daily lives, which is kind of strange for all those little things)

for example ?

Not EU! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42831117)

The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. The ECHR was established as part of the Council of Europe. With 47 member states (including, for example, Russia) the Council is significantly bigger than Europe.

This is important for a few reasons:

- This decision, while not necessarily binding in domestic law for many countries, offers relatively strong guidance as to how domestic law should treat these cases
- Discussions about the EU are irrelevant here
- Unlike EU law, ECHR decisions do not automatically become domestic law in many cases/countries.

Graphic design (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42831175)

Need a Graphic design?
Just for 5$

fiverr.com/techmore

Easy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42831205)

....time to cut the EU off from the rest of the world. Let them fall back into their own cesspool.

Stealing money from big companies to bolster their crappy economies....then saying that people who share stuff is "freedom of expression" - how retarded....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>