tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16008563.post3604727439269090399..comments2023-10-04T11:54:02.717+03:00Comments on E-Lawyer: Παραπλανητικό άρθρο περί "νίκης των Πειρατών"e-Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07013855875828367258noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16008563.post-35527860729146115452013-03-05T11:47:44.800+02:002013-03-05T11:47:44.800+02:00η βαση και η ουσια μιας περιπτωσης οπως η ομορφια ...η βαση και η ουσια μιας περιπτωσης οπως η ομορφια ειναι καθαρα κερδοσκοπικη και εχει να κανει με τον πλουτο στη συγκεκριμενη περιπτωση οπως δημιουργηται απο αυτο που θα ελεγε κανεις ως θεαμα<br /><br />το να ισχυριζεται κανεις πως κατεγραψαν ειδηση ειναι τοσο αστειο οσο το να δικαιολογει κανεις τα γουεμπκαμς στους κινηματογραφους<br /><br />η ατομικη ιδιοκτησια ειναι βασικο ανθρωπινο δικαιωμα και προφανως ενας δηθεν "προοδευτικος" ή καποιος πειρατης θα χρειαστει πολυ μεγαλυτερη προσπαθεια για να δικαιολογησειNapohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04812665187103672021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16008563.post-14321818592008395772013-02-20T17:11:54.395+02:002013-02-20T17:11:54.395+02:00Οι δημοσιογράφοι πήγαν να κερδίσουν. Οι πειρατές Δ...Οι δημοσιογράφοι πήγαν να κερδίσουν. Οι πειρατές ΔΕΝ κερδίζουν από αυτό που κάνουν. Το να χρησιμοποιείς την δουλειά του άλλου για κέρδος είναι κλοπή.<br /><br />Υπάρχει μεγάλη διαφορά ανάμεσα στο περιεχόμενο κουλτούρας που μοιράζουν και κατεβάζουν οι πειρατές για προσωπική χρήση και στην πώληση ή χρήση αυτού με σκοπό το κέρδος.<br /><br />Οι Πειρατές ΔΕΧΟΝΤΑΙ τα πνευματικά δικαιώματα. Αυτό που δεν δέχονται είναι την πνευματική ιδιοκτησία.<br /><br />Αν θέλετε περισσότερες λεπτομέρειες επικοινωνήστε με το Κόμμα Πειρατών για να τις πάρετε.Βασίλειος Περαντζάκηςhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09039123670376723121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16008563.post-46531346961207583492013-02-17T09:39:19.244+02:002013-02-17T09:39:19.244+02:00Καλημέρα,
ο συγγραφέας του άρθρου Rick Falkvinge (...Καλημέρα,<br />ο συγγραφέας του άρθρου Rick Falkvinge (ιδρυτής του πρώτου Πειρατικού Κόμματος αν κατάλαβα καλά) έχει προσθέσει 2 updates και εμμένει στην άποψή του, ότι γενικά η απόφαση αν και πρώιμη, είναι σε καλό δρόμο.<br /><br />http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/07/court-of-human-rights-convictions-for-file-sharing-violates-human-rights/<br /><br />UPDATE 1: Be careful interpreting this verdict as a free-for-all. It’s not. What it says is that violating the copyright monopoly laws is not enough for a conviction, and that the copyright monopoly laws collide with Human Rights. Those are two huge wins in themselves. But it doesn’t mean nobody will ever get convicted for sharing culture again – just that courts have to justify why a conviction is also “necessary in a democratic society”, in addition to having met the normal and previous bar for a conviction.<br /><br />It will take years to flesh out precedents with this wide a margin for interpretation, and the specific action on trial as well as its intent will be under close scrutiny for its value to democracy as such – record label lawyers will justify a conviction with circular reasoning (“upholding the law is necessary in a democracy, so the prerequisites are already met”) and human rights lawyers will probably strike down any conviction (“human rights trump all”). So while this verdict gave two important victories, it’s not the end of the conflict nor the end of the war.<br /><br />UPDATE 2: Some people have pointed at the end verdict and said it’s insane and asked how it’s good news. The overall verdict was about photographs taken at a fashion show and later published commercially, where the ECHR found that that human rights had not been violated in handing out insane damages. But the end decision isn’t the interesting thing with this verdict – it’s the two subdecisions noted above before the court arrived at an end verdict:<br /><br /> The copyright monopoly does come at odds with the human right to seek and share knowledge and culture;<br /> In order to justify any verdict based on the copyright monopoly laws, the court must therefore also show that the verdict is “necessary in a democratic society”.<br /><br />In this case, the ECHR found that the fashion show and the publication were thoroughly commercial, and didn’t have an important democratic function worth protecting over the copyright monopoly. In essence, the court is saying that political speech and political expression can trump the copyright monopoly – for instance, if you were seeding a documentary on human rights abuses with the intent of bringing about political change, that action will very likely be legal after this verdict, which it wasn’t before.<br /><br />So the verdict – or rather, two subdecisions leading up to the verdict – opens up a huge gray area of law which was previously pitch black, stating clear examples of where the freedom of expression would take precedence over the copyright monopoly (even if they arrive at the end conclusion in this particular case that it doesn’t meet that bar).<br /><br />A few people have observed that the court seems to draw the line at commercial vs. noncommercial, implying that all file-sharing would always be in the clear, but I wouldn’t bet on that interpretation (although it would certainly be a great outcome).<br /><br />The real interesting cases come when you’re seeding ordinary commercial movies in a political context with a political intent. That one’s a coin toss for now.Δρ. Νονονοnoreply@blogger.com