tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5029151196344676032..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Can warehouse storage of copyright-infringing products be considered an act of distribution? AG Campos advises CJEU to rule 'yes'Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-83315480424424936392018-10-05T12:36:34.360+01:002018-10-05T12:36:34.360+01:00I disagree. This is materially different from Dime...I disagree. This is materially different from Dimensione Direct Sales. The true purpose of the distribution right is to shield the copyright owner from undue interference with the market for his product. Once you offer the product to the public - particularly if you do it in such a way that a member of the public can conclude the contract of sale by accepting the offer (rec. 27) - that interference has already materialized. This is the natural limitation to the CJEU's holding in Dimensione Direct Sales that "acts or steps preceding the conclusion of a contract of sale may also fall within the concept of distribution" (rec. 26).<br /><br />Here, the public sphere was not entered. The warehoused counterfeit does not affect the market in any way, and it is entirely speculative if it ever will. It was never offered on the market, and it may just as well go straight to the dumpster if the owner at some point realises that, say, there is a lack of demand. To consider this an infringement of the distribution right would mean to rest an economic right solely on the basis of subjective intent -- and in that this case differs crucially from Dimensione Direct Sales.<br /><br />The CJEU should answer the question in the negative. The proper tool to address this issue is the reproduction right. The distribution right should not be a sort of annex to the reproduction right that adds an additional sanction to people who reproduce with an intention that we particularly disapprove of.pajznoreply@blogger.com