DSM Directive Series #5: Does the DSM Directive mean the same thing in all language versions? The case of 'best efforts' in Article 17(4)(a)

Bruno made
his 'best efforts'
to stick to his diet ...
A couple of days ago, The IPKat posted about a (gross) Italian mistranslation of Article 17 of the DSM Directive 2019/790 (formerly known as Article 13), which seems to require online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) to prevent the availability of all unlicensed subject matter, irrespective of whether it is infringing or not.

I have been informed that this error will be corrected soon, as it is clearly an incorrect translation of the adopted text.

As a follow-up to this, I took a closer look at the Italian translation of Article 17, and was a bit surprised when I saw that the phrase 'best efforts' in Article 17(4)(a) had not been translated as 'migliori sforzi' but rather as 'massimi sforzi'.

I shall try and clarify what I mean.

If we look at the English version of the DSM Directive, we see that a softer regime is in place for those OCSSPs who, together with satisfying other conditions [see here], have "made best efforts to obtain an authorisation" from relevant rightholders for the making available of protected subject matter. 

Similarly, the French version requires OCSSPs to have made "meilleurs efforts pour obtenir une autorisation".

However, the Italian version requires OCSSPs not just to have made their 'best' efforts, but actually their 'greatest' efforts. 

'Best' vs 'Greatest'

While in practice there might be little difference between 'best' and 'greatest', from a grammatical (and conceptual) standpoint they are not synonyms. 



'Best' is the superlative of 'good', 'greatest' is the superlative of 'great': the latter requires something more than the former. 

In addition, it can be considered that, while 'best' entails a qualitative assessment of one's own efforts ('they did their best'), 'greatest' mandates more of an objective assessment of one's own efforts ('they could not do more than what they did').

What about the other language versions?

So, 'I couldn't help but wonder' whether other language versions of Article 17(4)(a) mandated something other than the making of 'best efforts'/'meilleurs efforts'. 



Thanks to the collective efforts of several IP enthusiasts who happened to use Twitter yesterday, it appears that the answer is in the affirmative.

While some language versions correspond to the 'best efforts'/'meilleurs efforts' concept, others entail something else: so, for instance, the Spanish version requires the making of 'greater' efforts, while the Czech, Dutch, German, Latvian, Polish, Portuguese, and Romanian versions require that 'all efforts' be made to obtain a licence. Also the Swedish version requires 'all efforts' be made, but the way the obligation is phrased appears to entail a direct proportionality between the ability to make such efforts and the efforts actually made. The latter seems to be more a matter of (objective) ability rather than subjective approach.

The table below shows a few different language versions of Article 17(4)(a) obligations:


Huge thanks to:
... but not his 'greatest efforts'!
Conclusion

The differences highlighted above will likely result in challenges at different levels, including at the national transposition phase of the Directive, compliance, judicial interpretation and application of resulting national provisions.

All this appears complicated further by the fact that the DSM Directive does not define the concept of 'best efforts'.

As all the different language versions above show, grasping the essence of 'best efforts' proves challenging already from a linguistic standpoint.

Stay tuned for more episodes of The IPKat DSM Directive Series!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision

Image
Yesterday this blog  reported  that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued yet another long-awaited judgment, this being the  decision in  Filmspeler , C-527/15 . At the time of writing, the text of the ruling was not yet available. Now that it is and having had a chance to read it, it seems to me that – despite its highly specific factual background (sale of multimedia players enabling free access to audiovisual works protected by copyright without the consent of the rightholders) - Filmspeler is a MAJOR copyright decision. The reason is essentially two-fold: ·         First, because the Court relaxed the notion of what amounts to an ‘indispensable intervention  [the judgment does not even contain a reference to the intervention being ‘indispensable’]  for the sake of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive . This means – as I also s...
Read more

Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection)

Image
Topazio, one of the soap operas produced by Delta TV Is YouTube an active host and, if so, ineligible for the safe harbour protection within Article 14 of the  E-commerce Directive ? As readers with an interest in intermediary liability know, this is not a novel question: indeed, it has been already raised a number of times before national courts. A few weeks ago, in a  decision available on Marchi & Brevetti  (sentenza 7 April 2017 No 1928, RG 38113/2013,  Delta TV v Google and YouTube  – judge rapporteur: Guglielmo Rende), the Tribunale di Torino (Turin Court of First Instance) revisited this issue, and provided an interesting response. Readers might recall that this decision follows other interim rulings commented on this blog  here  and  here . Background Back in 2013 Delta TV, which produces and owns the copyright to a number of South-American soap operas (including audiovisual works for the Italian, Monaco, Swis...
Read more

Brands and online ecommerce platforms: a tainted relationship?

Image
What has happened to online ecommerce platforms? Over the past few months news reports have multiplied – or, perhaps, their underlying issues have acquired greater visibility – that brand owners have been increasingly voicing criticisms against, sued, or discontinued sales on ecommerce sites. In particular, after the  criticisms  made against Alibaba, it seems that Amazon is now making the headlines. Let’s have a quick look at what has happened over the past few months. Court actions First, there have been legal proceedings being brought by trade mark owners, claiming a direct responsibility of Amazon in the sale of counterfeits or invoking a right to prevent sales on such platform. An example of the former is the  lawsuit  filed by Daimler against Amazon in late 2017 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The well-known  German car manufacturer argues that Amazon is directly responsible for the “ offer fo...
Read more