©-LAW

Kat cloud   Does the private copying exception and, with it, the fair compensation requirement under Article 5(2)(b) of the   InfoSoc Directive   apply to reproductions carried out by using cloud-based recording services? If so, can rightholders request the providers of such a service to impose a levy even if their customers (natural persons) have already paid one when purchasing the devices (eg, computers, smartphones, tablets) subsequently used to undertake acts of reproduction covered by that provision? These, in essence, are the issues that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been called upon to decide in  Austro-Mechana , C-433/20 , a pending referral from Austria. IPKat readers interested in all things private copying (who’s not …) will be aware that private copying in the cloud is not an entirely novel issue for the CJEU. A few years ago, in fact, in  VCAST , C-265/16   [ here ]  the Court was asked questions relating to reprod...

Ca n the 'fair compensation' for private copying pursuant to Article 5(2)(b) of the  InfoSoc  Directive  be funded through a Member State's general state budget? This is in a nutshell the issue that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had been asked to consider in  EGEDA , C-470/14 , a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spanish Supreme Court seeking clarification about the compatibility of Spanish law on private copying with EU law. More specifically, the Spanish court had referred the following questions: "(1) Is a scheme for fair compensation for private copying compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29  [the InfoSoc Directive]  where the scheme, while taking as a basis an estimate of the harm actually caused, is financed from the General State Budget  [as is the case in Spain, but also Norway, Estonia, and Finland] , it thus not being possible to ensure that the cost of that compe...

Where can one (read: a collective management organisation) sue to obtain missing  payments of the fair remuneration due for private copying? This is the question that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressed yesterday in   Austro-Mechana v Amazon , C-572/14   [thanks to EU law enthusiast and scholar   Steve Peers   for the heads up] . The Austrian Supreme Court had in fact asked the CJEU to say whether  a claim for missed payment of ‘fair compensation’ under Article   5(2)(b) of the  InfoSoc Directive   can be considered akin to 'tort, delict or quasi-delict' within what is currently  Article 7(2) of Brussels I Recast  [formerly Article 5(3) of Brussels I]  for the sake of determining the court(s) competent to hear such action.   Besides the general rule (Article 4) that allows one to sue in the Member State where the defendant is domiciled/established, as a special rule Article 7(2) of Brussels ...

Private copying levies? Surely a sexy topic of conversation, but also a very contentious  issue. This morning Advocate General (AG) Maciej Szpunar issued his  Opinion   [not yet available in English]  in  EGEDA  C-470/14  [ here ] , a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spanish Supreme Court seeking clarification as to the following: "Is a scheme for fair compensation for private copying compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29   [the   InfoSoc Directive ]  where the scheme, while taking as a basis an estimate of the harm actually caused, is financed from the General State Budget   [as is the case in Spain, but also Norway, Estonia, and Finland] , it thus not being possible to ensure that the cost of that compensation is borne by the users of private copies? If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the scheme compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 where the...