©-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...

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 ...

Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe Via Katfriend and former GuestKat  Kate Manning  (Curated Media) comes the news that  the  Opinion  of Advocate General (AG)  Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe  [ here  if you read Danish]  in  Austro-M echana , C-572/14  - escaping this Kat's attention (and much to her shame) - was in fact released on 17 February 2016. This is yet another reference for a preliminary ruling regarding interpretation of the private copying exception within Article 5(2)(b) of the   InfoSoc Directive , but with yet another interesting twist.  The referring court (the Austrian Supreme Court) is in fact asking the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to say whether  a claim for missed payment of ‘fair compensation’ under this provision 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] ...