The IPKat thanks Piter de Weerd for tipping him off about the ECJ’s decision yesterday in the SGAE case. The referred question asked whether providing a television set in a hotel room constituted performance in public for the purposes of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC (the InfoSoc Directive) and so could be considered an act of copyright infringement.

The ECJ answered the question in the affirmative, concluding:

1. While the mere provision of physical facilities
does not as such amount to communication within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of copyright and related rights in the information society, the distribution of a signal by means of television sets by a hotel to customers staying in its rooms, whatever technique is used to transmit the signal,
constitutes communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of
that directive.

2. The private nature of hotel rooms does not preclude the communication of a work by means of television sets from constituting communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29.
The IPKat notes the difficulties of defining the public in situations where only limited access to the place in question is granted.
ECJ COMMUNICATION IN PUBLIC CASE ECJ COMMUNICATION IN PUBLIC CASE Reviewed by Anonymous on Friday, December 08, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.