|
Gigi and Lassie were enjoying a quiet morning ... |
Oh my! Yes, it sometimes
happens that even copyright-loving creatures (Kats in this case) may overlook references to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on
copyright issues.
While browsing one of her
favourite websites - this being Harper's Bazaar and the 100 Best Red Carpet Gowns the calendar of beloved
CJEU activities (no need to add anything else) -, this Kat noticed that this
morning the Court heard Case
C-117/13 Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG, a
reference for a preliminary ruling from Germany seeking clarification as regards digitisation of works by university libraries, and relevant
exception(s) under Directive 2001/29/EC (the InfoSoc
Directive).
In a nutshell the core
issue on which the Bundesgerichtshof [the
German Federal Court of Justice] is
seeking guidance from the CJEU is whether, following the scanning of a book by
a university library to allow its electronic reading, the book publisher may
prevent further unauthorised reproductions of the book, say by means of library
terminals that allow library users to print out on paper or store on a USB
stick [do
they still exist, wonders Merpel?] the
works made available there.
As explained by helpful
resource EU
Law Radar [to which - sighs once again Merpel - it is not however
possible to subscribe to receive email updates] and the Goethe Institut, the
background to this case is as follows.
|
... Until usually calm Merpel brought news of this new CJEU case |
The
collection of the Darmstadt Technical
University library includes a history book by Winfried Schulze [probably this guy], which the library scanned in 2009 [without
authorisation from the copyright holder, this being the book publisher] and
made available to its users. In this regard, the number of simultaneous readers
of the digital version could not exceed the number of analogue copies [=
one] of the book that were actually available in
the library’s collection [although
this is quite common term, does it make sense?]. However, users of the digital version could print or save
in their devices (such as USB memory sticks) excerpts from the book or
even the book in its entirety. It is not difficult to imagine that, once the
user had saved the work in his/her device, he/she could access it even from outside the library.
The
publisher (Ulmer) of the book was not particularly happy with the library's
arrangements and, following a failed attempt to offer the university the
possibility of purchasing its own ebooks, it brought proceedings for copyright
infringement over unauthorised scanning of Schulze's book and other works.
Following
partial victory before the Landgericht of Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt
District Court), both parties appealed before the Bundesgerichtshof,
which wondered whether the university could actually rely on the exception
pursuant to Article 52b of the German
Copyright Act [this
is the transposition into German law of Article 5(3)(n) of the InfoSoc
Directive], which so states:
"So far as there are no contractual
provisions to the contrary, it shall be permissible to make published works
available from the stocks of publicly accessible libraries, museums or
archives, which neither directly nor indirectly serve economic or commercial
purposes, exclusively on the premises of the relevant institution at terminals
dedicated to the purpose of research and for private study. In principle,
reproduction of a work in excess of the number stocked by the institution shall
not be made simultaneously available at such terminals. Equitable remuneration
shall be paid in consideration of their being made available. The claim may
only be asserted by a collecting society."
So, the
court decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following very important questions
to the CJEU:
|
Can you let your library users print out copies of this masterpiece? |
1. Is use subject to purchase or licensing terms within
the meaning of Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC where the
rightholder offers to conclude with the establishments referred to therein
licensing agreements for the use of works on appropriate terms?
2. Does Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC entitle
the Member States to confer on the establishments the right to
digitise the works contained in their collections, if that is necessary in
order to make those works available on terminals?
3. May the rights which the Member States lay down
pursuant to Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC go so far as
to enable users of the terminals to print out on paper or store on a
USB stick the works made available there?
This case looks like one
to follow closely. This is because of: (1) topicality of book scanning in
general [yes:
thinking of the Google Books saga, on which see here and here];
(2) national reform debates as regards exceptions and limitations [eg UK forthcoming revised exceptions for
libraries and archives]; EU reform debate as
regards - among other things - revision of the InfoSoc Directive; (4) international reform debates as to whether we should all
embrace fair use [Australia
thinks so: see here];
(5) finally: it's a CJEU case! This means that we may expect some fairly
interesting outcomes ...
> the number of simultaneous readers of the digital version could not exceed the number of analogue copies
ReplyDeleteWell, perfectly ok in the old world of chopped and milled trees.
But in a world of electrons being stored in one-thousanth of a cubic micrometer for representing information and where information can be made available to virtually anybody (with a PC/tablet/etc.), why be conservative and kill technological progress? Because you just cannot make that shift of paradigm from cellulosis to silicon?
Having said that, IP rights are to be respected. And by letting people copy freely and asking 10% of the physical book lending fee, you may end up with more money in your pocket than by licensing only one copy at the full fee.
Wake up, Publishers.
The statement "the number of simultaneous readers of the digital version could not exceed the number of analogue copies" cannot be true if additional copies of the library digital version are allowed to be made.
ReplyDeleteI hesitate to put any veracity into further comments by a Kat that makes such a basic mistake.
If in fact anti-copy technology is in place to make the digital version truly analogous to a hard-copy version (not quite as easy as it would first seem to do, by the way), then, and only then would the legal protections discussion be able to proceed.
Yes, copying today is made so incredibly easy (in speed and in accuracy of content), that the notion of 'copyright' itself seems quaint and anachronistic.
Be that as it may, until the laws are changed, they are still the laws. Rights are still rights. Violations of rights are still violations. And just because someone finds it personally convenient to violate a law does not - in itself - mean the law should just go away.
Traditionally it has been permissible to photocopy a limited quantity of a book in a library for personal use; it would seem to be a bad thing if one were not allowed to similarly copy or print out at least a limited quantity of an e-book.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested as to where this might leave journals. A journal from which one cannot print out selected articles onto paper to read more closely is a journal not worth subscribing to, in my humble view. But perhaps that issue is handled explicitly in contracts or waivers between libraries and publishers and/or their collecting societies.
@Anon 17:42
ReplyDeleteIt's easy enough to disable copying from a dedicated terminal if it's your terminal and you want to -- simply disable the USB ports, and don't provide user access to email, file transfer, printing etc.
It's your terminal, you can set the rules.
But insisting that people can only take hand-written notes from material, if you are a university library say, is really going to cripple the value of those books for research.
If such restrictions were required, would such ebooks still be worth buying?
(Yes, I know this specific case is about scanning; but the questions go further than that, to touch on all materials in electronic form made available in libraries).
But anti-copy technology does not make "the digital version truly analogous to a hard-copy version". hard-copy versions can still be copied, with the appropriate facilities. Here, users were downloading portions to their USB sticks, thereby making a further copy. This is an act by the user, not by the library. Just as photocopying a whole book, or writing out longhand an article, is an act by a user. The existence or otherwise of anti-copy technology is irrelevant to the actions of the library, or indeed to the actions of the user. The users are responsible for their actions, not the library, and if they infringe copyright, they should certainly make compensation.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 18:13,
ReplyDeleteYour "act of the user" defense fails in copyright matters under certain conditions.
See Napster.