|Super-focused Claire: |
thinking about the private
or what's for lunch today?
|Lassie and Gigi have just eaten, |
so for them it's a no-brainer:
private copying forever
(at least until their
usual afternoon snack)
|What is he looking at? |
Most likely whether it is a lawful source
- One of the aims of the InfoSoc Directive is to provide rightholders with a high level of protection [see, for instance, Case C-5/08 Infopaq, noted here, and Case C-351/12 OSA, noted here] and, as a consequence of this, exceptions and limitations should be interpreted strictly [to this end, see amongst others, Case C-145/10 Painer, noted here];
- Having a private copying exception that includes reproductions from unlawful sources would contradict the three-step test as per Article 5(5) of the Directive, in particular the requirement that exceptions and limitations must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work. According to the AG, allowing reproductions from unlawful sources would indirectly favour the massive diffusion of unlawful copies and, in any case, the provision of a fair compensation would not be enough to compensate rightholders from the lack of income from the lawful online reproduction, distribution and communication to the public of works.
|... At least from unlicensed sources|
According to the press release, the Court held that "if Member States were free to adopt legislation permitting, inter alia, reproductions for private use to be made from an unlawful source, the result of that would clearly be detrimental to the proper functioning of the internal market. Similarly, the objective of proper support for the dissemination of culture may not be achieved by sacrificing strict protection of copyright or by tolerating illegal forms of distribution of counterfeited or pirated works. Consequently, the Court holds that national legislation which makes no distinction between private copies made from lawful sources and those made from counterfeited or pirated sources cannot be tolerated."
This Kat is now waiting for the full judgment to write a more detailed analysis: stay tuned!
[UPDATE @ 12:05: the judgment is now available on the Curia website here]