tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post829334125161549977..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: What happened to Svensson and his friends after the CJEU decision? Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60396911977792550492014-12-11T12:23:14.957+00:002014-12-11T12:23:14.957+00:00I don't think that can work. What we are talki...I don't think that can work. What we are talking about here is the "making available" part of "communication to the public" which has the well known definition:<br /><br />"the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them"<br /><br />If the member of the public can't access the work (because it is in a locked box) then it is not communicated to *them*.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3192022934461888392014-12-08T12:32:22.517+00:002014-12-08T12:32:22.517+00:00Francis,
I have to ask: would it be parsing too f...Francis,<br /><br />I have to ask: would it be parsing too finely to draw a distinction between general communication - which implicitly involves a back and forth capability - and communicating <b>to</b> someone - which does <i>not</i> implicitly involve 'the back' response?<br /><br />If the distinction is allowable, then the ability to respond back is immaterial, and the fact that what is communicated is so communicated within a 'locked box' does not matter , as the item is still communicated <b>to</b> the public.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-18502943486999798972014-12-08T08:37:48.246+00:002014-12-08T08:37:48.246+00:00I agree with Francis and would like to see a disti...I agree with Francis and would like to see a distinction between URL links which are a bit like book references stating "here you can find this information" from embedding/framing content which shows the material in a new context on another web page. Embedding deprives the holder of the control of the context and since the URL is hidden the origin of the material is also hidden.<br />In the urge to be technically neutral this important non-technical different is lost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64880686034592841092014-12-07T22:56:09.091+00:002014-12-07T22:56:09.091+00:00Worse, the idea that a link to a work which is pro...Worse, the idea that a link to a work which is protected with an access code is a "communication to the public" is nonsense, surely? If the public can't access it, it isn't communicated to them. <br /><br />The logic of the ALAI opinion applies equally well to, say, references in an academic paper or in fact any explanation of how to obtain a copyright work lawfully from its owner. <br /><br />There can be essentially no principled reason why the copyright owner needs the incentive of being able to control such a mention of its work. I find it extremely hard to enter the mindset of someone who thinks otherwise.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38136797192673269182014-12-07T21:04:59.101+00:002014-12-07T21:04:59.101+00:00I think the Court of Justice's approach isn...I think the Court of Justice's approach isn't all that bad, and they have every right to interpret the Directive and Convention in this way. The idea that someone who has made their work available to the general public by placing it on the internet should then be able to claim infringement when someone simply post a link to that work is absurd. The copyright maximalists of the ALAI may dream of a world where the internet is illegal, but most of us are quite happy with it, thanks.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-19516113421025592462014-12-07T19:22:19.224+00:002014-12-07T19:22:19.224+00:00In my view the CJEU's approach leaves a lot to...In my view the CJEU's approach leaves a lot to be desired, unnecessarily complicates copyright law and may well run into a dead end in future cases, but even the most fervent pro-copyright scholar should realise that one cannot expect a court to rule that posting a link as a rule infringes the copyright on the work linked to. No court is going to outlaw the Internet. Judges have common sense and ALAI better gets some, too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com