Disclosure of Pirates’ Identities “Compatible with EU Privacy Laws” • Hacker News Board

Re: Disclosure of Pirates’ Identities “Compatible with EU Privacy Laws”

#51

Post by luluganeta » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 11:46 AM UTC

Mindwipe wrote: post #44

luluganeta wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Portugal there is an exception for copying copyrighted material for personal and noncommercial purposes. The lobby does try to twist the letter of the law to serve their interest, but it is legal

The Portuguese exemption only applies to copyrighted media where the person doing the copying is doing it from a copy that they already owned and obtained legally, it in no way permits you to stream or torrent content from the internet.

It's not that clear cut. Such restriction to self owned content is not in the law at all, but is frequently raised by pro-copyright proponents as an interpretation.

Re: Disclosure of Pirates’ Identities “Compatible with EU Privacy Laws”

#52

Post by Propelloni » Mon, Oct 02, 2023, 9:15 AM UTC

cf141q5325 wrote: post #28

Propelloni wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to argue against your position. TFA expounds that storing data required to prosecute a crime is proportionate. That sounds reasonable and hard to argue. In my eyes there are two points, however, that could be argued. 1) The data retention duration. France is holding some data sets for 13 years now without a charge forthcoming. I'm no expert on French law (or law in general) but it being a full-fledged libe…

>Mind, the statute of limitations could be long-running (in Germany it usually is 30 years, unless the law says otherwise) No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#Germany

Thanks for correcting me.

Re: Disclosure of Pirates’ Identities “Compatible with EU Privacy Laws”

#53

Post by Propelloni » Mon, Oct 02, 2023, 9:20 AM UTC

Joker_vD wrote: post #37

GTP wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be not a serious crime it must fail to be a crime or to be serious. I think both positions can be argued, albeit being serious seems to be easier to unhinge.. AFAIK something qualifies as a crime if the law says you can get a jail sentence for it (and vice versa). So it's not something you can argue in favour or against, you just have to look at the current legislation. But you still got a point for the seriousn…

Crime is basically anything that's listed in special part of the criminal code (the general part talks mostly about the definitions and criminal procedure and also contains this provision; the special part is the actual list of crimes with punishments which don't have to include jail time to sill be considered crimes).

The two previous post are sort of legal positivism. Nothing wrong with that, I have read Kelsen, too -- but one could argue that copyright infringement should not be on "the list", IOW is not a crime. This, of course, would be a much more foundational discussion.