The IPKat learns from Reuters that the European Commission has delayed a decision on whether to regulate the copyright levy on electronic goods. The news was condemned by a lobby group consisting of electronics manufacturers who have said that they will now formally complain about France, Spain, Germany and the other Member States that currently impose the levy.
The IPKat will make the point he has made before – if a levy is being levied, to allow full-scale copyright infringement actions would amount to a double reward for copyright owners.
EU DEFERS COPYRIGHT LEVY DECISION EU DEFERS COPYRIGHT LEVY DECISION Reviewed by Anonymous on Friday, December 15, 2006 Rating: 5


  1. There would be no double recovery, if, as seems likely, the levy is set at such a level to compensate only for "home infringers", ie. those infringers who copy on such a small scale that bringing a case against them will be uneconomic.

    Also, if there was a levy in the UK, and it could be shown in an infringement case that part of the loss claimed for had already been taken into account in the levy, then the damages awarded would be reduced, as you only get damages for loss actually suffered. This reasoning would presumably apply in any other country in the EU where damages are limited to compensation for actual loss.

  2. The Review believes it is possible to create a very limited private copying exception without a copyright levy. If rightholders know in advance of a sale of a particular work that limited copying of that work can take place, the economic cost of the right to copy can be included in the sale price. The “fair compensation” required by the Directive can be included in the normal sale price.

    4.75 Gowers Review


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.