Suchergebnisse

Upon request of MEP Julia Reda, this study evaluates the provisions of the European Commission's Proposal of 14 September 2016 for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market that are relevant to 'information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject matter uploaded by their users'. It concludes that key elements of these provisions are incompatible with existing EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The provisions ought therefore to be withdrawn or amended. For the purposes of the latter option, the study provides a series of recommendations.

Although open content licences only account for a fraction of all copyright licences currently in force in the copyright world, the mentality change initiated by the open content movement is here to stay. To promote the use of open content licences, it is important to better understand the theoretical underpinnings of these licences, as well as to gain insight on the practical advantages and inconveniences of their use. This book assembles chapters written by renowned European scholars on a number of selected issues relating to open content licensing. It offers a comprehensive and objective study of the principles of open content from a European intellectual property law perspective and of their possible implementation in the areas of scientific publishing, of the re-use of government information, of the dissemination of works held by cultural heritage institutions and of the exercise of rights on music phonograms.

Although open content licences only account for a fraction of all copyright licences currently in force in the copyright world, the mentality change initated by the open content movement is here to stay. To promote the use of open content licences, it is important to better understand the theoretical underpinnings of these licences, as well as to gain insight on the practical advantages and inconveniences of their use. This book assembles chapters written by renowned European scholars on a number of selected issues relating to open content licensing. It offers a comprehensive and objective study of the principles of open content from a European intellectual property law perspective and of their possible implementation in the areas of scientific publishing, of the re-use of government information, of the dissemination of works held by cultural heritage institutions and of the exercise of rights on music phonograms.

List of Abbreviations --Acknowledgements --Introduction --The Need for Reform: The Current EU Legal Framework --Digging Deeper: The National Norms on Intermediary Accessory Liability --Back to the Basics: The Elements of a European Accessory Liability --Shaping European Intermediary Accessory Copyright Liability: What Would a Reasonable Intermediary Do? --Summary and Conclusion --Bibliography.

Article 13 of the Proposed EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market and the accompanying Recital 38 are amongst the most controversial parts of the European Commission's copyright reform package. Several Members States (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany) have submitted questions seeking clarification on aspects that are essential to the guarantee of fundamental rights in the EU and to the future of the Internet as an open communication medium. The following analysis discusses these questions in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It offers guidelines and background information for the improvement of the proposed new legislation.

The recently proposed new Copyright Directive was released on 14 September 2016. It has been described by EU law-makers as the pillar of the copyright package promised by the European Commission (EC), to be delivered before the end of Mr. Juncker's mandate. In its Communication of 6 May 2015, the EC had stressed "the importance to enhance cross-border access to copyright-protected content services, facilitate new uses in the fields of research and education, and clarify the role of online services in the distribution of works and other subject-matter." The proposed Copyright Directive is thus a key measure aiming to address two of these three issues. However it is not without shortfalls. We have therefore decided to publicly express our concerns and send an open letter to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to urge them to re-assess the new provisions dealing with mandatory filtering of user-generated content in the light of the CJEU case law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In a more extended statement, we examine in details the text of both the explanatory memorandum and the Directive itself. Our conclusions are: 1. A comprehensive re-assessment of Article 13 and Recital 39 in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the E-commerce Directive (in particular Article 15) including CJEU case law is needed, as the proposed Copyright Directive does not expressly address the issue of its compatibility with both of these texts. 2. Recital 38 does not clarify the domain and effect of Article 13. Rather, it creates confusion as it goes against settled CJEU case law (relating to Articles 14 and 15 of the E-commerce Directive and Article 3 of the Infosoc Directive). Recital 38 should therefore be deleted or substantially re-drafted/re-phrased. If the EU wants to introduce a change in this regard it should clearly justify its choice. In any case, a recital in the preamble to a directive is not an appropriate tool to achieve this effect. We hope that this exercise will prove useful for the debate that has now begun both in the European Parliament and in the Council.

The recently proposed new Copyright Directive was released on 14 September 2016. It has been described by EU law-makers as the pillar of the copyright package promised by the European Commission (EC), to be delivered before the end of Mr. Juncker's mandate. In its Communication of 6 May 2015, the EC had stressed -the importance to enhance cross-border access to copyright-protected content services, facilitate new uses in the fields of research and education, and clarify the role of online services in the distribution of works and other subject-matter. The proposed Copyright Directive is thus a key measure aiming to address two of these three issues. However it is not without shortfalls. We have therefore decided to publicly express our concerns and send an open letter to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to urge them to re-assess the new provisions dealing with mandatory filtering of user-generated content in the light of the CJEU case law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In a more extended statement, we examine in details the text of both the explanatory memorandum and the Directive itself. Our conclusions are: 1. A comprehensive re-assessment of Article 13 and Recital 39 in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the E-commerce Directive (in particular Article 15) including CJEU case law is needed, as the proposed Copyright Directive does not expressly address the issue of its compatibility with both of these texts. 2. Recital 38 does not clarify the domain and effect of Article 13. Rather, it creates confusion as it goes against settled CJEU case law (relating to Articles 14 and 15 of the E-commerce Directive and Article 3 of the Infosoc Directive). Recital 38 should therefore be deleted or substantially re-drafted/re-phrased. If the EU wants to introduce a change in this regard it should clearly justify its choice. In any case, a recital in the preamble to a directive is not an appropriate tool to achieve this effect. We hope that this exercise will prove useful for the debate that has now begun both in the European Parliament and in the Council.

The use of self-regulatory or privatized enforcement measures in the online environment can give rise to various legal issues that affect the fundamental rights of internet users. First, privatized enforcement by internet services, without state involvement, can interfere with the effective exercise of fundamental rights by internet users. Such interference may, on occasion, be disproportionate, but there are legal complexities involved in determining the precise circumstances in which this is the case. This is because, for instance, the private entities can themselves claim protection under the fundamental rights framework (e.g. the protection of property and the freedom to conduct business). Second, the role of public authorities in the development of self-regulation in view of certain public policy objectives can become problematic, but has to be carefully assessed. The fundamental rights framework puts limitations on government regulation that interferes with fundamental rights. Essentially, such limitations involve the (negative) obligation for States not to interfere with fundamental rights. Interferences have to be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. At the same time, however, States are also under the (positive) obligation to take active measures in order to ensure the effective exercise of fundamental rights. In other words, States must do more than simply refrain from interference. These positive obligations are of specific interest in the context of private ordering impact on fundamental rights, but tend to be abstract and hard to operationalize in specific legal constellations. This study's central research question is: What legal limitations follow from the fundamental rights framework for self-regulation and privatized enforcement online? It examines the circumstances in which State responsibility can be engaged as a result of selfregulation or privatized enforcement online. Part I of the study provides an overview and analysis of the relevant elements in the European and international fundamental rights framework that place limitations on privatized enforcement. Part II gives an assessment of specific instances of self-regulation or other instances of privatized enforcement in light of these elements.