Source: https://www.lexgo.be/fr/articles/ip-it-telecom/droit-de-la-propriete-intellectuelle/the-pirate-bay-cjeu-puts-an-end-to-pirates-reign,113568.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-22 08:34:10
Document Index: 762405185

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

The Pirate Bay : CJEU puts an end to pirates' reign - Articles Droit de la propriété intellectuelle - lexgo.be
Yesterday (14.06.2017), the CJEU decided that platforms like Pirate Bay, that facilitate unauthorized access to works protected by copyrights shared via peer-tto-peer networks, infringe copyrights by making communication to the public of those works.
In its judgement rendered today 14 June 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has determined that a peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file sharing website like The Pirate Bay (“TPB”) can infringe copyright law, by making communications to the public of works shared without consent of their author.
Whereas today’s judgement is not really a surprise, especially taking into account the recent Filmspeler judgement, it contains several interesting points. KOAN provides a first analysis highlighting the key takeaways.
The background of the case involved a dispute between Stichting Brein (a Dutch organisation combatting infringements of IP rights) and two Dutch Internet access providers. Stichting Brein requested the Dutch courts to order Internet access providers to block access to the URL’s containing TPB’s website. The Dutch Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) asked in substance the CJEU to clarify whether the activities of TPB would constitute a communication to the public, in the sense of Article 3 of the “Infosoc” Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC).
This article establishes the authors’ exclusive right to communicate their works to the public. Therefore, if someone wants to stream, broadcast, display or in any other way provide access to works protected by copyright to other persons, it is necessary to first obtain permission of the author. The sharing of works without the consent of the author therefore constitutes a copyright infringement.
Over the past decade, several preliminary rulings have been referred to the CJEU in order to determine the exact meaning and scope of the right of communication to the public (see for example C-117/15 Reha Training, C-466/12 Svensson, C-160/15 GS Media and C-527/15 Filmspeler). It results from previous case law that in order to determine whether someone is making an act of communication to the public, several criteria need to be taken into account. There needs to be 1) a deliberate communication, thereby giving access to a work protected by copyright. This communication must be 2) directed towards an undetermined number of potential viewers and implies, moreover, a fairly large number of people (a public) 3) using specific technical means, different from those previously used or, failing that, to a new public, that is to say, to a public that was not already taken into account by the copyright holders when they authorised the initial communication of their work to the public. Finally, the CJEU also indicated that the profit-making nature of a communication is not irrelevant (although its exact impact is unclear, see also infra).
A lot has already been said and written about the interpretation of these criteria, but the key point here revolved around the following questions.
Who is making the communication to the public?
The main issue in this case was not so much whether a communication to the public was being made, but rather who was responsible for such communication.
P2P file sharing websites like TPB do not host or otherwise share any works themselves as these are shared by individual users of P2P networks. These users allow other users to download the works, by leeching a piece of it from several different users that have the relevant work on their computer, at the same time. Therefore the works are in first instance shared by the individual users via a P2P network rather than by TBP.
Nonetheless, the CJEU considered that TPB’s website plays an essential role in this process. By providing a search engine and indexing/organising magnet links, websites like TPB make it much easier to locate and download the works offered by users on P2P networks. It would be impossible or at least much more difficult to find such works without using a website like TPB. Therefore the CJEU stated that TBP can be regarded as playing an essential role in making the works in question available. This reasoning is in line with the recent Filmspeler judgement, in which the CJEU emphasised the facilitating role played by the device offered by the defendant in offering a multi media player with pre-installed add-ons enabling a direct link between websites broadcasting counterfeit works and purchasers of the multimedia player, without which the purchasers would find it difficult to benefit from those works.
It therefore seems that, according to the CJEU, it is sufficient that an operator plays an essential or facilitating role in providing access to copyright protected works for it to be making a communication to the public and be responsible therefor, even if the works could also be accessed by the public without the operators’ intervention.
Presumption of knowledge?
Websites like TPB only index the content available on P2P networks via magnet links and have no direct influence over the content itself that is shared by the users. Accordingly, TBP could be considered as an intermediary that facilitates access to P2P networks (although its exact qualification remains unclear). If it were to be considered as an intermediary, it should only be held liable for the communication to the public of works if it has actual knowledge of the fact that works have been shared without permission from the author. This was also confirmed by the Advocate General, who stated that there could not be a general obligation for TBP to monitor all its indexed content.
Unlike the Advocate General, the CJEU did not explicitly state that actual knowledge of the illegal character of the works would be required. However, it refers to the fact that TBP has been made aware of the fact that illegal works were made accessible via its website and also highlighted that TBP announced their intention to facilitate the sharing of illegal works on several blogs and forums.
Lastly, the CJEU also underlined that TPB is carried out with the purpose of obtaining profit. Contrary to the GS Media case, the CJEU does not appear to install a rebuttable presumption of knowledge in the heads of TBP of the illegal character of works that can be accessed on its website, as a result of its profit making purpose. Nonetheless, the profit-making nature of the communication, is taken into account by the CJEU.
It comes as little surprise that the CJEU decided that the activities of The Pirate Bay amount to the communication to the public of copyright protected works. The CJEU did make it clear, also following its recent Filmspeler judgement, that it interprets the concept of “communication to the public” broadly as applying to all operators that have an essential or facilitating role in access to copyright protected works.
Voir aussi : KOAN (	Mrs. Agnès Maqua , Mr. Willem-Jan Cosemans , Mr. Dietger Glorieux )
[+ http://www.koan.law]
Mrs. Agnès Maqua
am@koan.law
Mr. Willem-Jan Cosemans
Mr. Dietger Glorieux
dgl@koan.law
See this link: www.lexgo.be/fr/articles/ip-it-telecom/droit-de-la-propriete-intellectuelle/the-pirate-bay-cjeu-puts-an-end-to-pirates-reign,113568.html
Le Royaume-Uni cessera de faire partie de l’Union européenne le 30 mars 2019. À cette date, les droits...
Court of Justice clarifies exhaustion of trademark principles and broadens test for economic link...
On 20 December 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) handed down its judgment in Case C-291...
In a decision of 12 December 2017 the Brussels Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision and decided that Ald...
Derniers articles de Mrs. Agnès Maqua
Communication au public par câble : ce qu’il faut retenir de l’arrêt AKM c. Zürs.net rendu par la...
La Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne – dans un arrêt de ce 16 mars 2017 (C-138/16 en cause&nb...
COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF RIGHTS AND MULTI-TERRITORIAL LICENSING
On 11 July 2012, the European Commission has published a proposal for a Directive on collecting societies and multi-territ...
Affaires Marco Del Corso et Phonographic, la notion de « communication au public »
Par deux arrêts rendus le 15 mars dans les affaires Marco Del Corso (C-135/10) etPhonographic (C-162/...
Derniers articles de Mr. Willem-Jan Cosemans
Derniers articles de Mr. Dietger Glorieux