©-LAW

  Do platforms like YouTube and cyberlocker Uploaded directly perform copyright-restricted acts under Article 3 of the   InfoSoc Directive ? At what conditions is the hosting safe harbour under Article 14(1) of the   Ecommerce Directive   available? What may be the requirements for injunctions under Article 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive? These are some of the questions that the German Federal Court of Justice had referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in two separate cases, which were subsequently joined:  YouTube , C-682/18 and  Cyando , C-683/18. The  Opinion  of the Advocate General (AG) Øe was issued a little less than a year ago  [Katpost  here ] . This morning, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered  its much-awaited ruling . Here are a couple of immediate impressions: First, unlike the AG, the CJEU was cautious not to venture into any analysis of the regime under Article 17 of the  DSM Directive   vis-à-vis the InfoSoc Directive. Instead, it was adamant t

  Back in 2019, The IPKat   reported   on a referral from Belgium –   Mircom , C-597/19 – asking the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to clarify the treatment of (i)   seeding   under the   InfoSoc Directive   and (ii) ‘trolls’ under the   Enforcement Directive , as well as the interplay between copyright enforcement and data protection law ( GDPR ). Earlier this week, the Court issued its  ruling , substantially endorsing the earlier  Opinion   of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar. Background Also Bluebell received a worrying request for damages in connection with some suspicious online activities ... Mircom is a Cypriot company holding rights (as an assignee) to several pornographic films. It is seeking an order from the Antwerp Companies Court against Belgian ISP Telenet that would allow it to identify the latter’s customers whose internet connections have been used to share illegal copies of Mircom’s films through seeding. Via other companies, Mircom has collected thousand

  Today, after several months of waiting and with the deadline for the national transposition of the   DSM Directive  being just a weekend away (it will be on Monday, 7 June), the European Commission has issued its   Guidance on the application of Article 17 .  Here are 3 key highlights: Article 17 not a  sui generis  right of communication to the public An actual  sui generis  Kat First, the Guidance takes a different view from the  one  provisionally expressed in September 2020. It states that Article 17 is  lex specialis  to the  InfoSoc Directive , but also that the provision does not create a special/ sui generis  right of communication to the public compared to the one already contained in Article 3 of the latter: Article 17 does not affect the concept of communication to the public or of making content available to the public elsewhere under Union law, nor does it affect the possible application of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC to other service providers using cop