©-LAW

  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 thr...

Kat blocking Earlier this week, the High Court of England and Wales issued two website blocking orders, which set new precedent and are the expression of a further development in the rich UK website blocking jurisprudence.  The orders, which were issued by Miles J further to applications made by record labels that are members of  BPI , are the first orders ever granted in the UK to block access to, respectively, a cyberlocker and a number of streamripping sites/app. The decisions are also interesting from a broader, EU perspective, in that the judge considered that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is unlikely to follow the position adopted by Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe in his 2020  Opinion , when it decides  YouTube/Cyando , C-682/18 and C-683/18  [Katpost  here ]. Capitol Records and Others v BT and Others : cyberlocker operators The  first order  was made further to an application by record companies, which are memb...

Physical address Can a rightholder request, under  Article 8(2)(a) of the Enforcement Directive , an online platform to provide personal contact details (more precisely: email addresses, telephone numbers, and IP addresses) of users of such platform who have infringed its copyrights? This, in a nutshell, is the question at the heart of the referral in  Constantin Film v YouTube , C-264/19 , currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). A few days ago, Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe issued his  Opinion , substantially answering in the negative (at least from an EU perspective). The referral is important for two key reasons ... plus one. First, because this is yet another case – recent instances being the 2019 Grand Chamber rulings in  Funke Medien ,  Spiegel Online , and  Pelham   [Katposts  here ,  here , and  here ]  – in which the CJEU will be required to balance differe...

The face of someone keen to share their Wi-Fi password .... What can be the nature of the penalties and measures to be taken in copyright infringement cases? More specifically:  Is it compatible with EU law to provide that the owner of an internet connection, through which copyright infringements have been committed, may escape liability thereof by indicating, without the need to provide any further details, a family member who has also had access to such connection? These were the issues at the centre of   Bastei Lübbe , C-149/17 , a reference for a preliminary ruling from Germany. Background The referral was made in the context of litigation between Bastei Lübbe, a German phonogram producer, and Michael Strotzer, the owner of an internet connection through which an infringement was committed in 2010.   The latter submitted that he had not committed the infringement himself and that his internet connection was sufficiently protected. He also argued...