©-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 ...

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...

Wow, what a rolling coaster of emotions the past few days have been for EU- based  copyright enthusiasts!  After last week's  GS Media  decision   [ here ,  here ,  here ]  in Luxembourg and yesterday's  copyright package  in Brussels, today is back again to Luxembourg for the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in  Mc Fadden , C-484/14   [the decision is not yet available on the Curia website, but here's the  press release ]  [UPDATE at 11:12: the judgment is  now available  on the Curia website] This blog has followed this case for a while, after  reporting  for the first time on this reference for a preliminary ruling from  th e Landgericht München I (Regional Court, Munich I, Germany)  in late 2014 (and also  hosting  the open 'Save our open WiFi' letter penned by the  Electronic Frontier Foundation  in 2015). What is this case abou...

Puzzling level of aggressiveness in guy's expression The Tribunale di Roma (Rome Court of First Instance) is back with yet another decision on  the liability of online intermediaries (ISPs) for third-party copyright infringements. After the decisions against video sharing platforms Break  [noted  here ]  and Kewego  [noted  here ] , this time it was the turn of streaming platform Megavideo  [shut down in Italy since 2012]  to be found ineligible for safe harbour protection pursuant to Article 16 of Decreto Legislativo 70/2003  [by which Italy implemented Article 14 of the  Ecommerce Directive  into its own national law] .  The case is: Tribunale di Roma,  Reti Televisive Italiane spa v Megavideo Ltd , decision  14279/2016, published 15/07/2016. Background In a  decision  published last Friday and made available and commented on very useful Italian IP resource  Marchi&Brevetti , the Rome Cou...

So beautiful .. but would ISPs agree? When does a hosting provider become liable for third-party infringements? Does an  internet service provider (ISP) have an obligation to monitor the information it stores at the request of third parties? Do rightholders need to indicate the precise location of allegedly infringing works by means of URLs? Where can one sue for alleged online copyright infringement? These are questions which both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and national courts have addressed over the past few years (although not always answered clearly). A few days ago the Tribunale di Roma (Rome Court of First Instance) issued an interesting  [shocking or amazing, depending on one's own perspective]  judgment  in this area. It did so in the context of litigation between RTI - Reti Televisive Italiane (owned by broadcasting company  Mediaset ) and Break Media, a company operating video sharing platform  break.com .  T...

Can the provider of a password-free free Wi-Fi be liable for infringements - specifically:  of copyright - of those who use his/her service? This question is not an abstract one, but rather the core of a case currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU):  McFadden  C-484/14 . As readers may imagine, should the answer be 'yes', this would change quite a few things ... Background This blog  reported  for the first time on this reference for a preliminary ruling in late 2014, and also  hosted  the open 'Save our open WiFi' letter penned by the  Electronic Frontier Foundation  in 2015.  As explained above, in a nutshell this case requires the CJEU to clarify  [once again ... a recent instance is the decision in  Papasavvas , an online defamation case]  who can be considered an intermediary for the sake of the  ECommerce Directive  and what remedies can be sought aga...