tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5620443831481119747..comments2024-03-28T13:23:33.281+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Communication to the public: is that the effect that finally matters? Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37833122784367403782016-06-23T10:00:37.688+01:002016-06-23T10:00:37.688+01:00Does the fact that the Court chose to deal with th...Does the fact that the Court chose to deal with the indispensable role of the user in relation to the “new public” test, rather than in relation to whether there was a “communication” in the first place, have any significance? <br /><br />It seems to be a departure from the approach taken by AG Bott, the Court in Football Association Premier League and the Opinion of Attorney General Wathelet in GS Media BV. The indispensable role of the user test when considering whether an is a "communication" seems to be crucial to AG Wathelets reasoning and the finding that a Hyperlink cannot be considered an act of communication...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36544381454573512472016-06-11T04:47:01.390+01:002016-06-11T04:47:01.390+01:00The proposal seems straightforward, though I'm...The proposal seems straightforward, though I'm not sure that "a ‘new public’ is a public that is not taken into account by the rightholder in a possible authorisation of the initial communication to the public" is the best way to phrase the proposed definition. I found it somewhat confusing at first because it sounded to me like you were suggesting we try to determine the public that the rightholder would have taken into account had he authorised the initial communication. (Which, I suppose, is because the "possible" is only referring to "authorisation", even though the optionality should actually extend to the entire phrase starting with "in a[n] authorization ...".)<br /><br />Might be just be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28531467402450251942016-06-08T16:15:20.173+01:002016-06-08T16:15:20.173+01:00As a patent attorney I got all excited when I saw ...As a patent attorney I got all excited when I saw the flowcharts and Figures, thought we were about to have a nice in-depth discussion about some contentious patent case!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67214621024445258722016-06-08T15:52:02.920+01:002016-06-08T15:52:02.920+01:00The diagrams/examples are a great tool in putting ...The diagrams/examples are a great tool in putting the concepts into perspective. Great post! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90537820550670125332016-06-08T15:12:36.009+01:002016-06-08T15:12:36.009+01:00'The first example is taken from Sociedade Por...'The first example is taken from Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores, where the initial communication to the public happened by radio broadcast of copyright-protected works. The question before the CJEU was whether the use of loudspeakers and/or sound amplifiers in a café-restaurant to enhance the initial radio broadcast – such that customers of the café-restaurant could enjoy the radio-transmitted works – would result in a separate communication to the public. The CJEU answered this question in the affirmative noting that loudspeakers and/or sound amplifiers intervene the initial radio transmission in order to allow customers of the café-restaurant to enjoy the musical works from a different (i.e., customer) area of the café-restaurant. Without the intervention, only the public next to the radio could enjoy the radio broadcast, while the loudspeaker intervention allows enjoying the music also in the customer area of the café-restaurant [Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores, para 17].'<br /><br />This (particularly the last sentence) is not accurate and is not what results from SPA or FAPL. The "intervention" is placing the radio in the pub. The speakers are irrelevant. There will be a communication as long as a radio or a tv are placed / playing in a pub - see SPA p.14, 17 & FAPL p. 196<br />Petenoreply@blogger.com