Post by account_disabled on Feb 19, 2024 23:35:14 GMT -6
Thus, the Court, after an exhaustive review of the existing jurisprudence on the subject of provision and peer-to-peer networks , answers the first preliminary question by stating that article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted in the sense that it constitutes making available to the public, in accordance with the terms of the aforementioned precept, the upload, from the terminal equipment of a user of a peer-to-peer network ( peer to peer ) and to the computers of other users of said network , of parts, previously downloaded by the aforementioned user, of a multimedia file that contains a protected work, even if these parts are only usable on their own from a certain download volume. It is irrelevant that, as a consequence of the configuration of the client-BitTorrent exchange software, it is the software itself that automatically gives rise to the aforementioned upload, if the user, from the terminal equipment on which the aforementioned upload occurs , has decided to use this software and has given his consent to its execution after having been duly informed about its characteristics.
By its second question , the referring court asks, in Fax Lists essence, whether Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who by virtue of a contract is the owner of certain intellectual property rights, which however does not use itself, but is limited to claiming compensation for damages from alleged infringers, may avail itself of the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in Chapter II of said directive.
The court clarifies that this preliminary ruling question is made up of three parts, namely, firstly, that relating to the active standing of a person like Mircom to request the application of the measures, procedures and resources established in Chapter II of Directive 2004/48; secondly, that relating to whether such person may have suffered damages within the meaning of Article 13 of that same Directive, and, thirdly, that relating to the admissibility of his request for information , under Article 8 of the Directive itself, in relation to its article 3, paragraph 2.
The ruling, after admitting the legitimacy of Mircom, warns that in the event that a holder of intellectual property rights chooses to outsource the collection of compensation for damages by resorting to a specialized company through an assignment of credits or other legal act , he should not be accorded less favorable treatment than that given to another holder of the same type of rights who has chosen to claim them personally.
As regards the third part of its second question, the referring court, in essence, has doubts as to the admissibility of Mircom's request for information , submitted pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2004/48, since that company does not makes consistent use of the rights it acquired from the film producers at issue in the main proceedings. Furthermore, it must be understood that, when referring to the possibility of calling Mircom a “copyright troll ” , the referring court essentially raises the existence of a possible abuse of rights by the aforementioned society .
In this regard, the referring court seems to doubt that Mircom intends to bring an action for compensation, since there are solid indications that it usually limits itself to proposing an amicable solution with the sole purpose of obtaining compensation for lump sum of 500 euros .
By its second question , the referring court asks, in Fax Lists essence, whether Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who by virtue of a contract is the owner of certain intellectual property rights, which however does not use itself, but is limited to claiming compensation for damages from alleged infringers, may avail itself of the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in Chapter II of said directive.
The court clarifies that this preliminary ruling question is made up of three parts, namely, firstly, that relating to the active standing of a person like Mircom to request the application of the measures, procedures and resources established in Chapter II of Directive 2004/48; secondly, that relating to whether such person may have suffered damages within the meaning of Article 13 of that same Directive, and, thirdly, that relating to the admissibility of his request for information , under Article 8 of the Directive itself, in relation to its article 3, paragraph 2.
The ruling, after admitting the legitimacy of Mircom, warns that in the event that a holder of intellectual property rights chooses to outsource the collection of compensation for damages by resorting to a specialized company through an assignment of credits or other legal act , he should not be accorded less favorable treatment than that given to another holder of the same type of rights who has chosen to claim them personally.
As regards the third part of its second question, the referring court, in essence, has doubts as to the admissibility of Mircom's request for information , submitted pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2004/48, since that company does not makes consistent use of the rights it acquired from the film producers at issue in the main proceedings. Furthermore, it must be understood that, when referring to the possibility of calling Mircom a “copyright troll ” , the referring court essentially raises the existence of a possible abuse of rights by the aforementioned society .
In this regard, the referring court seems to doubt that Mircom intends to bring an action for compensation, since there are solid indications that it usually limits itself to proposing an amicable solution with the sole purpose of obtaining compensation for lump sum of 500 euros .