Keyword: private copying

EU Copyright Law and the Cloud: VCAST and the Intersection of Private Copying and Communication to the Public external link

Quintais, J. & Rendas, T.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice , vol. 2018, num: 9, pp: 711-719, 2018

Abstract

This article examines the applicability of the private copying exception to cloud services against the backdrop of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case raises the question of whether the exception protects services of an online platform allowing users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. The AG’s proposed answer was to consider that cloud copying could generally be covered by the exception, but the specific service of VCAST could not. The CJEU focused on VCAST’s service only, largely following AG Szpunar’s conclusion. The article explains and discusses both the Opinion and the Judgment, further addressing the possible implications of the case for the “leviability” of cloud-based services and the interface between the private copying exception and the right of communication to the public.

cloud, communication to the public, Copyright, frontpage, Infosoc Directive, private copying, VCAST

Bibtex

Article{Quintais2018b, title = {EU Copyright Law and the Cloud: VCAST and the Intersection of Private Copying and Communication to the Public}, author = {Quintais, J. and Rendas, T.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3113215}, year = {0202}, date = {2018-02-02}, journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice }, volume = {2018}, number = {9}, pages = {711-719}, abstract = {This article examines the applicability of the private copying exception to cloud services against the backdrop of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case raises the question of whether the exception protects services of an online platform allowing users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. The AG’s proposed answer was to consider that cloud copying could generally be covered by the exception, but the specific service of VCAST could not. The CJEU focused on VCAST’s service only, largely following AG Szpunar’s conclusion. The article explains and discusses both the Opinion and the Judgment, further addressing the possible implications of the case for the “leviability” of cloud-based services and the interface between the private copying exception and the right of communication to the public.}, keywords = {cloud, communication to the public, Copyright, frontpage, Infosoc Directive, private copying, VCAST}, }

International Survey on Private Copying – Law and Practice 2016 external link

Wijminga, H., Klomp, W., Jagt, M. van der & Poort, J.
2017

frontpage, landenvergelijking, private copying, survey, thuiskopie

Bibtex

Report{Wijminga2017, title = {International Survey on Private Copying – Law and Practice 2016}, author = {Wijminga, H. and Klomp, W. and Jagt, M. van der and Poort, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/International_Survey_on_Private_Copying.pdf}, year = {0620}, date = {2017-06-20}, keywords = {frontpage, landenvergelijking, private copying, survey, thuiskopie}, }

International Survey on Private Copying WIPO – Thuiskopie external link

Poort, J.
2016

Abstract

Presentation "International Survey on Private Copying WIPO – Thuiskopie" at International Conference on Private Copying, Hermitage Amsterdam 23 June 2016

Intellectuele eigendom, levies, private copy, private copying, thuiskopie, WIPO

Bibtex

Presentation{Poort2016, title = {International Survey on Private Copying WIPO – Thuiskopie}, author = {Poort, J.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/20160623-International-Conference-on-Private-Copying-Joost-Poort-3.pdf}, year = {0623}, date = {2016-06-23}, abstract = {Presentation "International Survey on Private Copying WIPO – Thuiskopie" at International Conference on Private Copying, Hermitage Amsterdam 23 June 2016}, keywords = {Intellectuele eigendom, levies, private copy, private copying, thuiskopie, WIPO}, }

Individual Licensing Models and Consumer Protection external link

Guibault, L.
2016

Abstract

Copyright law is not primarily directed at consumers. Their interests are therefore only marginally accounted for, as the copyright rules exempt specific uses of works from the right holder’s control. This chapter examines the impact of digital technology on the position of consumers of licensed copyrighted content. While ownership of the physical embodiment of a work does not entail the ownership of the rights in the work, how does copyright law deal with ‘disembodied’ works? Whereas digital content is now commonly distributed on the basis of individual licensing schemes, what does it mean for consumers? Do they have a claim under consumer protection law against copyright owners for the impossibility to make a copy for private purposes, the lack of interoperability between devices, and the geo-blocking of their account?

Auteursrecht, Consumer law, consumer protection, Copyright, digital content, geo-blocking, Intellectuele eigendom, interoperability, private copying

Bibtex

Other{nokey, title = {Individual Licensing Models and Consumer Protection}, author = {Guibault, L.}, url = {http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2713765}, year = {2016}, date = {2016-02-05}, abstract = {Copyright law is not primarily directed at consumers. Their interests are therefore only marginally accounted for, as the copyright rules exempt specific uses of works from the right holder’s control. This chapter examines the impact of digital technology on the position of consumers of licensed copyrighted content. While ownership of the physical embodiment of a work does not entail the ownership of the rights in the work, how does copyright law deal with ‘disembodied’ works? Whereas digital content is now commonly distributed on the basis of individual licensing schemes, what does it mean for consumers? Do they have a claim under consumer protection law against copyright owners for the impossibility to make a copy for private purposes, the lack of interoperability between devices, and the geo-blocking of their account?}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, Consumer law, consumer protection, Copyright, digital content, geo-blocking, Intellectuele eigendom, interoperability, private copying}, }

The Levy Runs Dry: A Legal and Economic Analysis of EU Private Copying Levies external link

Poort, J. & Quintais, J.
JIPITEC, num: 3, pp: 205-224, 2013

Abstract

This article provides a legal and economic analysis of private copying levies in the EU, against the background of the Copyright Directive (2001/29), a number of recent rulings by the European Court of Justice and the recommendations presented by mediator Vitorino earlier this year. It concludes that notwithstanding these rulings and recommendations, there remains a lack of concordance on the relevance of contractual stipulations and digital rights management technologies (DRM) for setting levies, and the concept of harm. While Mr. Vitorino and AG Sharpston (in the Opinion preceding VG Wort v Kyocera) use different lines of reasoning to argue that levies raised on authorized copies would lead to double payment, the Court of Justice’s decision in VG Wort v Kyocera seems to conclude that such copies should nonetheless be levied. If levies are to provide fair compensation for harm resulting from acts of private copying, economic analysis suggests one should distinguish between various kinds of private copies and take account of the extent to which the value said copies have for consumers can be priced into the purchase. Given the availability of DRM (including technical protection measures), the possibility of such indirect appropriation leads to the conclusion that the harm from most kinds of private copies is de minimis and gives no cause for levies. The user value of copies from unauthorised sources (e.g. from torrent networks or cyber lockers), on the other hand, cannot be appropriated indirectly by rightholders. It is however an open question in references for preliminary rulings pending at the Court of Justice whether these copies are included in the scope of the private copying exception or limitation and can thus be be levied for. If they are not, as currently happens in several EU Member States, legal and economic analysis leads to the conclusion that the scope of private copying acts giving rise to harm susceptible of justifying levies is gradually diminishing.

Auteursrecht, DRM, exception or limitation, fair compensation, harm, Intellectuele eigendom, levies, private copying, technological protection measures

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {The Levy Runs Dry: A Legal and Economic Analysis of EU Private Copying Levies}, author = {Poort, J. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-4-3-2013/3846}, year = {0919}, date = {2013-09-19}, journal = {JIPITEC}, number = {3}, abstract = {This article provides a legal and economic analysis of private copying levies in the EU, against the background of the Copyright Directive (2001/29), a number of recent rulings by the European Court of Justice and the recommendations presented by mediator Vitorino earlier this year. It concludes that notwithstanding these rulings and recommendations, there remains a lack of concordance on the relevance of contractual stipulations and digital rights management technologies (DRM) for setting levies, and the concept of harm. While Mr. Vitorino and AG Sharpston (in the Opinion preceding VG Wort v Kyocera) use different lines of reasoning to argue that levies raised on authorized copies would lead to double payment, the Court of Justice’s decision in VG Wort v Kyocera seems to conclude that such copies should nonetheless be levied. If levies are to provide fair compensation for harm resulting from acts of private copying, economic analysis suggests one should distinguish between various kinds of private copies and take account of the extent to which the value said copies have for consumers can be priced into the purchase. Given the availability of DRM (including technical protection measures), the possibility of such indirect appropriation leads to the conclusion that the harm from most kinds of private copies is de minimis and gives no cause for levies. The user value of copies from unauthorised sources (e.g. from torrent networks or cyber lockers), on the other hand, cannot be appropriated indirectly by rightholders. It is however an open question in references for preliminary rulings pending at the Court of Justice whether these copies are included in the scope of the private copying exception or limitation and can thus be be levied for. If they are not, as currently happens in several EU Member States, legal and economic analysis leads to the conclusion that the scope of private copying acts giving rise to harm susceptible of justifying levies is gradually diminishing.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, DRM, exception or limitation, fair compensation, harm, Intellectuele eigendom, levies, private copying, technological protection measures}, }