Finnish Activist Mikko Rauhala has lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights versus the Finnish state, regarding his right to freedom of expression.
The appeal is a follow up to the lengthy court process against Mr. Rauhala in Finland. The process started when Mr. Rauhala started a discussion board on the Internet, on which people could talk about the DVD copy protection method Content Scrambling System (CSS). Mr. Rauhala's motivation for this act was to criticize the implementation of the EU Copyright Directive in Finland which came into force in 2006. According to the implementation of the directive, "organized discussion" regarding circumventing technological protection measures, like the CSS, was prohibited.
The Police started its investigation and soon thereafter, the case was referred to the Helsinki District Court which decided, in Rauhala's favour, that CSS was not a type of protection measure covered by the Directive and therefore the ban did not apply. The district attorney appealed to the Helsinki Appellate Court, which stated that Mr. Rauhala was guilty of illegally circumventing a technological protection measure and of providing an illegal service for the circumvention of protection measures. The Supreme Court of Finland denied Mr. Rauhala's application.
Mr. Rauhala then made an application to the European Court of Human Rights, because in all the court instances his argument that the discussion he was administering was within the confines of the Right to Freedom of Speech, as enshrined in the Finnish Constitution, was not considered.
Source: EDRI
Showing posts with label DRM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DRM. Show all posts
Friday, 7 August 2009
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Estudo sobre DRM
Foi recentemente publicado um estudo da autoria de um dos associados do Centro de Estudos, com o título de: Technological accommodation of conflicts between freedom of expression and DRM: the first empirical assessment
Seguem as conclusões do estudo:
The survey unveiled, through empirical lines of enquiry, that:
1) Certain permitted acts are being adversely affected by the use of DRM;
2) This is in spite of the existence of technological solutions (enabling partitioning and authentication of users) to accommodate those permitted acts (privileged exceptions);
3) Beneficiaries of privileged exceptions who have been prevented from carrying out those permitted acts (because of the employment of DRM) have not used the complaints mechanism set out in UK law;
4) Article 6(4) of the Information Society Directive put an onus on content owners to accommodate privileged exceptions voluntarily. Voluntary measures have emerged in the publishing field, but not all content owners are ready to act unless they are told to do so by regulatory authorities.Ultimately, some beneficiaries of privileged exceptions are being adversely affected by the use of DRM and practical solutions are required.
Thus, the report proposed that, in the short term, with the help of the empirical findings and recommendations of this study, the EC Commission submits a proposal for two amendment of Article 6(4) of the Information Society Directive, as follows:
(1) A definition of the expression 'appropriate measures' should be inserted in Article 6(4) of the Information Society Directive, stating that for the purposes of that Directive such measures require the establishment of a procedure to enable expeditious access to works by beneficiaries of privileged exceptions, leading to the creation of standardized access to works portals across EC Member States.The existence of access to works portals would be made possible by a DRM deposit system, according to which the means to enable beneficiaries of privileged exceptions to benefit from them would be deposited and made available through access to works portals, in specified circumstances.
(2) It should be added to Article 6(4) of the Information Society Directive that where access to works by beneficiaries of privileged exceptions is not facilitated, the protection of privileged exceptions (given their connection to core freedoms) prevails over the protection of DRM, even where works are supplied online on agreed contractual terms.
Blogged at:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/05/25/freedom-of-expression-versus-drm-the-first-empirical-assessment/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/landmark-study-drm-truly-does-make-pirates-out-of-us-all.ars
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tags/akester
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/uk-study-drm-pushes-people-to-piracy-603014?src=rss&attr=all
Seguem as conclusões do estudo:
The survey unveiled, through empirical lines of enquiry, that:
1) Certain permitted acts are being adversely affected by the use of DRM;
2) This is in spite of the existence of technological solutions (enabling partitioning and authentication of users) to accommodate those permitted acts (privileged exceptions);
3) Beneficiaries of privileged exceptions who have been prevented from carrying out those permitted acts (because of the employment of DRM) have not used the complaints mechanism set out in UK law;
4) Article 6(4) of the Information Society Directive put an onus on content owners to accommodate privileged exceptions voluntarily. Voluntary measures have emerged in the publishing field, but not all content owners are ready to act unless they are told to do so by regulatory authorities.Ultimately, some beneficiaries of privileged exceptions are being adversely affected by the use of DRM and practical solutions are required.
Thus, the report proposed that, in the short term, with the help of the empirical findings and recommendations of this study, the EC Commission submits a proposal for two amendment of Article 6(4) of the Information Society Directive, as follows:
(1) A definition of the expression 'appropriate measures' should be inserted in Article 6(4) of the Information Society Directive, stating that for the purposes of that Directive such measures require the establishment of a procedure to enable expeditious access to works by beneficiaries of privileged exceptions, leading to the creation of standardized access to works portals across EC Member States.The existence of access to works portals would be made possible by a DRM deposit system, according to which the means to enable beneficiaries of privileged exceptions to benefit from them would be deposited and made available through access to works portals, in specified circumstances.
(2) It should be added to Article 6(4) of the Information Society Directive that where access to works by beneficiaries of privileged exceptions is not facilitated, the protection of privileged exceptions (given their connection to core freedoms) prevails over the protection of DRM, even where works are supplied online on agreed contractual terms.
Blogged at:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/05/25/freedom-of-expression-versus-drm-the-first-empirical-assessment/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/landmark-study-drm-truly-does-make-pirates-out-of-us-all.ars
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tags/akester
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/uk-study-drm-pushes-people-to-piracy-603014?src=rss&attr=all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
