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!

German Constitutional Court Blocks Napster Suit

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the detour-needed dept.

The Courts 173

djmutex writes "In an urgent ruling, the German Constitutional Court has temporarily blocked the Napster copyright violations class action of several American recording companies and artists against Bertelsmann. The court decided that the German court in Düsseldorf, which was, according to international conventions, required to serve the writ, may not do so until the Constitutional Court has checked that the suit does not violate Bertelsmann's rights granted by the German constitution. Since, according to those agreements, the service is a precondition for both the suit to proceed in the U.S. as well as the later acceptance of the U.S. ruling in Germany, the lawsuit is for now halted. It is unclear when the Constitutional Court will definitely decide, but it is not generally famed for its tempo on final rulings, and it also stated in the press release (in German) that constitutional rights could possibly be violated if "proceedings before state courts are obviously abused to discipline competitors through public media pressure and the risk of a conviction"." Reuters has a summary.

cancel ×

173 comments

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

napster? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546401)

more like CRAPster am i rite folks?

Re:napster? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546416)

YOU ARE RITE HOW DO I SHOT MP3

caps is like yelling caps is like yelling caps is like yelling caps is like yelling caps is like yelling

Re:napster? (-1, Offtopic)

ankleteeth (646346) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546425)

Do you feel really good for making the first post? You really couldnt post something related to the story could you? And I know I will get modded down for talking off-topic as well *sigh* But at least I feel releived for flaming at the troll...

What has this to do with Germany ? (-1, Troll)

Krapangor (533950) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546407)

If Bertelsmann buys a US company which violates US copyrights then Bertelsmann should submit to US law. If they don't like this, then they shouldn't do any business in the US.

Re:What has this to do with Germany ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546440)

Yeah, but guess what, the US doesn't run the world. The US conducts business in many counties with different laws that they don't respect. Look at the SLAVERY in sweatshops.

Re:What has this to do with the US ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546446)

If Bertelsmann buys a US company which violates US copyrights then Bertelsmann should submit to US law. If they don't like this, then they shouldn't do any business in the US.

If an american corporation does business with a foreign company which violates foreign law, then that american company should submit to foreign law. If they don't like this, then they shouldn't do any business with foreign organisations.

Re:What has this to do with Germany ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546714)

If the same applied there's a few CEO's that would face life in prison or worse.

Bribing foreign politicans could be considered an american past time.

Your criminalization bought and paid for by...

Napster did not violate copyrights (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546734)

Napster in no way is leaglly liable for its users..

That is about like saying civilians should be shot for US astrocitires in Iraq by Us soliders..

Re:Napster did not violate copyrights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546746)

Atrocities? Indeed. I think that the Iraqi people much prefer the U.S. presence to that of Saddam and his boys. They committed real atrocities.

Re:Napster did not violate copyrights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546866)

Which would explain the current protests going on in Iraq against the US.

Re:Napster did not violate copyrights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6547289)

A dead GI a day, keeps ol' Saddam away

shame the families have to suffer

Napster (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546408)

I have used lots of OSes in the 5 years I've used computers, and I see the same thing crop up throughout all of them. People who are using one
particular OS think they are better than the people using other OSes. This was happening way before linux surfaced. Take Mac OS. I've had 10
macs, and tons of PCs. To tell you the truth about using either, I don't care which one I use. Some people swear by the Mac OS and Steve Jobs
and say the same things about Windows users that linux users say. Windows users say the same things about Mac OS or linux. To tell you the
truth, I think not only linux sucks, but EVERY OS sucks. Every OS crashes. Every OS pisses you off at some point. Every OS can't do something
that some other OS can do. Every OS has it's strong points. Every OS has it's bad points. EVERY OS SUCKS!!! I don't ever see my TI-82 crash. I
don't see my Nintendo crash or tell me I have to install new drivers or libraries. Instead, I plug in a cartridge, turn it on, and KNOW it's
going to work, instead of figuring out how I'm going to get it to where I can HOPE it's going to work. Like I said, I've ran lot's of OSes, and
I think they are all a bunch of crap. I've not gotten things to run in linux. I've not gotten things to run in Windows. I've not gotten things
to run in Mac OS. Does this make me an idiot? To some linux users, yes. They think that they're bad asses cause they are using an OS that some
people don't understand. This sounds like immaturity to me. I mean when it comes down to it, all anyone's really doing on computers nowadays
(home users, keep in mind) is browsing the internet, sending email, chatting, playing games, and other stupid crap like that. You can do that
all on a dreamcast or PS2! Why the need for a computer, or in particular OS. Oh I forgot, Linux has free C++ compilers. WHO THE HELL CARES BUT
NERDY PROGRAMMERS? Wanna be a nerd, and sit at your computer all day, and tell people that you know more about computers than them cause you
use linux? Go ahead! No ones stopping you. You are just proving that linux will never evolve, because heck, look at the type of people using
it! It's not because you all KNOW linux is better, but because you were TOLD it was better and THINK it is better. Like I said, and will say
again and again, ALL OSes suck. Not just linux. So don't take a bad stance on my opinion. I HATE ALL OSes. I shouldn't have to be using a
computer and have it crash on me. My palm pilot doesn't crash. My TV doesn't crash. My microwave doesn't crash. Wanna know why? BECAUSE THE
PEOPLE WHO MADE THESE THINGS THOUGHT ABOUT THE USERS, NOT THEMSELVES. Every OS crashes. What does this mean? THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THEM CARE MORE
ABOUT THEMSELVES THAN THE USER. Did anyone ever think of that? You guys wanna all think your cool, go back to watching your highly compressed
crappy quality streaming movies over the internet. I'll go back to watching DirecTV, which by the way, doesn't crash on me. All I'm trying to
say here people, is that until computers become just a single thing, and computer, not a mac or a linux or unix box, or a wintel machine, they
will never truly flourish. They will never get anywhere. Intel will just keep kicking up the megahertz and amd will follow. And all the end
users will argue about which is better. It's all just pointless. When will computers become just computers, without the tagging of megahertz
and ram and hard drive space. When will they just do what they are supposed to do, and do it quickly? When will they become another appliance?

I think GNU/Linux is a step into the Way Back machine. I've been using UNIX since 1983 in a myriad of flavors. GNU/Linux is nothing more than
Yet Another kernel with all the GNU tools from any other UNIX system. If Linux is a killer, why aren't FreeBSD and other BETTER designs being
promoted?

In the real world, UNIX is an option, along with VMS or NT or MVS or any other systems that run the software I and/or my company needs.
GNU/Linux is just UNIX. If UNIX already works, then Linux is fine. If it doesn't fit my needs, then heck, Linux is a no-go. For use at my home,
my wife (PhD in AI) gave up on Linux after a week or so and *asked* for WinNT to go back on. I think this shows that UNIX in the form of
GNU/Linux doesn't necessarily equate to a success where people would make most use of it.

Right now my needs are met by NT, which despite howls from people blinded by childish zeal is a good quality system that addresses all of our
requirements and is impressively stable in my experience. I recall trashy UNIX systems in many flavors - so I'm not blinded to the shortcomings
that took 25 years to be addressed.

My ideal system? an open-source development of DEC's VMS running on a mach kernel. Your needs and idealism may take you elsewhere.

Linux sucks because it diverts work on an open-source VMScluster, which would be a much better system - but the only system the children know
is what they played with at Universities - UNIX

Re:Napster (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546516)

rest in peace... asshole

Re:Napster (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546691)

Guess who wrote DirecTV? Those NERDY PROGRAMMERS. Go figure.

Here's another clue: Fuck off.

Re:Napster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546895)

Wow. Talk about missing the fucking point.

Linux 2.6.0-test2 released! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546410)

CEASE AND DESIST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546450)

If you do not stop distibuting MY IP, I will sue you for 5ive giga$

Darl McDonalds.
SCrOtum Corporation.

Neine (-1, Offtopic)

jabbadabbadoo (599681) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546424)

They must have confused Napster with Schnapster.

Hmmm. (1, Funny)

James A. A. Joyce (681634) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546426)

Erm - isn't Napster supposed to have died by now?

Re:Hmmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546645)

Well they have, also there is a very cool dead napster pen set being sold here [castlesupplys.com]

Re:Hmmm. (1)

Openadvocate (573093) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546718)

Yes Yes, you are right.
A crippeling bombshell hit the Napser com... aarwh never mind

Re:Hmmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546794)

No, Napster was shot but is recovering in hospital according to Episode 2.

http://www.napsterbits.com

(Disclaimer: Yes I work for Roxio)

Re:Hmmm. (4, Informative)

Tommy Boomfiger (650916) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546997)

Napster may have died, but the program still works. I haven't used it in quite a while now, but there are OpenNap servers which will give the program full utility. The last program I used was called Napigator which allowed the use of other servers.

Like I said, I haven't used it in a while so I don't know how good the servers are anymore. Anyone interested should look at Napigator [napigator.com] for some more info.

Protectionism (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546427)

German Court sides with German company in suit against American company. Wow, what a shock.

I will comment on this article (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546433)

I have not read the article, but I will declare victory for free speech. I will also make a vague jab at the DMCA, and express my deep-seated hatred for the evil RIAA.

Even though I don't speak German and I have no understanding of how the legal system works in Germany, I'll act like I know what I'm talking about when I make my ridiculously uninformed comment.

Re:I will comment on this article (5, Funny)

The Kow (184414) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546467)

In return I will argue with a trivial detail of your conjectures about the German legal system, and, immediately after claiming IANAL-Protected Status, assume the posture that I too know what I'm talking about.

This brief dialogue will spawn a completely off-topic thread of which dozens participate, most likely on the terrible ills of the neanderthal US legal system as compared to those of the enlightened European nations.

Despite having little to nothing to do with the actual topic of the article, the rhetoric that follows will undoubtedly get moderated up, increasing its visibility tenfold, and therefore granting us a perverse status of legitimacy.

Then I will offer forth a silly, contrived quote for a signature.

Re:I will comment on this article (4, Funny)

NewWazoo (2508) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546611)

I will respond with a critique on your intelligence, and then correct some pedantic misunderstanding you've had of the German legal system, while missing entirely the fact that the basis for your argument was flawed.

Brandon

Re:I will comment on this article (4, Funny)

Bob McCown (8411) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546698)

Whereas I will riducule your spelling and grammar, and suggest that your remedial communication skills are on par with Piltdown Man.

Re:I will comment on this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546722)

But Piltdown man was a fraud. He never really existed.

Oh!

Never mind.

Re:I will comment on this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546689)

People in europe never bathe, and they have sex on the street corner. I hate europe.

Re:I will comment on this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546745)

yes, but what are our bad points?

Re:I will comment on this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546912)

1) England
2) English food
3) no profit!

Re:I will comment on this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6547049)

But England is an island!

Re:I will comment on this article (3, Funny)

jcsehak (559709) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546721)

I will post a link to the most obscene picture I can find on the web, disguised as an on-topic href, because I am such a tool in all other respects of my life, the only hope I have of influencing people in any way is by making unknown and unseen strangers lose their lunch.

Re:I will comment on this article (5, Funny)

tds67 (670584) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546813)

I shall arrive too late to provide any interesting commentary, since anything useful or funny will have already been said in the preceeding 12 replies. And yet, the lure of attaching my post to the "4" and "5" scores above in the hopes of acheiving a "2" score will cause me to make an attempt, anyway. It is akin to the jackal fighting the vulture for the wildebeest left over from the lions' feast, on the wild plains of intellectualism and opinion.

Re: I will comment on this article (4, Funny)

gidds (56397) | more than 10 years ago | (#6547178)

This brief dialogue will spawn a completely off-topic thread of which dozens participate, most likely on the terrible ills of the neanderthal US legal system as compared to those of the enlightened European nations.

At which point I will pick up on errors of grammar (such as 'of which dozens participate') and spelling ('neanderthal' should be capitalised), which will itself spawn a long thread of alternate pedantry and abuse. I may even take the opportunity to launch a tirade on the sorry state of your country's educational system, how much better the standards of English are in my country, and what a sad reflection it is on techies today that they don't even care about good English...

Re:I will comment on this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6547160)

I hearby declare this to be the best thread ever.

All hail discordia

Kind rgds

Malaclypse The Younger

WOW (5, Insightful)

rkz (667993) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546434)

Who would have thought that the German constitution has had this law suit thrown out of court and protect a company while blatantly created a program for copyright violation, while the US constitution allows a collage student [zeropaid.com] to be sued for his life savings by the RIAA for simply creating a search engine.

Well Obviously... (1, Interesting)

MKalus (72765) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546474)

... it seems that the German Constitution is in favour of people and against corporations while the American one is in favour of businesses and against people....

On Second thought.... Looks like they're all the same after all.

Re:Well Obviously... (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546631)

Well obviously the difference doesn't lie in the Constitutions of the United States and Germany but in the way the courts handle a situation like this.

In the United States a Corporation has the rights of an individual.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, corporations are treated as individuals; therefore, their taxes should be assessed at a smaller value, the same way it is done for individual property owners.

This case is often cited in other cases because it stands for the principle that the word person in the Fourteenth Amendment applies to corporations as well as natural persons and both are entitled to the equal protection of the laws under the Constitution.

So in the United States the issue wouldn't be about corporations against the people, but about the rights of an individual to copywritten materials.

If you were to read the description of the situation on the /. front page or in the Economic Times you'd see that it's not so much about the People vs. the Corps but about the fact that in Germany you can't carry about a case in the media and expect that it is still constitutional to proceed with the case, as well as the fact that media pressure and threats of court orders don't fly there.

"The Federal Constitutional Court said it stopped the delivery because it could not rule out that the lawsuit, filed by a group of U.S. music publishers in Manhattan, would violate Bertelsmann's constitutional rights in Germany.

"If lawsuits in (foreign) courts are obviously misused to bend a market player to one's will by way of media pressure and the risk of a court order, this could violate the German constitution," the court said in a statement late on Friday."

Re:Well Obviously... (3, Informative)

Random Walk (252043) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546974)

It's not about people or buisinesses, and also not about whether Napster is legal. The press release says: a) The lawsuit may violate essential constitutional principles by seeking to abuse the law to kill a competitor b) If the lawsuit is delayed, nobody will loose anything, but if it proceeds, Bertelsman may suffer from irrecoverable damages. Therefore, it would be inappropriate if the constitutional court would let the lawsuit proceed without deciding on (a) first.

Insightful? (4, Insightful)

Niadh (468443) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546575)

Who would have thought that the German constitution has had this law suit thrown out of court and protect a company while blatantly created a program for copyright violation, while the US constitution allows a collage student to be sued for his life savings by the RIAA for simply creating a search engine.

The US Constitution had nothing to do with that guy. He caved at the pressure and offered the RIAA everything in return. I bet the EFF would have backed him legally and the RIAA would have dropped the case or settled for a slap on the wrist and filtering of the search engine instead of all the guy's gil.

Also, lets not warp things out of perspective. His search engine wasn't without sin. A search engine to catalog shared files across a college campus. Yea, that has a lot more practical applications then simply warez, mp3z, and pr0n doesn't it?

I don't agree with the RIAA in their argument he was responsible for what others shared. I also don't agree with him caving in and then complaining. I doubt it would have held up in court. But we'll never know will we?

BTW. That last question was rhetorical incase you felt like answering it.

Re:Insightful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546710)

"But we?ll never know will we?"

Of course we will. Either by seeing what happens when someone doesn't cave in, or by going back in time once the time machine is invented.

"BTW. That last question was rhetorical incase you felt like answering it."

Rhetorical? What does that mean?

Re:Insightful? (4, Interesting)

VertigoAce (257771) | more than 10 years ago | (#6547152)

I would think a search engine at RPI could be a very legitimate tool. The school requires that every student use a laptop. As a result, professors incorporate the laptops into the teaching (in its simplest form this would be a way to distribute presentations, notes, sample programs, etc). Given that this framework is in place, it makes sense to have a way to find things on other people's computers. I could offer my notes for various lectures on my computer, and someone else on campus could get a copy. Granted, this could lead to cheating, but it's my understanding that RPI encourages group work.

I haven't met this student yet (it's a few weeks before I start at RPI), so I don't know what his intentions were. But there are legitimate uses for the technology. And from what I heard at orientation, the tech admins share that opinion. File sharing isn't inherently illegal, so they won't restrict it on campus.

Re:WOW (0, Flamebait)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546618)

This shit is sick. Mr. College boy was hosting RIAA music on his site. If he had say 1000s of TXT files on say PC graphics coding I seriously doubt the RIAA would have even wasted the time.

This whiny bullshit think of the kids crap is why the EFF is a totally useless organization. They protect pirates and vandals [Hamidi] while real people ]skylarov] are in trouble [though the EFF helped there, 1 point for them].

If the little fuckfart didn't pirate music, whoa, low and hehold he wouldn't have been sued.

Tom

Re:WOW (2)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546821)

>> This shit is sick. Mr. College boy was
>> hosting RIAA music on his site.

No he wasn't. He developed a search engine for his campus network. At no time was he accused of downloading music files.

Re:WOW (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546861)

He didn't download music. He was offering it for download via the search engine. That, my friend, is piracy.

Though I vaguely remember all the facts. If he didn't actually host the files on his computer and didn't actively seek them out [e.g. good faith mistake] then a C&D would have been in order and not a lawsuit.

That being said I would have just told the RIAA to shove it. All my belongings are my parents so they can't really sue me [I'm not a minor, so sad, but useful!].

Tom

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6547005)

He was offering it for download via the search engine. That, my friend, is piracy.

Wrong.
He was not offering it for download. In order to do that he would have to have a copy himself which he then allows to be downloaded, thereby distributing illegally. Locating content on space that does not belong to him is something else entirely.

Possibly aiding and abetting copyright infringement, but not copyright infringement in and of itself. And since copyright infringement is a civil offense and not criminal, there is no such cut and dry "aiding and abetting" clause. The RIAA doesn't actually have any legal recourse against this student, but he can't possibly defend himself in civil court (where lawyers are not provided for free as with criminal court), so they can just break him that way regardless of the law.

You seem to post here a lot on the subject of law, Tom, and consistently state things that are spectacularly incorrect. Perhaps you should actually research the law before spouting off nonsense?

Re:WOW (1)

Shardis (198372) | more than 10 years ago | (#6547163)

Nice try tool. I can find "pirated" crap around the net with Google... They must be pirates too! Arrr...

I'd say it was "vaguely remember(ed)". :P

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546873)

>Mr. College boy was hosting RIAA music on his site

You are quite the tool, aren't you?

Re:WOW (1)

snooo53 (663796) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546639)

While I agree that it seems rediculous the type of suits that go unchallenged like that in the US, I imagine that college student had other circumstances that compelled him to settle. The RIAA most likely had concrete evidence about illegal mp3s on his personal machine, and agreed to not prosecute him for that if he'd settle. Seeing as how he presumably had wealthy parents, he of course chose to settle out of court rather than risk jailtime and a heftier fine.

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6547206)

Actually, Napster was technically just a search engine too. Thought it was mp3-specific.

What is it with these frivolous US lawsuits?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546438)

I don't get it.

If anyone, the US labels should be class action sued for obstructing Napster's business model.

Bertelsmann bought Napster when they were already dead. What merit could there possibly be in this lawsuit?

Also: why is this a class action lawsuit?

my impression of German law (4, Interesting)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546459)

GPL May Not Work In German Legal System [slashdot.org] , but also this news.

The German legal system is refreshingly weird, unlike the American legal system.

From this side of the pond the US slooks weird (4, Interesting)

aepervius (535155) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546528)

Like the miranda stuff, gun possession amendement, weird law about punishing hacker/copyright infringer with more prison than a raper/thief and in some case murderer, the fact you can sue if you are in the wrong mood, 12 people which know nothing of the law , and can swallow any good discourse by defense/offense especially on "expert" debat, have to swear on the bible in court (?!) and I pass many of them.


it can all be resumed in : "different history , different culture, different law system". Do not try to understand. Accept it.

allow me to clarify (2, Funny)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546560)

I meant "refreshingly weird" as a compliment, as opposed to "who forgot to flush the toilet?!" weird, which describes the US legal system.

Re:From this side of the pond the US slooks weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6547082)

You don't have to swear on a Bible in the US courts.

Re:From this side of the pond the US slooks weird (1)

sebmol (217013) | more than 10 years ago | (#6547137)

What exactly do you mean by "miranda stuff"?

Re:From this side of the pond the US slooks weird (1)

Malcontent (40834) | more than 10 years ago | (#6547297)

In the American Legal system. Once the police have arrested you the best possible outcome for you (presuming you are 100% innocent) is that you will lose your job and have to declare bankrupcy.

The most likely outcome is that you will lose your job, your wife will leave you, you will be bankrupt but you will be found not guilty within five years.

Worst outcome is that you will be killed in a gas chamber.

Re:my impression of German law (5, Funny)

cioxx (456323) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546545)

The German legal system is refreshingly weird

Just like German porn.

I hope they rule in favour of Napster. (0, Troll)

James A. A. Joyce (681634) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546460)

Well, it seems like yet another of our technological networking freedoms is being quashed by the state. Seriously, why do we need to have another form of communication censored? If these mechanisms such as email and the W3 client/server system weren't a problem back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1980s, what is the problem with them now? Does anyone genuinely believe that there were somehow through some twist of fate absolutely no music file sharers back when Ritchie and Thompson wrote UNIX in PDP-3 assembler? Why do we need to have HTTP, FTP, P2P, SMTP, LRP and YQP regulated by outside bodies? When did we need to eliminate selfpolicing?

The Internet was founded on the propogation of information as freely as possible. This means that Web surfing, Usenet threads and MP3 files are all equally valuable and important, and removing free peer-to-peer filesharign services would remove the infrastructure of one of the Internet's most fundamental protocols. Though it is true that some P2P users are fly-by-night peculiars such as trolls and paedos, we have to understand that they provide a service not unlike those of coin-operated telephone boxes and stamp-operated postal services, and that vigorously spying on free email users is tantamount to removing phone and mail boxes or tapping them.

Besides, keeping an eye on P2P software won't reduce the problem. If broadband pirates and spammers are determinted to get their messages through, then they can just use encryption, or the Freenet protocol to make them untraceable - or both, in which case nothing can be done. Public key encryption algorithm implementations such as RSA, DES and Freenet mean that the RIAA would reqire upwards of 30,000 manhours per OGG Vorbis file to discover inappropriate content; despite being impossible, this is still a flagrant violation of our privacy rights!

In addition to this, by carrying out these actions the police are effectively stating that paid-for music download accounts are in some way superior to those not sponsored. While they may be superior, there can be no way of saying that an MP3 from someone using iTunes is more reputable than one from WinMX or any other P2P user using open source software. Just because a P2P provider happents to use UNIX/Linux servers and isn't a corporation doesn't mean that they are necessarily infested with unsavoury characters.

I could continue, but I think that with more than a cursory notice the other multitudinous incarnadine problems with this new system become clear, and we must make sure that these plans do not become widespread. Fortunately, they are quite impractical, so a few negative anecdotes should encourage most middle managers in service providers and tech support to avoid implementing it.

Re:I hope they rule in favour of Napster. (1)

LordK2002 (672528) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546617)

Does anyone genuinely believe that there were somehow through some twist of fate absolutely no music file sharers back when Ritchie and Thompson wrote UNIX in PDP-3 assembler?
Yes, I would guess that there probably weren't. Given that the CD was not invented until 1984 and lossy compression formats like MP3 around 1992, I find it highly unlikely that the exchange of digital music files was even possible back when UNIX was invented.

K

Uh huh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546629)

Paul Lansky made his first electronic music pieces in the 1970s.

I also hope they rule in favour of Napster. (1)

axxackall (579006) | more than 10 years ago | (#6547299)

But now it's possible. Is it wrong? Can I create my own music, write it in MP3/OGG and share with the rest of the world through P2P? No? Who said that?

The freedom is a very essential part of any civilized Constitution. Because it's to protect everyone's rights. The patent/copyright law is to protect only a small group of people. Regrarding P2P, RAAA uses the law in a very wrong way - to punish a whole freedom of exchanging the information just only for a misareable chance to kick someone who is using P2P to violate IP laws.

I am very happy that the German court doesn't kiss Bush's ass and decided to look at the problem independently from any US pressure. Go Germany! I hope other European countries will follow the same way.

What's up with German (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546470)

porn? I was watching some German porn flick the other day. It starts out pretty well, some really fine looking Teutonic chick; blond hair, blue eyes, great body (fake tits, though, of course :(). She's getting it on with some guy, pretty standard porn stuff. Fewer clam cam shots than you might see in American porn, but better lighting, which is always a plus.

Anyways, some guy's going down on her, la-di-da, and all of a sudden some other guy comes in and STARTS PISSING ON HER! What the fuck?? Who wants to fucking see that? Apparently this is a pretty normal thing in German porn! Hot chick, mildly hot sex, HEY, KLAUS, TIME TO COME IN AND START PISSING ON THE STARLET!!

Come on! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546485)

Do you really think Napster is worth risking losing THIS [spaceports.com] ???

Re:Come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546555)

Guess it goes without saying you shouldn't click the link in the parent post. Stupid me.

Google trans (sorry no breaks, http trans no work) (2, Informative)

switcha (551514) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546497)

The second senate of the Federal Constitutional Court forbade the court submitted damage suit of a group of US of American music author and publishing houses of the complaint guide (BF), American before US, today in the way of the provisional arrangement of the president of the higher regional court Duesseldorf for the duration of six months, at the latest up to a decision over the constitutional complaint, the Bertelsmann AG to let set in Germany. It concerns in the express procedure the following: The plaintiffs of the US-American output procedure state, the BF is in the meanwhile insolvent music exchange stock exchange "Napster" been and to that extent also for possibly copyright infringements committed by the music exchange stock exchange responsible involved. In the complaint procedure introduced as collecting complaint payment of damages at a value of 17 billion US dollar is stressed. The feed of the klageschrift is on the one hand condition for process in US American right, on the other hand one it is after German civil proceedings the condition for the later acknowledgment of the foreign judgement. The president of the higher regional court Duesseldorf granted the feed request of the plaintiffs for feed as responsible "central authority" after that Hague conventions over the feed of judicial and documents out of court abroad (HZUe) positively and issued a feed arrangement. The zustellungsversuch with the BF failed however because of nonacceptance of the document. The BF remained with their thereupon request posed for judicial decision against the feed arrangement before the higher regional court Duesseldorf without success. Hiergegen raised it in the main thing constitutional complaint. It makes an injury of its fundamental rights from art. 12 exp. 1 and art. 14 exp. 1 GG as well as from art. 2 exp. 1 GG valid. For its request for provisional legal protection it refers to the high probability of a forthcoming further zustellungsversuchs. With the feed the impairments of its fundamental right positions would occur and its business concern would negatively affect. From the reasons of the decision follows: 1. The constitutional complaint in the main thing procedure is neither inadmissibly nor obviously unfounded. The domestic legal order is not made fundamental the test yardstick for a feed after the HZUe. Exeptionally a feed request can be rejected however due to the reservation in the HZUe, if the asked state considers the feed suitable to endanger its sovereignty rights or its security. Federal Constitutional Court has decided in this connection already that the grant of legal aid does not hurt the general freedom of action in connection with the constitutional state principle by the feed of a complaint, with which requirements on punishing payment of damages are made valid after US-American right. With the fact however it remained open whether the feed of such a complaint with art. is to be agreed upon 2 exp. 1 GG in connection with the constitutional state principle, if the goal aimed at with the foreign complaint offends obviously against indispensable principles of a liberal constitutional state. If procedures before national courts in an obviously abusive way are used, in order to make with publizistischem pressure and the risk of a condemnation a market participant gefuegig, this German constitutional law could hurt. Clarifying the question, whether this border is exceeded in the available case, remains reserving the main thing procedure. This is more near implemented in the decision in detail. 2. The decision to favour of the BF is issued due to a consequence consideration. If the provisional is issued request in accordance with arrangement, although the constitutional complaint turns out unfoundedly later however than, the feed of the complaint in the way of the legal aid would have only retarded. Irreparable prejudices for the plaintiffs of US of American output procedure do not connect themselves with it recognizably. However if the decree of the provisional arrangement is omitted, the grant of the legal aid in the main thing main proves however as unconstitutional, might the BF into US American procedures be included and the recognizing Federal court on the permission of the complaint as collecting complaint with the appropriate legal consequences decide. The BF is with further procedure continuation to the danger of a condemnation exposed, which would not hold conditions for the yardsticks of the Basic Law with subordinated success in the main. Even if the judgement is recognized later in the inland or is not not executory explained for, the BF could be executed into fortunes belegene in the United States. In addition it is not protected thereby against a Reputationsverlust promoted with the feed. Resolution from 25 July 2003 - 2 BvR 1198/03 - Karlsruhe, which 25 July 2003 Federal Constitutional Court - pressestelle - press release No. 58/2003 from 25 July 2003 resolution from 25 July 2003 - 2 BvR 1198/03 - provisional legal protection against the feed of a collecting complaint the second senate of the Federal Constitutional Court has today in the way of the provisional arrangement of the president of the higher regional court Duesseldorf for the duration of six months, at the latest up to a decision over the constitutional complaint forbidden, the court submitted damage suit of a group of US of American music author and publishing houses of the complaint guide (BF), American before US, the Bertelsmann AG to let set in Germany. It concerns in the express procedure the following: The plaintiffs of the US-American output procedure state, the BF is in the meanwhile insolvent music exchange stock exchange "Napster" been and to that extent also for possibly copyright infringements committed by the music exchange stock exchange responsible involved. In the complaint procedure introduced as collecting complaint payment of damages at a value of 17 billion US dollar is stressed. The feed of the klageschrift is on the one hand condition for process in US American right, on the other hand one it is after German civil proceedings the condition for the later acknowledgment of the foreign judgement. The president of the higher regional court Duesseldorf granted the feed request of the plaintiffs for feed as responsible "central authority" after that Hague conventions over the feed of judicial and documents out of court abroad (HZUe) positively and issued a feed arrangement. The zustellungsversuch with the BF failed however because of nonacceptance of the document. The BF remained with their thereupon request posed for judicial decision against the feed arrangement before the higher regional court Duesseldorf without success. Hiergegen raised it in the main thing constitutional complaint. It makes an injury of its fundamental rights from art. 12 exp. 1 and art. 14 exp. 1 GG as well as from art. 2 exp. 1 GG valid. For its request for provisional legal protection it refers to the high probability of a forthcoming further zustellungsversuchs. With the feed the impairments of its fundamental right positions would occur and its business concern would negatively affect. From the reasons of the decision follows: 1. The constitutional complaint in the main thing procedure is neither inadmissibly nor obviously unfounded. The domestic legal order is not made fundamental the test yardstick for a feed after the HZUe. Exeptionally a feed request can be rejected however due to the reservation in the HZUe, if the asked state considers the feed suitable to endanger its sovereignty rights or its security. Federal Constitutional Court has decided in this connection already that the grant of legal aid does not hurt the general freedom of action in connection with the constitutional state principle by the feed of a complaint, with which requirements on punishing payment of damages are made valid after US-American right. With the fact however it remained open whether the feed of such a complaint with art. is to be agreed upon 2 exp. 1 GG in connection with the constitutional state principle, if the goal aimed at with the foreign complaint offends obviously against indispensable principles of a liberal constitutional state. If procedures before national courts in an obviously abusive way are used, in order to make with publizistischem pressure and the risk of a condemnation a market participant gefuegig, this German constitutional law could hurt. Clarifying the question, whether this border is exceeded in the available case, remains reserving the main thing procedure. This is more near implemented in the decision in detail. 2. The decision to favour of the BF is issued due to a consequence consideration. If the provisional is issued request in accordance with arrangement, although the constitutional complaint turns out unfoundedly later however than, the feed of the complaint in the way of the legal aid would have only retarded. Irreparable prejudices for the plaintiffs of US of American output procedure do not connect themselves with it recognizably. However if the decree of the provisional arrangement is omitted, the grant of the legal aid in the main thing main proves however as unconstitutional, might the BF into US American procedures be included and the recognizing Federal court on the permission of the complaint as collecting complaint with the appropriate legal consequences decide. The BF is with further procedure continuation to the danger of a condemnation exposed, which would not hold conditions for the yardsticks of the Basic Law with subordinated success in the main. Even if the judgement is recognized later in the inland or is not not executory explained for, the BF could be executed into fortunes belegene in the United States. In addition it is not protected thereby against a Reputationsverlust promoted with the feed. Resolution from 25 July 2003 - 2 BvR 1198/03 - Karlsruhe, 25 July 2003 for the BEGINNING of the document

MOD THAT KARMA WHORE DOWN ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546550)

Burn at -1 !

Re:Google trans (sorry no breaks, http trans no wo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546826)

Hey dude,
why not use some a few of the html tags, like

, that is just below the Preview button?

Re:Google trans (sorry no breaks, http trans no wo (1)

switcha (551514) | more than 10 years ago | (#6547053)

If I spoke German, and could tell where the original breaks were, I'd have gladly put them in. On the google translation page, if I used the http:// function, it just kicked back the page title. I had to paste the story into the text area, which stripped the breaks off. Sorry to have ruined your day...dude.

Another country to "deliver"? (5, Insightful)

christophe (36267) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546527)

I hope we'll see such rulings (even not yet definitive) more often. Media conglomerates may have bought half of America and a third of the European Parlement, they are still some people left whose jobs are to be sure that laws have to be in sync with the higest values of the constitution of their country. They is only one Supreme Court in the US, there are one in EACH country of the EU that could be a counter-power to each stupid law.

English translation (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546537)

Federal Constitutional Court - pressestelle -
press release No. 58/2003 from 25 July 2003 resolution from 25 July 2003 - 2 BvR 1198/03 -
provisional legal protection against the feed of a collecting complaint
The second senate of the Federal Constitutional Court forbade the court submitted damage suit of a group of US of American music author and publishing houses of the complaint guide (BF), American before US, today in the way of the provisional arrangement of the president of the higher regional court Duesseldorf for the duration of six months, at the latest up to a decision over the constitutional complaint, the Bertelsmann AG to let set in Germany. It concerns in the express procedure the following:
The plaintiffs of the US-American output procedure state, the BF is in the meanwhile insolvent music exchange stock exchange "Napster" been and to that extent also for possibly copyright infringements committed by the music exchange stock exchange responsible involved. In the complaint procedure introduced as collecting complaint payment of damages at a value of 17 billion US dollar is stressed. The feed of the klageschrift is on the one hand condition for process in the US-American right, on the other hand one it is after German civil proceedings the condition for the later acknowledgment of the foreign judgement. The president of the higher regional court Duesseldorf granted the feed request of the plaintiffs for feed as responsible "central authority" after that Hague conventions over the feed of judicial and documents out of court abroad (HZUe) positively and issued a feed arrangement. The delivery attempt with the BF failed however because of nonacceptance of the document. The BF remained with their thereupon request posed for judicial decision against the feed arrangement before the higher regional court Duesseldorf without success. Hiergegen raised it in the main thing constitutional complaint. It makes an injury of its fundamental rights from art. 12 exp. 1 and art. 14 exp. 1 GG as well as from art. 2 exp. 1 GG valid. For its request for provisional legal protection it refers to the high probability of a forthcoming further delivery attempts. With the feed the impairments of its fundamental right positions would occur and its business concern would negatively affect.
From the reasons of the decision follows:
1. Trinity dies at the end of Matrix Reloaded. The constitutional complaint in the main thing procedure is neither inadmissibly nor obviously unfounded. The domestic legal order is not made fundamental the test yardstick for a feed after the HZUe. Exeptionally a feed request can be rejected however due to the reservation in the HZUe, if the asked state considers the feed suitable to endanger its sovereignty rights or its security. Federal Constitutional Court has decided in this connection already that the grant of legal aid does not hurt the general freedom of action in connection with the constitutional state principle by the feed of a complaint, with which requirements on punishing payment of damages are made valid after US-American right. With the fact however it remained open whether the feed of such a complaint with art. is to be agreed upon 2 exp. 1 GG in connection with the constitutional state principle, if the goal aimed at with the foreign complaint offends obviously against indispensable principles of a liberal constitutional state. Furthermore there are no weapons of mass destruction in Duesseldorf. If procedures before national courts in an obviously abusive way are used, in order to make with publizistischem pressure and the risk of a condemnation a market participant submissive, this German constitutional law could hurt. Clarifying the question, whether this penis is exceeded in the available case, remains reserving the main thing procedure. This is more near implemented in the decision in detail.
2. The decision to favour of the BF is issued due to a consequence consideration. If the provisional is issued request in accordance with arrangement, although the constitutional complaint turns out unfoundedly later however than, the feed of the complaint in the way of the legal aid would have only retarded. Irreparable prejudices for the plaintiffs of US of American output procedure do not connect themselves with it recognizably. We don't wear any clothes here. However if the decree of the provisional arrangement is omitted, the grant of the legal aid in the main thing main proves however as unconstitutional, might the BF into the US-American procedure be included and the recognizing Federal court on the permission of the complaint as collecting complaint with the appropriate legal consequences decide. The BF is with further procedure continuation to the danger of a condemnation exposed, which would not hold conditions for the yardsticks of the Basic Law with subordinated success in the main. Most Napster users downloaded only goatse pictures anyway. Even if the judgement is recognized later in the inland or is not not executory explained for, the BF could be executed into fortunes belegene in the United States. In addition it is not protected thereby against a reputation loss promoted with the feed.

Resolution from 25 July 2003 - 2 BvR 1198/03 - Karlsruhe, 25 July 2003 - HU93 C0CK 31337

Haven for /.ers (5, Funny)

gagy (675425) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546548)

First they oust Windows in Munich, then they do all kinds of crazy things that are good for the general public such as this [slashdot.org] . Now They're protecting people's rights. It seems like Germany is the place where all /.ers should move to. Although, then what would you complain about?

Re:Haven for /.ers (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546578)

And they don't like $cientology, which pisses off US shills for that UFO nut corporation.

Re:Haven for /.ers (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546642)

Although, then what would you complain about?

The Americans, like everyone else of course!

Re:Haven for /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546706)

what would you complain about?

German porn?

Re:Haven for /.ers (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546732)

/.ers can't move to Germany. The women in Germany are very loose, so 90% of /.ers not getting laid would get laid, therefore no one would have any time to post anything. Germany could be the death of /.!

Re:Haven for /.ers (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546928)

Decent beer is a big plus, but they're still kinda hardcore on Cannabis if I remember right. There really is no good place to live. Move to Holland, legal weed and whores, but their privacy laws are awful. I remember a recent /. story where they outranked the US in total number of phone taps. Switzerland is cool. Lax drug laws, beautiful country, but mandatory military service.
This always gets me when I hear the comment "if you don't like it move to russia" They don't consider that russia sucks too. and germany, and japan, and venezuala and australia.

Re:Haven for /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6547086)

About Cannabis:

You get to pay a fine only if you carry "personal consumption" amounts of weed/hash with you. No jail. No bail. Just paying up to 250 Euros and get your weed taken away. It wont even show in your police records anymore later.... If you have more, it depends also on its potency, if it will be considered drug dealing or still personla stuff.

Did i mention the amount size?
Its where i live (an hour to the netherlands) 10 grams. (third of an ounce)
In Hessen (that where the Frankfurt airport is) you are even tolerated to carry around 100 grams (3 ounces!) with you and only face getting your weed taken away and a small fine.

Just stay away (as usual) from Bavaria. 0.5 grams. terrible.

Re:Haven for /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6547130)

Decent beer is a big plus, but they're still kinda hardcore on Cannabis if I remember right.

The penalties aren't bad in some places (you can always live in a big western city like Cologne and then the Netherlands are only one hour away).

Ah, I remember the days when I'd drive to Maastricht and buy Grass in bags with "Deutschegrenzschutz" or something similar on them...

how can you sue a shareholder? (4, Insightful)

Comsn (686413) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546553)

thats like suing people who owned stock/bought service from enron/worldcom.

here is the company that funded the program, that shared the file, that stole money from the artist who is now eating from the gutter. ;p

You can't,, that's what it means to be a corp (4, Insightful)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546790)

The whole purpose of a corporation, extending back in history to the very first corporations, is to allow a group of investors to pool their money for the purpose of pursuing some joint venture while at the same time limiting their liability to the amount they invested by purchasing stock.

The very fact that shareholders cannot be sued for investing in a company is one of the cornerstones of the entire world's economy.

The worst you can do to the shareholders is to sue the corporation so that it has to dissolve in bankrupcy, so that the shareholders lose their investment.

There are only a few ways to "pierce the corporate veil". One of those is for the corporation to not pay its taxes. If the corporation does that, the tax authorities can levy the money from the personal assets of anyone with a fiduciary interest in the corporation.

There are other ways the corporate veil can be pierced, which all more or less involve the attempt to use the corporation as an attempt to protect yourself from being prosecuted for illegal activity.

IANAL, but I own a corporation [goingware.com] , and I'm pretty sure no form of civil tort provides for piercing the corporate veil.

Re:how can you sue a shareholder? (1)

Baumi (148744) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546988)

Bertelsmann isn't just a shareholder: They were the last owner of Napster (the company) which, AFAIK, is now dissolved, with Napster (the brand name) sold to Roxio.

So by buying Napster, Bertelsmann probably pretty much "inherited" Napster's problems and lawsuits. (Plus, I imagine, any financial liabilities.)

Jens

I'm Moving (0, Funny)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546556)

Anyone else packing up their things and moving to Germany? ;)

Time frame (5, Informative)

Baumi (148744) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546619)

It is unclear when the Constitutional Court will definitely decide[...]

I'm a German, but since IANAL, my legalese isn't up to scratch, so I might be wrong here, but I think that in the press release it says something about a 6 month time frame:

Der Zweite Senat des Bundesverfassungsgerichts hat heute[...] der Präsidentin des Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorf für die Dauer von sechs Monaten, längstens bis zu einer Entscheidung über die Verfassungsbeschwerde untersagt, die [...] Schadensersatzklage [..] zustellen zu lassen.

Rough translation:

"The 2nd chamber of the constitutional court today ruled that the president of the Düsseldorf court may not serve the writ for a six month time period, or at the utmost until there's been a decision about the constitutional complaint."

Now there's probably a lot been lost in the translation, but to me this sounds like the court isn't allowed to serve the writ until either the constitutional court has made a decision or 6 months have passed.

But again, IANAL and I may very well have mis-interpreted (and thus mis-translated) that part.

Jens

Ok, I'm going to sound like a simpleton but... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546633)

What does this exactly mean, considering that Napster is history?

Germany (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546646)

First they have the balls to sue our companies (Microsoft), then they have the brass balls to drop MS and decide to use their shithole 'SuSE' operating system. Now they block *our* lawsuits against their companies.

Wake up, people. We are in global competition and some people are NOT playing fair.

Re:Germany (1, Insightful)

Jugomugo (219955) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546700)

It's about time... we live in the United States of Injustice.

Funny? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546751)

Why the hell was this modded funny? I am SERIOUS, everyone knows how nationalistic the germans are. Can you say 4th Reich anyone?

Re:Funny? (1)

7ex (655070) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546804)

You must have gotten something wrong about germany ...

Re:Funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546858)

I think you never met any German.

Re:Funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546944)

Ahh, just awesome. I'm surprised anti-german sentiment didn't come up earlier. We're still all Nazis, right ?

I bet you're from Oklahoma.

Re:Funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6547133)

If your so damn proud of the post why did you post as an AC?

Why did I just post as an AC? Because I don't want my name associated with this conversation.

So... legal in Germany? (1)

jcsehak (559709) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546729)

Does this mean Napster is legal in Germany?

Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance!

Peer to Peer Networks for Legal Music (4, Informative)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 10 years ago | (#6546742)

You can avoid getting sued or arrested if you download legal music instead of violating copyright with p2p apps. Many independent and unsigned musicians provide free downloads of their music as a way to promote themselves, for example my friends the Divine Maggees [divinemaggees.com] .

There are peer to peer networks for the sharing of legal music. In some cases they use digital signatures to ensure the files are legit. Here's the ones I've found so far:

If you know of any others please let me know [mailto] .

Napster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6546905)

This [arizona.edu] is me while i fight against Napster.

What this is about - and what not (5, Informative)

Gorgeus (612534) | more than 10 years ago | (#6547020)

To clear up some stuff, this ruling has very little or nothing to do with legality of P2P services. It is about the huge amount of sums companies have to pay others for doing things out of contract. In the US, comps have to pay huge amounts to individuals or other comps as a FINE for what they have been doing which exceeds the damage by far. This is not possible in Germany. You have to proof that there has been a DAMAGE for you, and you have this DAMAGE repaid only. Now, this is what you have to understand to understand the ruling. Below I will roughly translate what our constitutional court said : The country court in Duesseldorf is not allowed to hand in the charge against Bertelmann until further notice. The charge, handed in by Bertelsmann rivals EMI and Universal for 17 Million Dollars MIGHT be against fundamental basics of our justice system. To stop the charge being overhanded, this INTERIM order has been made. The very high amount to get money beyond your damages is not GENERALLY against our constitution. But if trials in front of german courts are misused in an obvious way to gather public attention and press coverage and the risk of being sentenced to make the opponent give in, this might break the german constituion. Wether this has been the case THIS TIME, if to be cleared in the MAIN TRIAL. If this question is answered yes, the charge is not allowed in germany and german courts can't deal with it. Bertelsmann sees itself endangered in it's by the constitution granted rights of possesion and freedom of occupation. Hope this clears it up a bit George

How SCO Can You Get? (3, Funny)

Danious (202113) | more than 10 years ago | (#6547033)

...constitutional rights could possibly be violated if "proceedings before state courts are obviously abused to discipline competitors through public media pressure and the risk of a conviction".

Now, if that isn't a neat description of the whole SCO strategy, I don't know what is. If ony SCO had filed in Germany, we'd have their assess :-)

C'mon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6547136)

... you all know coypright infringment is theft, so whey r u complaining??
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>