The European Court of Justice has ruled (PDF) that Internet service providers cannot be required to install filtering systems designed to block downloads of illegal content, finding that such broad filtering violates the EU’s E-Commerce Directive and could impede legal uses of the Internet and legitimate file transfers.

The case dates back to 2004 when the Belgian company SABAM (which handles authorizing third-party rights to music) found that customers of a local ISP, Scarlet, were downloading music files illegally using peer-to-peer networking services. SABAM brought the case to court, and the Brussels Court of First Instance ordered Scarlet to prevent its customers from sending and receiving any file in SABAM’s catalog.

Scarlet appealed the ruling and now—seven years later—the European Court of First Instance has agreed. The court notes that content providers can request ISPs block access to specific third parties that are infringing on their rights. However, a requirement to filter all users’ online activity to block potentially-illegal content transfer—such as that requested by SABAM—violates the EU E-Commerce Directive, which prevents member states from requiring ISPs to generally monitor the information that traverses their networks.

“Such an injunction could potentially undermine freedom of information since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications,” the court said in a statement.

The court also noted that a general filtering system would be “liable to infringe on the fundamental rights of its customers,” including the right to protect their personal data and receive or impart information—both of which are ensured by the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Consumer rights and Internet freedom advocates have generally welcomed the ruling. “The alternative would have been a decision which would ultimately have put all European networks under permanent surveillance and filtering. This would have had major negative consequences for both fundamental rights and the online economy in Europe,” wrote the advocacy group European Digital Rights, in a statement.

When the case was initially filed, the music industry (along with film, television, and other media) had been looking seriously at requiring ISPs to install filtering software to block illegal transfer of copyrighted material. However, filtering systems represent a tremendous (and costly) technical challenge European countries have expressed a strong reluctance to engage in deep filtering of everyday Internet users’ activities. More recently, the music industry had focused on the path approved by the European Court of Justice: working with ISPs to get specific sites blocked for distributing infringing content.

This article was originally posted on Digital Trends

[Edited 11/27/11 14:41pm]

so nobody gives a crap?

This is extremely important for the future of music

ah who cares

Well, from the looks of this article, this eliminates the problem: not to the full extent. Some music will be filtered or blocked, and some music customers can still get illegal downloads to because it's costly. Correct?

phuck philters

Allowing ISP companies to tell you what can and can't receive online is PURE CENSORSHIP.

If you wouldn't allow someone to tell you what books you can and cannot read, what music you can and can't listen to, what you can and can't learn or what you can and can't see, why in the hell would anyone EVER go for this kind of censorship? Its complete madness. You never give someone that kind of control over you. You can bet your life savings that it won't stop at "illegal content" and will progress to what they will allow you to have. Then, when they control the content, they can charge yo whatever they like for access. Only a fool would co-sign something like that. When has that EVER worked out for the best?

angel345 said:

Well, from the looks of this article, this eliminates the problem: not to the full extent. Some music will be filtered or blocked, and some music customers can still get illegal downloads to because it's costly. Correct?

My reading of it is that under this ruling the music and movie industry (etc) can request ISPs to block SPECIFIC websites if they know they're violating copyright laws. I don't know how binding the request would be -- would it be criminal for them not to comply, or would it open the ISPs up to lawsuits if they refuse, or would the request have no legal footing, etc? What the industry wanted (and didn't get) was for ISPs to put in place some sort of a massive filter system that would decide what you can download on its own (I would assume based on heuristics, sort of like some anti-malware programs you might have on your computer that block certain programs if they behave suspiciously). That type of a system is prone to tons of errors, which is why anti-malware programs offer you the option to override their settings and allow a program if you know it's safe.

The difference between anti-malware programs and the type of filtering the music industry wanted is that there would be no override. Even if your download was perfectly legal, if the filtering service decided it bore too much resemblance to an illegal download, you wouldn't be able to get it. I can also imagine such a scenario would have been an enormous headache for European businesses who probably transfer large files via various file sharing and portals. So, while this ruling offers a lot of good, I'm sure the hackers will be coming up with ways to get around the possibility of file-sharing sites being blocked. And if history is anything to go by, they'll succeed.

^ thanks for your replies guys

Arbwyth, you are correct. This ruling is about whether or not ISP's have the obligation to place "webfilters" on ISP's networks in order to "filter out" copyrighted material that is distributed on it. The court says they don't, because the EU E-Commerce Directive, prevents member states from requiring ISPs to generally monitor the information that traverses their networks.

It further rules that these filter systems may not be able to distinguish between lawful and unlawful content, with the result that it could lead to blocking lawful communications. Handing the industry an injunction to force ISP's to place such a system, could therefore possibly undermine the fundamental rights of EU citizens to freedom of information and protection of personal data.

Moreover, forcing ISP's to do this, would cost ISP's an enormous amount of money to transform the "free" internet into a "monitored" and "censored" internet, at their full liability.

What's also important and interesting, is that content owners already have the possibility to request ISP's to block specific infringing material or websites. And that if and when webfilters are able to distinguish properly between lawful and unlawful content, the court's ruling may start to shift.

This case is just one more example of the music industry's attempts to control the internet with laws and courts.

And one more that has failed.

As was to be expected.

Question is what they are going to do now. Probably lobby the EU (and US) to come up with some sort of system that compensates them for downloading/filesharing.

But how that will have to look nobody knows and that will come at a price for the music industry.