|
Do vote in our Katpoll! |
This Kat has just returned from the idyllic setting of Pembroke
College in Oxford, where she attended the 32nd ATRIP congress. Organised and hosted by ATRIP president
- the learned and charming Professor Graeme Dinwoodie - this 3-day conference
was devoted to answering the following question: Is Intellectual Property a Lex Specialis?
There were many exciting discussions which elicited this Kat's curiosity. However, there was one in particular on which
she would like to receive IPKat readers' feedback.
This concerns the principle
of exhaustion as interpreted and applied by the Court of Justice of the
European Union (CJEU) in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle (see Katposts here and 1709 Blog posts here).
As readers will remember, in that case decided almost
a year ago the CJEU ruled that
"the right of distribution of a copy
of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised,
even free of charge, the
downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also
conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a
remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of
which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period."
In other words, the Court held that Article 4(2) of
the Software Directive is to be interpreted in the sense that
the right of distribution over the copy of a computer program is exhausted following
the grant of a licence if this can be considered tantamount to a sale, despite
the different contractual qualification given by the parties.
|
Deep-in-thought: how far-reaching is the UsedSoft ruling? |
It is currently being discussed whether the decision
in UsedSoft can be extended to
subject-matter other than software.
A few months ago a German court held (see Katpost here) that, because of the nature of
the Software Directive as lex
specialis, the reasoning in UsedSoft
could not be applied to other subject-matter (downloadable ebooks and
audiobooks in that case). Thus the Landgericht Bielefeld held that the InfoSoc Directive
does not permit application of the principle of exhaustion to works in
non-analogue form.
Following discussion (and mini-poll) with a number of
academics at the ATRIP Congress, this Kat realised that there is growing belief
that the CJEU, when given the opportunity to do so, would rule that exhaustion
does indeed apply to digital works other than software (in a similar sense, see Graham Smith/Cyberleagle's analysis here; cf the diverging approach in the US here).
The main arguments to support this conclusion are CJEU's overriding
concerns with ensuring free movement within EU internal market and the fact
that ebooks, downloadable audiobooks, digital music are not really "on-line
services" for which "the question of exhaustion does not arise"
(see Recital 29 to the
InfoSoc Directive).
In other words, the ruling in UsedSoft would not be
really lex specialis, but
rather lex generalis
|
Brad has been thinking about copyright exhaustion for months now (especially when wishing to fall asleep quickly) |
under EU copyright.
This Kat is however slightly concerned whether this might be really the case, in
that the Court made it quite clear that its conclusion descended from the
special nature of the Software Directive. Furthermore, one of the aims of the
InfoSoc Directive was to transpose the WIPO Copyright Treaty into EU legal order. The right of
distribution as per Article 6 of the Treaty concerns just tangible - not also intangible - copies. Hence, is
it possible to say that exhaustion as per Article 4(2) of the InfoSoc Directive
applies only to tangible copies?
Discussing these issues is not just for the sake of
getting a headache early in the morning but – among other things - is actually relevant
to debates about potentially lucrative markets for second-hand digital
goods.
This is why the IPKat is launching a poll to gather
readers' feedback. The question is:
IS THE CJEU LIKELY TO EXTEND THE USEDSOFT RULING TO WORKS OTHER THAN SOFTWARE?
You have time until Friday 5 July to cast your vote, by
clicking your chosen button on the left-hand side of the IPKat content
bar.
Do let us know what you think!
Thank you for asking this question Eleanora. It is indeed of great importance for us all to know whether second-hand markets in digital goods are possible under the existing law.
ReplyDeleteHave a look at the legal situation for e-books before the used-soft decision.
ReplyDelete•Legal aspects of e-books and interlibrary loan. In: Interlending & Document Supply 3, 150-155 (2012). http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17047187&ini=aob 1
If you vote "no" here then you need to reply to the UK IPO drafting consultation regarding private copying before the 17 July, as the proposed wording is designed to import Usedsoft into the rest of copyright.
ReplyDeleteYou say specialis, I say generalis,
ReplyDeletespecialis, generalis,
generalis, specialis,
lex call the whole thing off!