tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1788066150175145335..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Exhaustion of rights (first sale doctrine): what are the broader implications of the CJEU's ruling in Art & Allposters? Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56112400857954778942022-04-11T13:18:58.554+01:002022-04-11T13:18:58.554+01:00Hey Tom, what do you think may be a correct positi...Hey Tom, what do you think may be a correct position regarding legally bought audio samples' libraries, such as those with which a producer/composer could make orchestral mockups using the orchestral samples in them, and the reselling of those?<br />Some companies in this industry allow reselling, either free or paying a fee, while others doesn't allow it via EULA, which however may be irrelevant if overridden by EU law.<br />Any idea?Corrado https://www.blogger.com/profile/16021766776276931928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63830655530523598752015-01-30T16:25:32.219+00:002015-01-30T16:25:32.219+00:00Hi Francis and Anonymous@15.46
Thanks for your co...Hi Francis and Anonymous@15.46<br /><br />Thanks for your comments - oversight on my part now duly corrected :)Tom Ohtahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03235199152837227890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87068206832042105252015-01-30T15:46:22.559+00:002015-01-30T15:46:22.559+00:00Good article Tom.
Regarding the direction of the ...Good article Tom.<br /><br />Regarding the direction of the relationship between the Software and Infosoc Directives, I agree with Francis. Recital 20 Infosoc gives further support to that view (ie. Infosoc is based on the principles and rules in previous Directives, and is without prejudice to them).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59337792512655931882015-01-30T15:22:53.046+00:002015-01-30T15:22:53.046+00:00You say:
"In Case C-128/11 UsedSoft, the CJE...You say:<br /><br />"In Case C-128/11 UsedSoft, the CJEU indicated (at [60]) that its interpretation of exhaustion under Art 4(2) of the Software Directive would not be capable of affecting the interpretation of exhaustion under Art 4(2) of the InfoSoc Directive."<br /><br />I think you have that backwards. The CJEU said in [60] amongst other things:<br /><br />"However, even supposing that Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29, interpreted in the light of recitals 28 and 29 in its preamble and in the light of the Copyright Treaty, which Directive 2001/29 aims to implement (judgment of 9 February 2012 in Case C-277/10 Luksan, paragraph 59), indicated that, for the works covered by that directive, the exhaustion of the distribution right concerned only tangible objects, that would not be capable of affecting the interpretation of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24,"<br /><br />In other words it is 2001/29 that cannot affect the interpretation of 2009/24 not the other way around.<br /><br />Note also the phrase "even supposing". That is not language that you use when you accept a proposition uncritically. My reading of [60] is that it leaves open the possibility of digital exhaustion under INFOSOC. We have simply not yet heard what the court has to say.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.com