EU Copyright Law and the Cloud: VCAST and the Intersection of Private Copying and Communication to the Public
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},
}