decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
European Court of Human Rights Ruling | 197 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
European Court of Human Rights Ruling
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 09:14 AM EST
Not read the report.

I can see at least one line of logic that would lead to that:

Essentially filesharing convictions are convictions for people talking to each
other. (As sending information over the internet is just a modern, efficient
form of talking.) And there is a rather famous quote about "technology
marches on, if you can't adapt, that's your problem" which seems relevent
yet again.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

European Court of Human Rights Ruling
Authored by: RichardB on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 02:00 PM EST
Rulings from the European Court of Human Rights are often based on the idea of
proportionality. The US system takes, what appears to me at least, a more
Manichaean view: either speech is protected by the First Amendment or it's not.

A couple of recentish examples: the ECHR ruled that keeping DNA samples
indefinitely of everyone arrested was a breach of their rights. It didn't say
that it was necessary to destroy the samples of everyone acquitted at trial, or
not charged. It also ruled that depriving every prisoner of their right to vote
was unreasonable, but depriving some would be OK.

So, one needs to be a little careful about over-interpreting the ruling. Rather
than, "this isn't allowed", ECHR judgements are more, "go back
and think about it a bit more carefully."

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )