©-LAW

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...

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...