tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4065861619647654268..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: BREAKING: FCJ refers case regarding YouTube’s liability for damages to the CJEUVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76388261970525568392019-02-21T10:55:54.307+00:002019-02-21T10:55:54.307+00:00@Carlos, I believe this was just a mistake. The fi...@Carlos, I believe this was just a mistake. The final text reads "When rightholders request the services to take action against the uploads by users, such as disabling access to or removing content uploaded, the rightholders should duly justify their requests."Mirko Brüßhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03822645338065016379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10295906141232667982018-09-28T10:38:17.326+01:002018-09-28T10:38:17.326+01:00Could someone help me to understand article 13, 2b...Could someone help me to understand article 13, 2b (for clarity purposes I will reproduce provisions 2a and 2b):<br /><br />2a. Member States shall provide that where right holders do not wish to conclude licensing agreements, online content sharing service providers and right holders shall cooperate in good faith in order to ensure that unauthorised protected works or other subject matter<br />are not available on their services.Cooperation between online content service providers and right holders shall not lead to preventing the availability of non-infringing works or other protected subject matter, including those covered by an exception or limitation to copyright.<br />2b. Members States shall ensure that online content sharing service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place effective and expeditious complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case the cooperation referred to in paragraph 2a leads to unjustified removals of their content. Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be<br />processed without undue delay and be subject to human review. Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. <br /><br />When reading provision 2b by itself, I understand services providers will be the ones in charge of processing the complaints (ok so far as is logical), but then, the text demands from right holders to justify their decisions so as to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. <br /><br />That makes me think that either I should: <br /><br />Option 1) understand the provision as being correct so as to affirm that when article 2b states that "Right holders shall justify their decisions" it actually makes reference to the decision of "not wishing to conclude licensing agreements" provided in provision 2a or,<br /><br />Option 2) understand that there is a mistake in provision 2b and that the text actually would have to be the following "Online content sharing services providers shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints."<br /><br />Thanks for your kind help, do not hesitate to add another option. As always, thanks IPKat.<br />Carlos Beniteznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3000782248882742352018-09-16T16:02:37.802+01:002018-09-16T16:02:37.802+01:00Yes, that was what I was referring to as well. The...Yes, that was what I was referring to as well. The text also implies that Article 3 is still applicable ('without prejudice''), which would open the door for the aforementioned defence.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40453342683508771232018-09-15T09:55:04.433+01:002018-09-15T09:55:04.433+01:00Peter, the text of article 13 approved on Septembe...Peter, the text of article 13 approved on September 12th says "online<br />content sharing service providers perform an act of communication to the public" (Voss/EPP amendments, 156-161).<br />http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2018-0337+0+DOC+PDF+V0//ENFedericohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01590082705421602977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79949752536090438652018-09-13T10:39:21.039+01:002018-09-13T10:39:21.039+01:00Well, this makes for an interesting dilemma. The D...Well, this makes for an interesting dilemma. The DSM-directive seems to presume that YouTube indeed does make works available to the public. However, applying GS Media, YouTube could argue that, using Content-ID, they have carried out the necessary checks to avoid this presumption, which would lead to the conclusion that there is no communication to the public.Peternoreply@blogger.com