Case C-466/12

InfoCuria: "Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 18 October 2012 - Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retreiver Sverige AB
(Case C-466/12)"

If anyone other than the holder of copyright in a certain work supplies a clickable link to the work on his website, does that constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society?

Is the assessment under question 1 affected if the work to which the link refers is on a website on the Internet which can be accessed by anyone without restrictions or if access is restricted in some way?

When making the assessment under question 1, should any distinction be drawn between a case where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown on another website and one where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown in such a way as to give the impression that it is appearing on the same website?

Is it possible for a Member State to give wider protection to authors' exclusive right by enabling 'communication to the public' to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society? 'via Blog this'

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003: Threat or Menace?

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003: Threat or Menace?: "The legislative history of s 127 is usefully narrated in DPP v Collins[6] (at [6]), a case involving a man who made repeated telephone calls to his local MP's office asking for him to do something about the 'black bastards' – and similar even more unpleasant terms. He was charged with sending 'grossly offensive' messages under s 127. On appeal to the House of Lords, the charge against Collins was upheld but what is particularly interesting for present purposes lies in LJ Bingham's analysis at [7] of what the purpose of s 127 is." 'via Blog this'

Irish academics' paper on copyright enforcement on the Internet

Copyright as One of Several Competing Rights in European Law (April 2012) Peter Charleton and Sinéad Kelly* to a highly prestigious New York conference 'via Blog this'

Excellent summary of recent UK cases from judge who decided them!

See here: The main speaker was Mr Justice Arnold, Judge of the High Court, Chancery Division.
He was followed by Mike Holderness (Creators Rights), Andrew Heaney (TalkTalk plc) and Saskia Walzel (Consumer focus).
Legal Background: On 26 October 2011 the High Court granted the first website-blocking order under section 97A of the Copyright Act 1998 (sic) resulting in ISPs being required to block access to Newsbin2.  Subsequently the Court has made similar orders against the Pirate Bay. During the recent Golden Eye case a Norwich Pharmacal order was made requiring O2 to release details of over 9,000 subscribers who were suspected of downloading infringing copyright. In all of the aforementioned cases Mr Justice Arnold was the presiding Judge.
'via Blog this'

The legality of online blocking measures

Excellent summary of case law to date.
'via Blog this'

Should private copying levies apply to the cloud?

The 1709 Blog: "The Commission has said that it will "assess whether there is a need to clarify the scope of the private copying exception and the applicability of levies, in particular the extent to which cloud computing services allowing for the direct remuneration of right holders are excluded from the private copy levy regime."
The levy system is a controversial one." 'via Blog this'

29 June 2012 — UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, Munich (Germany), Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH

EUR-Lex - - EN: "Questions referred
1. Is Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC [1] (the Information Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that a person who makes protected subject-matter available on the internet without the rightholder’s consent (Article 3(2) of the Information Directive) is using the services of the access providers of persons seeking access to that protected subject-matter?
2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Are reproduction for private use (Article 5(2)(b) of the Information Directive) and transient and incidental reproduction (Article 5(1) of the Information Directive) permissible only if the original of the reproduction was lawfully reproduced, distributed or made available to the public?

3. If the answer to the first question or the second question is in the affirmative and an injunction is therefore to be issued against the user’s access provider in accordance with Article 8(3) of the Information Directive: Is it compatible with Union law, in particular with the necessary balance between the parties’ fundamental rights, to quite simply prohibit an access provider from allowing its customers access to a certain website (without ordering specific measures) as long as the material available on that website is provided exclusively or predominantly without the rightholder’s consent, if the access provider can avoid incurring preventive penalties for breach of the prohibition by showing that it had nevertheless taken all reasonable measures?

4. If the answer to the third question is in the negative: Is it compatible with Union law, in particular with the necessary balance between the parties’ fundamental rights, to require an access provider to take specific measures to make it more difficult for its customers to access a website containing material that is made available unlawfully if those measures require not inconsiderable costs and can easily be circumvented without any special technical knowledge?" 'via Blog this'

Five Myths about Chinese Internet censorship

LW660:Freedom of Expression, Privacy and the Media: Five Myths about Chinese Internet censorship: Five Myths about the Chinese Internet - By Eveline Chao | Foreign Policy : "In 2000, President Bill Clinton said: "There's no question China...

Vorschaubilder II. The second case on image search thumbnails

Vorschaubilder II. The second case on image search thumbnails | Kluwer Copyright Blog: "The German Federal Court of Justice rejects liability for image search thumbnails even if they are indexed on websites showing the images without permission as long as other websites did so with the rights holder’s consent." 'via Blog this'

Twitter Help Center | Copyright and DMCA Policy

Twitter Help Center | Copyright and DMCA Policy: "Twitter’s response to notices of alleged copyright infringement may include the removal or restriction of access to allegedly infringing material. If we remove or restrict access to user content in response to a notice of alleged infringement, Twitter will make a good faith effort to contact the affected account holder with information concerning the removal or restriction of access, including a copy of the takedown notice, along with instructions for filing a counter-notification.
In an effort to be as transparent as possible regarding the removal or restriction of access to user-posted content, we clearly mark withheld Tweets and media to indicate to viewers when content has been withheld (examples below). We also send a copy of each DMCA notification and counter-notice that we process to Chilling Effects, where they are posted to a public-facing website (with your personal information removed)." 'via Blog this'