diritto d’autore

“THE PIRATE BAY” CASE: THE COURT OF JUSTICE DECIDES THAT THE ADMINS OF A TORRENT FILE SHARING PLATFORM ARE ALSO LIABLE FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

23/06/2017

With judgment of 14 June 2017 in case C-610/15, the Court of Justice held that the making available on the Internet of content downloaded by users amounts to a “communication to the public”, an activity that requires the authorization of the copyright holder.

 

Stichting Brein is a Netherlands association that represents and protects the interests of copyright holders. This was a case in which the association sued before the Dutch courts requesting a blocking injunction against Ziggo and XS4ALL, access providers whose members for the most part use the online sharing platform “The Pirate Bay”. The injunction was asked so as to block the domain names and IP addresses of “The Pirate Bay”, with a view to avoiding that the services offered by the above mentioned providers could be used to infringe the copyright of entities or individuals whose interests Stichting Brein was required to protect. Stichting Brein succeeded at first instance, but saw its claims dismissed on appeal.

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands referred the case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling and asked whether there is communication to the public, pursuant to art. 3, para. 1 of Directive 2001/29, on part of an Internet website administrator, where the website concerned does not have any protected works on it but instead is based on a system in which metadata related to protected works stored on users’ computers is categorized and indexed in such a way as to allow other users to find, upload and download the aforesaid protected works. In this judgment the Court of Justice held that the provision and management of an online sharing platform such as “The Pirate Bay” must be considered an act of communication to the public pursuant to directive 2001/29 and therefore may be allowed only with the prior authorization of the copyright holder.

The Court also held that the administrators of “The Pirate Bay” are not involved in a “mere provision” of physical equipment but instead carry out an essential role in the making available of protected works. Indeed, they act with full knowledge of the consequences of their behaviour, with the objective of providing access to the works and indexing and listing the “torrent files” that allow users to find the works and share them in a peer-to-peer exchange with and between other users. Moreover, communication of this sort concerns an indefinite number of potential recipients and extends to a significant number of people, as the administrators of “The Pirate Bay” themselves declared on the website.

Finally, the Court held that it was indisputable that the making available and the management of an online sharing platform, such as that of the main proceedings, were carried out with a view to profit, given that the aforesaid platform also produced considerable amounts of advertising revenue.


SIMONA LAVAGNINI TO SPEAK AT A WEBINAR ORGANIZED BY MICROSOFT ON THE RISKS OF COUNTERFEIT SOFTWARE

20/06/2017

On June 27, at 11 a.m., Ms. Simona Lavagnini will speak at a webinar organized by Microsoft on the enhancement of the software assets of the company, the legal consequences of the sale and use of counterfeit software, and the ways to manage IT contracts and software licences.

 

Software has now become an important resource for all companies which often find themselves having to manage a certain number of IT contracts dealing with software development, outsourcing or use licenses. It is essential for companies to know about the features of such contracts, the risks connected to them and the best ways to control them with a view to optimizing use of resources and avoid incurring in negative consequences.

Ms. Simona Lavagnini, partner at LGV Avvocati, will provide a comprehensive view of rights over software, also dealing with the civil, criminal and administrative consequences connected to use of unlicensed software or non-compliant licences. She will examine the cases in which protection is provided by copyright law and the infringements and remedies available in the field of unfair competition and consumer protection law. Ms. Lavagnini will also give some important advice for identifying unauthentic software and avoiding the risks associated with use of such software.

Mr. Paolo Valcher of the Software Asset Management and Copyright Protection division and Mr. Marco Cattaneo, Product Marketing Manager Windows Commercial, both from Microsoft Italia, will also be speaking at the webinar.

Registration is available by filling out the form available at the following link: https://info.microsoft.com/WE-NOGEP-WBNR-FY17-06Jun-27-SoftwareFakeImparaariconoscerliedevitairischi-335046_01Registration-ForminBody.html.


LEADERS LEAGUE 2017: LGV IS RANKED AS LEADING LAW FIRM FOR COPYRIGHT AND AS EXCELLENT LAW FIRM IN TRADEMARK AND PATENT LITIGATION

26/05/2017

LGV is rated  as a “leading” law firm for copyright, and is confirmed as “excellent” in trademark and patent litigation.

 

Leaders League – the Paris company that rates professional firms active in the specialist sectors of each country – has included LGV in the category of law firms deemed “leading” among those specialized in copyright, confirming it for the second year in a row as “excellent” law firm in trademark and patent litigation. The 2017 guide takes into account the very high quality of the service offered by the firm in the copyright sector, as well as LGV’s activity as litigator with respect to trademarks and patents.

Leaders League, in particular, highlights as follows: “Copyright, as applied to new technologies, constitutes one of the core practices at LGV. The firm has dealt with all types of work originating in the digital and online world, and has become highly specialized in the protection of software, video games, online and offline databases, and issues related to systems of protection, collecting societies and lobbies. According to the guide, LGV differentiates itself because: “The team of 13 lawyers, entirely dedicated to IP and commercial issues is one of the largest in the market. LGV is a dynamic boutique with an international outlook thanks to a department specifically focused on the Korean market, in addition to a business desk dealing with Germany and other German-speaking countries. The team also has strong experience in the management of cross-border litigation.”

The top level ranking published by this prestigious directory further strengthens the presence and influence of LGV in the international context and recognises the firm’s preeminent role in an ever more competitive global market. For details, please visit: http://www.leadersleague.com/en/rankings/2017-ranking-of-the-best-law-firms-in-copyright-in-italy#dee6d702-f584-4271-8882 -c1708508845b


CASE C-527/15 Stichting Brein v Jack Frederick Wullems: COURT OF JUDGMENT ISSUES ANOTHER JUDGMENT ON COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC

10/05/2017

According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, must be interpreted as covering the sale of a multimedia player on which there are pre-installed add-ons, available on the internet, containing hyperlinks to websites — that are freely accessible to the public — on which copyright-protected works have been made available to the public without the consent of the right holders. Moreover, acts of temporary reproduction, on a multimedia player of a copyright-protected work obtained by streaming from a website belonging to a third party offering that work without the consent of the copyright holder do not satisfy the conditions set out in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC.

 

Mr. Wullems sold, on a number of internet sites, including his own site, various models of a multimedia player. On that player, Mr. Wullems installed an open source software, which made it possible to play files through a user-friendly interface via structured menus, and integrated into it, without alteration, add-ons available on the internet, created by third parties, some of which specifically linked to websites on which protected works were made available to internet users without the consent of the copyright holders.

Stichting Brein is a Netherlands foundation for the protection of the interests of copyright holders. Stichting Brein asked Mr. Wullems to stop selling the multimedia player and subsequently brought an action against Mr. Wullems before the referring court, arguing that Mr. Wullems had made a ‘communication to the public’, in breach of Article 3, para. 1, of Directive 2001/29. In reply Mr. Wullems submitted that streaming broadcasts of works protected by copyright from an illegal source was covered by the exception listed in Article 5, para. 1, of the same Directive.

Following a request for a preliminary ruling by the Dutch Court, the Court of Justice recalled its case law on communication to the public, and begun by observing that this case did not concern a situation of ‘mere’ provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication. Indeed, Mr. Wullems, with full knowledge of the consequences of his conduct, pre-installed onto the ‘filmspeler’ multimedia player that he marketed add-ons that specifically enabled purchasers to have access to protected works published — without the consent of the copyright holders of those works — on streaming websites and enabled those purchasers to watch those works on their television screens. That intervention enabling a direct link to be established between websites broadcasting counterfeit works and purchasers of the multimedia player, without which the purchasers would find it difficult to benefit from those protected works, was quite different from the mere provision of physical facilities, referred to in recital 27 of Directive 2001/29.

The Court then held that Mr. Wullems had made a “communication to the public”, seeing as the ‘filmspeler’ multimedia player had been purchased by a fairly large number of people. Furthermore, the communication at issue in the main proceedings covered all persons who could potentially acquire that media player and had an internet connection, so that it could be said with certainty that the communication had indeed occurred with regard to a “public”. Moreover, the Court held that this was a “new” public in that it had not been taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication. The Court stated that it was common ground that the sale of the ‘filmerspeler’ multimedia player was made in full knowledge of the fact that the add-ons containing hyperlinks pre-installed on that player gave access to works published illegally on the internet. In fact, the advertising of that multimedia player specifically stated that it made it possible to watch on a television screen, freely and easily, audiovisual material available on the internet without the consent of the copyright holders.

As to the exception raised by Mr. Wullems, the Court held that no legitimate use had been made of the copyrighted work, so that the conduct of Mr. Wullems could not be held to fall within Art. 5, para. 1 of Directive 2001/29. Such provision must be interpreted as meaning that acts of temporary reproduction, on a multimedia player, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a copyright-protected work obtained by streaming from a website belonging to a third party offering that work without the consent of the copyright holder does not satisfy the conditions set out in those provisions.


CAUSA C-527/15 Stichting Brein v Jack Frederick Wullems: LA CORTE DI GIUSTIZIA TORNA SULLA QUESTIONE DELLA COMUNICAZIONE AL PUBBLICO

10/05/2017

Secondo la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea la nozione di “comunicazione al pubblico” di cui all’articolo 3 della direttiva 2001/29 ricomprende la vendita di un lettore multimediale nel quale sono state preinstallate estensioni contenenti collegamenti ipertestuali a siti web liberamente accessibili al pubblico e sui quali sono state messe a disposizione del pubblico opere tutelate dal diritto d’autore senza l’autorizzazione dei titolari di tale diritto. Inoltre, atti di riproduzione temporanea, effettuati per il tramite del lettore multimediale, di un’opera protetta dal diritto d’autore e ottenuta in streaming senza l’autorizzazione del titolare del diritto, non possono ritenersi coperti dall’eccezione di cui all’articolo 5 della medesima direttiva.

 

Il Sig. Wullems vendeva online diversi modelli di un lettore multimediale denominato “filmspeler”. Su tale lettore, il Sig. Wullems aveva installato un software open source che consentiva di aprire file in un’interfaccia facile da utilizzare tramite strutture di menù, e vi aveva integrato, senza modificarle, estensioni (add-ons) disponibili su Internet, concepite da terzi, alcune delle quali rinviavano specificamente a siti web nei quali venivano messe a disposizione degli internauti opere protette senza l’autorizzazione dei titolari del diritto d’autore.

Stichting Brein, una fondazione olandese che tutela gli interessi dei titolari del diritto d’autore, dapprima intimava al Sig. Wullems di cessare la vendita del lettore multimediale e, successivamente, procedeva a citarlo in giudizio dinanzi al Tribunale di Midden-Nederland sostenendo che, attraverso la vendita del lettore multimediale “filmspeler”, il Sig. Wullems avrebbe effettuato una “comunicazione al pubblico” in violazione dell’articolo 3 della direttiva 2001/29. Il Sig. Wullems per contro sosteneva che lo streaming di opere tutelate dal diritto d’autore provenienti da una fonte illegittima rientrava nell’eccezione di cui all’articolo 5, paragrafo 1, della medesima direttiva.

A seguito di rinvio pregiudiziale da parte del Tribunale olandese, la Corte di Giustizia, dopo aver richiamato la propria giurisprudenza sulla nozione di comunicazione al pubblico, stabiliva innanzitutto che nel caso di specie non si poteva parlare di una mera fornitura di un’attrezzatura fisica (i.e. il lettore multimediale) atta a rendere possibile o ad effettuare una comunicazione. Il Sig. Wullems, infatti, procedeva con piena cognizione delle conseguenze della sua condotta alla pre-installazione, nel lettore multimediale “filmspeler” che lui stesso vendeva, di estensioni che consentivano agli acquirenti di accedere a opere tutelate pubblicate su siti di streaming senza l’autorizzazione del titolare del diritto d’autore e di visualizzare tali opere sulla loro televisione. Poiché siffatta operazione consentiva di accertare il collegamento diretto tra i siti web che diffondevano le opere contraffatte e gli acquirenti di detto lettore multimediale, senza la quale questi ultimi potrebbero soltanto con difficoltà beneficiare delle opere tutelate, una simile attività non coincideva con la mera fornitura di un’attrezzatura fisica, di cui al considerando 27 della direttiva 2001/29.

Ciò premesso, la Corte osservava che la condotta del Sig. Wullems costituiva una “comunicazione al pubblico” in quanto il lettore multimediale “filmspeler” era stato acquistato da un numero considerevole di persone e, invero, la comunicazione riguardava un numero indeterminato di potenziali acquirenti di tale lettore che disponevano di una connessione Internet, sicché si poteva nella specie parlare di comunicazione ad un “pubblico”. Inoltre, riteneva la Corte che tale comunicazione era stata effettuata nei confronti di un “nuovo” pubblico che non era stato preso in considerazione dai titolari del diritto d’autore al momento in cui avevano autorizzato la comunicazione iniziale. Peraltro, nel caso di specie era pacifico che la vendita del lettore multimediale “filmspeler” era stata effettuata in piena cognizione della circostanza che le estensioni che contengono collegamenti ipertestuali preinstallati in detto lettore davano accesso a opere illegittimamente pubblicate su Internet. Anzi, nelle pubblicità relative a tale lettore multimediale si faceva specificamente presente che esso consentiva di guardare gratuitamente e con facilità, su uno schermo televisivo, materiale audiovisivo disponibile su Internet senza l’autorizzazione dei titolari del diritto d’autore.

Infine, la Corte di Giustizia ha statuito che atti di riproduzione temporanea, su un lettore multimediale come quello di cui al procedimento principale, di un’opera tutelata dal diritto d’autore, ottenuta via streaming su un sito web appartenente a un terzo che offre tale opera senza l’autorizzazione del titolare del diritto d’autore, non integravano i requisiti prescritti dalla direttiva 2001/29, di talché non era possibile qualificare la vendita del lettore multimediale come un “utilizzo legittimo” delle opere protette da parte del Sig. Wullems.