|Is this the parody that led to the referral?|
We have received notification of a new case referred by Hof van beroep te Brussel - Belgium to the Court of Justice of the European Union: C-201/13. The case concerns the meaning of the concept of 'parody' in Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society ('the Directive').This exercise has become mindless and futile. Is there no-one in authority who reads this weblog and is prepared to take this problem by the scruff of the neck and shake it till it is solved?
This case and the questions referred to the court can be viewed on our website at:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-policy/policy-information/ecj/ecj-2013.htm [no it can't. At 15.26 pm this Kat clicked the link and was treated to a short list of cases, none of which was Case 201/13 Deckmyn et Vrijheidsfonds, which you can read about in what this Kat guesses to be Dutch here. Update: by 16.13 pm the CJE|U website for this case was available as a click-through -- but the questions were "not available"]
If you would like to comment on this case please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org before noon 7 June 2013 [that's right, tomorrow. This email, timed at 15.15pm today, gives less than a day for responses and comments to be composed and submitted].
We understand how difficult it is to provide detailed comments in the time available. The IPO has tight time limits in which to consider and provide advice to ministers on ECJ cases. In order to help us provide the right advice, we just need a short email by the deadline stating whether you think the UK should intervene and some general points about how you think we should answer the questions.
You are welcome to follow this email up with more detailed comments after the deadline, which can be taken into consideration if we have chosen to submit observations or if we decide to attend a hearing.
If you are aware of any references to the ECJ that are not currently included on our website, you are also welcome to send us your views. If you choose to do this, please include clear information about the case to help us to identify it.
Further information on intellectual property ECJ cases can be found on our website http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ecj.htm. ..."
This Kat is reminded of the story of the visitors to the Soviet Union and who watched with fascination while two workers proceeded with their labour. The first dug a hole in the earth, which the second filled up again. When the visitor expressed his surprise at this apparently pointless exercise, one of the labourers explained to him: "Usually there are three of us, but the guy who plants the trees is off sick today". This exercise is scarcely more productive. If less than one day's notice is given, is it worth wasting the effort and talent of IPO staff in sending out such email circulars?