A possible setback for DRM in Europe

Posted Feb 6, 2014 22:56 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
Parent article: A possible setback for DRM in Europe

> The Milan District Court is a lower court, but its ruling will eventually provide an example throughout the EU of how the ECJ's test for permissible DRM circumvention can be applied. Any other court anywhere in the EU dealing with a similar issue will likely look at how the Milan District Court has grappled with the issue, although it won't be bound by the ruling.

While IANAL I think this touches one of the key differences between law systems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent#Contrasting_role_o...

to post comments

A possible setback for DRM in Europe

Posted Feb 13, 2014 11:30 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Key differences in what sense?

I think the European Civil law system is less deferential to precedent than the Anglo-Saxon system, but in the Anglo-Saxon system too it is normal to look at what other courts have done.

The key difference in the Anglo-Saxon system is that a higher court ALWAYS trumps a lower court OVER WHICH IT HAS JURISDICTION. I gather civil courts can ignore a higher court's decision, although the chances of being overturned on appeal are very high.

But why should an English Court sitting under European Law be bound by the Milan Court's ruling? Of course they're going to take cognizance of the ECJ's ruling, but they can completely ignore the Milan court should they wish, whether under Anglo-Saxon precedent, or European legal basis.

Cheers,
Wol

A possible setback for DRM in Europe

Posted Feb 14, 2014 10:09 UTC (Fri) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]

> I think the European Civil law system is less deferential to precedent than the Anglo-Saxon system, but in the Anglo-Saxon system too it is normal to look at what other courts have done.

No, this is a key difference. A fundamental, cultural and philosophical difference. The practical result is that under Common Law ("Anglo-Saxon") the courts can (and do) make laws; in Civil Law they can't (this is an exclusive prerogative of the legislative branch). That's what the "precedent" means here: some court somewhere made a law. In Europe it's more like "let's see how others interpreted this piece of law" but it's just interpretation, not law. (And there are other interpretations to consider as well.)

Of course, IANAL :)