Europe’s highest court, the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union, ruled yesterday that social networking websites cannot be forced to install filters preventing users from illegally sharing music and videos protected by copyright.

The court ruled that if it had agreed that social networking sites would need to filter content, it would go against European Union rules that ensure there is a “fair balance” between protecting copyright and defending personal data and the freedom to conduct business.

The court made the landmark ruling after examining and ruling on a case involving two Belgian companies: music royalty collecting society Sabam, and online social network Netlog.

The case was simple: Sabam had asked a Belgian court in 2009 to order Netlog to stop its users illegally downloading songs from the society’s portfolio. The Belgian judges were unsure of what to do and sought advice from the Luxembourg court.

The ECJ explained in a statement:

The owner of an online social network cannot be obliged to install a general filtering system, covering all its users, in order to prevent the unlawful use of musical and audio-visual work.

Such an injunction would result in a serious infringement of Netlog’s freedom to conduct its business since it would require Netlog to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense.

Additionally, the judges further justified their ruling by saying that forcing companies to install a filter to identify, analyse and process users’ personal information might infringe on their privacy, and thus, could result in the blocking of lawful content the users had themselves produced.

The decision marks off another blow for the likes of artists and the entertainment industry, who are fighting to protect their work from being illegally distributed on the internet.

The ruling also gives US lawmakers something to think about after they backed down from fiercely seeking to introduce anti-piracy legislation last month.

Those lawmakers faced intense pressure from internet companies, as well as concerns by the White House that curbing their sharing and information-rich businesses would not only be difficult to enforce, but would infringe on freedom of speech and internet freedom.

[Source: Reuters]