Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digital Exhaustion After Tom Kabinet: A Nonexhausted Debate

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
EU Internet Law in the Digital Single Market

Abstract

After years of controversial national decisions and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU’s) dicta, the Grand Chamber’s ruling in the Tom Kabinet case (C-263/18) seems to have excluded once and for all—save for an ad hoc legislative intervention—the admissibility of digital exhaustion under Article 4(2) InfoSoc. The CJEU’s rejection of an extension of the principle of exhaustion of the right of distribution from material to digital copies is based upon a strict literal and contextual interpretation of EU and international sources, which is relatively immune from critiques. However, with its simplistic answer, the Court has still failed to tackle the most important interpretative questions raised by the evolution of digital markets. In fact, the Tom Kabinet decision does not update the classificatory dichotomies on the basis of which the InfoSoc draws the borders between exclusive rights. It does not intervene in the tilt in the balance between copyright, competition, fundamental freedoms, and other conflicting fundamental rights triggered by new digital business models. Last, it does nothing to solve the systematic and teleological inconsistencies that have affected the judicial development of EU copyright in the field while suggesting through underdeveloped hints that digital exhaustion may still operate if specific technological solutions are put in place. This chapter provides an overview of the legislative (§2.1) and judicial debate (§2.2) that led to the Grand Chamber’s decision, analyzing the most relevant legal (§3) and economic (§4) arguments advanced in favor and against the extension of Article 4(2) InfoSoc to cover digital copies. Then it reflects on the Tom Kabinet ruling (§5), commenting on its strength and weaknesses (§6) to draw the path that should be followed in order to tackle the most dangerous pitfalls the decision has engendered (§7).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a concise summary, with reference to US copyright law, see Perzanowski and Schultz (2011), p. 908 et seq.

  2. 2.

    On this comparison, maintaining that the differences between material and digital markets justify the ban of digital exhaustion, see Wiebe (2010), pp. 321–323. See also Reese (2002–2003), p. 57.

  3. 3.

    For a comprehensive analysis of the theoretical obstacles posed by the characteristics of the digital environment, see Karapapa (2014), p. 307 et seq.

  4. 4.

    Similarly, see Kerber (2016) p. 153 et seq.

  5. 5.

    See the cases commented on by Mezei (2015) paras 65–94, and related ample bibliography.

  6. 6.

    Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ L167/10 (InfoSoc Directive).

  7. 7.

    Mezei (2015) paras 183 et seq.

  8. 8.

    Explained in economic terms by Rubi Puig (2013), p. 159 et seq.

  9. 9.

    See infra, para 2.2.

  10. 10.

    As highlighted, inter alia, by Maurer (2001–2002), p. 55 et seq.; Maurer (1997), p. 845 et seq.; Benkler (2000), p. 2063 et seq.; Boyle (2000), p. 2007 et seq.; Lunnedy (2008), p. 387 et seq.; Fisher (2007), p. 1 et seq. Perzanowski and Schultz (2011), pp. 901–907; with specific regard to software products, see Rubi Puig (2013), paras 43–71.

  11. 11.

    Perzanowski and Schultz (2011), pp. 906–907; already Cohen (1996), p. 981.

  12. 12.

    See also Benabou (2016), pp. 351–378.

  13. 13.

    E.g. Mezei (2015), paras 182, 191, 195, who highlights that a number of attempts of legislative amendment have already failed; see also Rosati (2015), pp. 680–681, but contra Karapapa (2014), p. 309.

  14. 14.

    Commission, ‘Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules’, pp. 13–14, and ‘Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules’, pp. 20–22.

  15. 15.

    Commission, ‘Communication a Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe’ COM(2015) 192 final, p. 3.

  16. 16.

    Directive (EU) 2019/790 of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC [2019] OJ L-130/92.

  17. 17.

    The Berne Convention and the TRIPs Agreement do not regulate exhaustion, leaving it to contracting parties due to lack of supranational consensus as to its national, regional or international nature. See Ficsor (2002), pp. 153–155, 210–226. Some aspects of the right of distribution, instead, were already regulated by the Berne Convention. See Ricketson and Ginsburg (2006), p. 660 et seq.

  18. 18.

    In the opinion of Mezei (2015) para 18, in line with von Lewinski (2008), para 17.65.

  19. 19.

    Reinbothe and von Lewinski (2015), p. 87.

  20. 20.

    See Agreed Statements concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty, adopted by the Diplomatic Conference of December 20, 1996, Concerning Articles 6 and 7, <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295456>. Accessed 13 June 2020.

  21. 21.

    See, e.g., Sterling (2015), p. 574 et seq.

  22. 22.

    More recently, see Ruffler (2007), p. 380.

  23. 23.

    Broadly Mezei (2015), paras 21–22, referring also to Ficsor (2002), pp. 205–206 and 249–250.

  24. 24.

    Commission, ‘Green Paper on Copyright and the Challenge of Technology – Copyright Issues Requiring Immediate Action’, COM (1988) 172 final.

  25. 25.

    Ibid para 4.10.5, with reference to Case C-62/79 SA Compagnie générale pour la diffusion de la télévision, Coditel, and others v Ciné Vog Films and others (Coditel I) [1980] ECR I-0881 and Case C-262/81 Coditel v CinéVog Films II (Coditel II) [1982] ECR I-3381.

  26. 26.

    Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ L122/42 (Software Directive I); Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, OJ L346/61 (Rental Directive I).

  27. 27.

    Art 4(c) Software Directive I; Art 1(4) Rental Directive I.

  28. 28.

    Commission, Report on the implementation and effects of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs, COM(2000) 199 final, 17 (exhaustion “only applies to the sale of copies i.e. goods, whereas supply through on-line services does not entail exhaustion”).

  29. 29.

    Commission, ‘Follow-up to the Green Paper on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society’, COM(96) 568 final, Ch 2, 19, para 4.

  30. 30.

    Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases OJ L77/20 (Database Directive), Article 5(c).

  31. 31.

    Ibid Recital 43.

  32. 32.

    “Copyright protection under this Directive includes the exclusive right to control distribution of the work incorporated in a tangible article”.

  33. 33.

    “The question of exhaustion does not arise in the case of services and on-line services in particular”.

  34. 34.

    Case C-78/70 Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft Gmbh v Metro-SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co. KG. [1971] ECR I-499.

  35. 35.

    Ibid para 11. The Court ruled that the derogation introduced by Article 36 EC referred to the existence of the rights, id est their creation by national legislators, but not to their exercise, which could in no case violate the provisions of the Treaty (existence-exercise dichotomy). See, e.g., Fennelly (2003); Ubertazzi (2014), pp. 38–41; Strowel and Kim (2012), p. 121 et seq. On the development of the doctrine see Schovsbo (2012), pp. 174–178.

  36. 36.

    Deutsche Grammophon, paras 12–13.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    See Coditel I and II (supra n 25).

  39. 39.

    Coditel II, para 43.

  40. 40.

    Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs [2009] OJ L111/16 (Software Directive II).

  41. 41.

    Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. EU:C:2012:407, paras 45–47.

  42. 42.

    UsedSoft, para 61.

  43. 43.

    Ibid para 62, referring to Case C-200/96 Metronome Musik GmbH v. Music Point Hokamp GmbH [1998] ECR I-01978, Case C-61/97 FDV [1998] ECR I-5171, para 13 and Joined Cases C-403/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd et al v QC Leisure et al and C-429/08 Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd [2011] ECR I-09083 (FAPL), para 106.

  44. 44.

    Ibid para 49.

  45. 45.

    Ibid para 52, as also noted by the Opinion of AG Bot, EU:C:2012:234, para 73. A similar distinction could be already found in Case C-456/06 Peek & Cloppenburg [2008] ECR I-2731, para 30.

  46. 46.

    Ibid para 60. The Court underlined the different language used in the two acts, where Article 4(2) Software II refers to the sale of a copy of the program, making no distinction as to its tangible or intangible form (para 55), and Article 1(2) Software II extends the scope of the Directive “to the expression in any form of a computer program”, with a clear assimilation of tangible and intangible copies (paras 57–58).

  47. 47.

    As maintained and evidenced by Galič (Savič) (2015), pp. 415–416.

  48. 48.

    Case C-419/13 Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright [2015] EU:C:2015:27.

  49. 49.

    See, e.g., Rosati (2015), and Galič (Savič) (2015), pp. 390–391.

  50. 50.

    Allposters, paras 26–27.

  51. 51.

    Allposters, para 43.

  52. 52.

    Ibid paras 34–35 and 38–39.

  53. 53.

    Ibid para 3.7 (emphasis added).

  54. 54.

    Ibid para 47.

  55. 55.

    Ibid para 47, where appropriate means “reasonable in relation to the economic value of the (…) work” (Ibid para 48, as also in FAPL, paras 107–109).

  56. 56.

    See particularly Rosati (2015), p. 680.

  57. 57.

    Case C-166/15 Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs v Finanšu un ekonomisko noziegumu izmeklēšanas prokoratūra and Microsoft Corp., EU:C:2016:762.

  58. 58.

    Ibid para 50.

  59. 59.

    Ibid 43.

  60. 60.

    Case C-174/15 Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht (VOB) [2016] EU:C:2016:856).

  61. 61.

    Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (Rental Directive II), OJ L376/28.

  62. 62.

    VOB, para 27.

  63. 63.

    Ibid para 56, with reference to Article 1(2)(b) InfoSoc.

  64. 64.

    Ibid paras 33–34.

  65. 65.

    Ibid para 60.

  66. 66.

    Ibid paras 61–63.

  67. 67.

    Ibid para 64.

  68. 68.

    See Leistner (2014), p. 595; van Eechoud (2012) paras 90 ff. (with reference to the autonomous interpretation). On the teleological rather than contextual interpretative method used by the CJEU see Favale et al. (2016), pp. 59–61.

  69. 69.

    See, e.g., Mezei (2015), para 159, and Benabou (2016), pp. 351–378.

  70. 70.

    Case C-160/15 Nils Svensson and Others v Retriever Sverige AB [2014] EU:C:2014:76, building on Case C-306/05 Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SA [2006] ECR I-11519; Case C-135/10 Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v Marco Del Corso [2012] EU:C:2012:140; Case C-607/11 ITV Broadcasting Ltd and Others v TVCatchUp Ltd [2013] EU:C:2013:147, and Case C-351/12 OSA – Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním os. v Lécˇebné lázně Mariánské Lázně as [2014] EU:C:2014:110.

  71. 71.

    After Svensson the various criteria have been reiterated by inter alia, Case C-466/12 GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others [2016] EU:C:2016:644; Case C-117/15 Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA) [2016] EU:C:2016:379; Case C-527/15 Stitching Brein v Jack Frederic Wullems (Filmspeler) [2017] EU:C:2017:300.

  72. 72.

    Similarly, Benabou (2016), pp. 351–378.

  73. 73.

    Ibid, who emphasizes that the same arguments characterize the functional interpretation of the scope of exceptions in FAPL and Case C-201/13 Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others [2014] EU:C:2014:2132 to Case C-117/13 Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG [2014] EU:C:2014:2196, and VOB.

  74. 74.

    Harshly criticized by Linklater (2014), Spedicato (2015), Vinje et al. (2012), p. 97 et seq.; Senftleben (2012), p. 2924; Dreier and Leistner (2013), p. 887 et seq.; Schulze (2014), p. 9 et seq; Stothers (2012), pp. 788–781.

  75. 75.

    UsedSoft, para 52, as also noted by the Opinion of AG Bot, EU:C:2012:234, para 73. A similar distinction could be already found in Case C-456/06 Peek & Cloppenburg [2008] ECR I-2731, para 30.

  76. 76.

    Although the obligations arising from the WCT would have suggested the need to cover the gap through the InfoSoc Directive, which allows it under Article 1(2)(a) InfoSoc. See Linklater (2014), p. 15 and Mezei (2015), paras 121–123.

  77. 77.

    Defined “digital interactive transmission” by one of the drafters of the Treaties, Ficsor (2002), p. 203. See Mezei (2015), para 122, supporting the CJEU’s conclusion in UsedSoft. See also Tjong Tjin Tai (2003), p. 208 et seq.

  78. 78.

    Article 8 WCT leaves unprejudiced Article 11(1)(ii) BC (public performance and communication to the public of the performance of a work), Article 11bis(1)(i) and (ii) BC (broadcasting and other wireless communications, public communication of broadcast by wire or rebroadcast, public communication of broadcast by loudspeaker or analogous instruments, and related compulsory licenses), Article 11ter(1)(ii) BC (right of public recitation and of communication to the public of a recitation), and Article 14(1)(ii) BC (public performance of cinematographic works).

  79. 79.

    See ALAI, Opinion on Case C-263/18, NUV/GAU v Tom Kabinet, Brussels, 12 September 2018, available at <http://www.alai.org/en/.../180912-opinion-tom-kabinet-case-en.pdf>. Accessed 13 June 2020, pp. 3–4.

  80. 80.

    Ibid p. 4.

  81. 81.

    On the “umbrella solution” see, ex multis, Ficsor (2002), p. 145 et seq; Ricketson and Ginsburg (2006), pp. 741–748; Reinbothe and von Lewinski (2015), pp. 125–128.

  82. 82.

    Information Infrastructure Task Force, ‘Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights’, September 1995, pp. 212–214; see Pallante (2013), p. 326 et seq. Federal courts are split on the admissibility of the making available right under the US Copyright Act. Among the most recent landmark decisions, see Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al v Joel Tenenbaum, 663 F3d 487 (2011), while in favor Capitol Records Inc et al. v Jammie Thomas-Rassed, 692 F.3d 899 (2012).

  83. 83.

    But see, contra, Linklater (2014) para 22.

  84. 84.

    Explicitly in Answer by Commissioner Monti to Oral Question H-0436/95 by Arthur Newens, MEP (11.7.1995), Debates of the EP, No. 466, 175.

  85. 85.

    Apart from the WCT, see already Commission, ‘Green Paper on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society’ COM(95) 382 final, p. 47, and Commission, Report on the implementation and effects of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs, COM(2000) 199 final, p. 17.

  86. 86.

    See the overview provided by Smith and Woods (2005).

  87. 87.

    As in Case C-7/68 Commission v Italy [1968] ECR I-0423, defining goods as products having a monetary value and being potentially object of a commercial transaction. From Case C-2/90 Commission v Belgium [1992] ECR I-04431, the Court eliminated the monetary value requirement.

  88. 88.

    Particularly in Case C-155/73 Sacchi [1974] ECR I-0409.

  89. 89.

    E.g. Case C-451/99 Cura Anlagen GmbH v ASL [2002] ECR I-3194 (long-lease of cars).

  90. 90.

    FAPL, para 83, commented by Dreier (2013), p. 137.

  91. 91.

    After Sacchi, Case C-52/79 Procureur du Roi v Debauve [1980] ECR I-0833.

  92. 92.

    As emphasized by Karapapa (2014), pp. 311–313.

  93. 93.

    Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, [2000] OJ L178/1.

  94. 94.

    Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax [2006] OJ L347/1, Article 14(1).

  95. 95.

    Case C-479/13 Commission v France [2015] EU:C:2015:141 and Case C-502/13 Commission v Luxembourg [2015] EU:C:2015:143.

  96. 96.

    See especially Gaubiac (2002), pp. 11–13.

  97. 97.

    See, e.g., the Opinion of AG Szpunar in Case C-174/15 Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht (VOB) [2016] EU:C:2016:856, para 61.

  98. 98.

    Directive (EU) 2018/1713 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards rates of value added tax applied to books, newspapers and periodicals, OJ L-286/20, Article 1.

  99. 99.

    Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, OJ L304/64 (Consumer Rights Directive).

  100. 100.

    Ibid Recital 19: “If digital content is supplied on a tangible medium, such as a CD or a DVD, it should be considered as goods within the meaning of this Directive. Similarly to contracts for the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, or of district heating, contracts for digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium should be classified, for the purpose of this Directive, neither as sales contracts nor as service contracts.”

  101. 101.

    Opinion of AG Bot in UsedSoft, para 76.

  102. 102.

    Dreier (2013), p. 138.

  103. 103.

    Mezei (2015) para 195.

  104. 104.

    See Dreier (2013), p. 139, who defines the distinction between goods and services as no longer technology-neutral.

  105. 105.

    UsedSoft, para 62, referring to Case C-200/96 Metronome Musik GmbH v. Music Point Hokamp GmbH [1998] ECR I-01978, Case C-61/97 FDV [1998] ECR I-5171, para 13 and FAPL, para 106.

  106. 106.

    UsedSoft, para 42.

  107. 107.

    See Von Bar et al. (2009), p. 278, IV. A. – 1:202: Contract for sale.

  108. 108.

    Similarly, Mezei (2015) paras 142 ff.

  109. 109.

    Ibid para 45.

  110. 110.

    Ibid paras 45–47.

  111. 111.

    Ibid para 49. This was the opinion of AG Bot in UsedSoft, para 63, with reference to FAPL, paras 105–106. Mezei (2015) para 98. On the contractual circumvention of exhaustion by EULAs see Liu (2001), pp. 1339–1340; Reese (2002–2003), p. 581, 614; Perzanowski and Schultz (2011), pp. 901–907; Carver (2010), p. 1888 et seq. See also US Department of Commerce, Report to Congress: Study Examining 17 U.S.C. Sections 109 and 117 Pursuant to Section 104 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, March 21, 2001, http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_study.html. Accessed 13 June 2020.

  112. 112.

    Recitals 1 and 3 InfoSoc Directive.

  113. 113.

    Recital 17 Software Directive II; Recital 31 InfoSoc Directive.

  114. 114.

    This argument was used by national courts to rule out such conclusion and state, again, the non-applicability of Article 4(2) InfoSoc on licenses similar to those used by Oracle. See, e.g., the overview provided by Galič (Savič) (2015), p. 415 et seq.

  115. 115.

    E.g. Case C-516/13 Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA [2015] EU:C:2015:315, paras 33–34.

  116. 116.

    As in UsedSoft, para 51.

  117. 117.

    See, e.g., Spedicato (2015), pp. 49–50, and Mezei (2015) para 179.

  118. 118.

    But contra Linklater (2014) para 27.

  119. 119.

    Case C-355/12 Nintendo Co. Ltd, Nintendo of America Inc., Nintendo of Europe GmbH v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl [2014] EU:C:2014:25.

  120. 120.

    See, e.g., Tweney (2010) ‘Amazon Sells More E-Books Than Hardcovers’, WIRED (July 19, 2010), <http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/07/amazon-more-e-books-than-hardcovers>. Cheng (2010) Forget the Box: Downloads Dominate Online Software Purchases, Ars Technica (May 28, 2010), <http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2010/05/forget-the-box-downloadsdominate-online-software-purchases.ars>. Accessed 13 June 2020.

  121. 121.

    See, among the earliest studies, Litman (2006), p. 46 et seq.; Mazziotti (2008), pp. 15–39, 77–109; Netanel (2008), pp. 54–80; Pistorius (2006), p. 47 et seq; Rimmer (2007); Lessig (2004), Boyle (2003), pp.33 e seq.

  122. 122.

    The most comprehensive being Perzanowski and Schultz (2011).

  123. 123.

    See Liu (2001), Reese (2002–2003), Shaffer Van Houweling (2008), p. 885 et seq.

  124. 124.

    As in Reese (2002–2003), p. 587.

  125. 125.

    See Douglas Lichtman, First Sale, First Principles, Media Institute (April 26, 2010) <http://www.mediainstitute.org/new_site/IPI/2010/042610_FirstSale.php>. Accessed 13 June 2020.

  126. 126.

    Perzanowski and Schultz (2011), p. 895; Davis (2009), pp. 370–371, but contra Tjong Tjin Tai (2003), p. 210; Ruffler (2011), p. 378; Kawabata (2014), p. 76.

  127. 127.

    E.g. Gordon (1998), p. 1367 et seq., who demonstrates that secondary markets price-discriminate better than monopolistic markets M Ghose et al. (2006), p. 3, report data proving that 84 percent of used books sold on Amazon are purchased by buyers who would have not been able or willing to pay the price set for the original copy; see also Hess (2013), p. 1968.

  128. 128.

    Reese (2002–2003), pp. 594–595, 599.

  129. 129.

    Mulligan and Schultz (2002), p. 451 et seq., and the empirical evidence reported in Anna Vuopala, Assessment of the Orphan Works Issue and Costs for Rights Clearance (May 2010), <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/reports_orphan/anna_report.pdf>. Accessed 13 June 2020.

  130. 130.

    See Cohen (1996), p. 993.

  131. 131.

    Ibid.

  132. 132.

    Perzanowski and Schultz (2011), p. 896.

  133. 133.

    As in Shaffer Van Houweling (2008), pp. 897–898.

  134. 134.

    Ibid, pp. 932–933, reporting empirical studies that evidence that consumers tend to ignore contractual terms unless they are essential to the purchase.

  135. 135.

    Broadly Perzanowski and Schultz (2011), p. 897 et seq.

  136. 136.

    Ibid, p. 898.

  137. 137.

    The same effect of creating incentives to innovation is attributed to fair use. See von Lohmann (2008), p. 829 et seq.

  138. 138.

    Perzanowski and Schultz (2011), p. 990.

  139. 139.

    As Netflix, which used the first sale doctrine to commercialize titles which rightholders kept out from online distribution deals. See Transcript of Netflix, Inc. Q3 2009 Earnings Call (Oct. 22, 2009) (statement of Netflix CEO Reed Hastings), <http://seekingalpha.com/article/168407-netflix-inc-q3-2009-earnings-call-transcript>. Accessed 13 June 2020.

  140. 140.

    Rechtbank Amsterdam, Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet Internet BV et al, C/13/567567/KG ZA 14-795 SP/MV (1 July 2014), NL:RBAMS:2014:4360.

  141. 141.

    Gerechtshof Amsterdam, Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet, Case 200.154.572/01 SKG (20 January 2015), NL:GHAMS:2015:66. The Court proposed a broader reading of Article 4(2) InfoSoc under §62 of the UsedSoft judgment, which suggests that the principle of exhaustion should be limited only if necessary, to protect the essential function and specific subject matter of copyright (Ibid para 3.5.3–4).

  142. 142.

    Ibid paras 5.11–5.17.

  143. 143.

    Ibid paras 5.20–5.21.

  144. 144.

    Ibid para 5.22.

  145. 145.

    Ibid paras 5.26–5.27.

  146. 146.

    Opinion of AG Szpunar in Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet Internet BV et al [2019] EU:C:2019:697.

  147. 147.

    Ibid para 33.

  148. 148.

    Ibid para 34.

  149. 149.

    Ibid para 35.

  150. 150.

    Ibid para 37.

  151. 151.

    Ibid para 38.

  152. 152.

    Ibid paras 43–44.

  153. 153.

    Ibid para 49.

  154. 154.

    Ibid para 42.

  155. 155.

    Ibid paras 57–58.

  156. 156.

    Ibid para 59.

  157. 157.

    Ibid para 63.

  158. 158.

    Ibid para 62.

  159. 159.

    Ibid paras 68–70.

  160. 160.

    The AG devotes all his final remarks to “balancing the interests involved”, summarizing the main arguments raised in the literature in support of digital exhaustion (ibid paras 78–87) and against it (paras 88–97).

  161. 161.

    Ibid para 98.

  162. 162.

    Ibid para 95.

  163. 163.

    Tom Kabinet, para 39.

  164. 164.

    Ibid para 44.

  165. 165.

    Ibid paras 49–51.

  166. 166.

    Ibid para 55.

  167. 167.

    Ibid para 57.

  168. 168.

    Ibid para 58.

  169. 169.

    As seen supra, n.

  170. 170.

    Ibid paras 63–64.

  171. 171.

    Ibid paras 67–68.

  172. 172.

    Ibid para 69.

  173. 173.

    Ibid para 71.

  174. 174.

    Joined Cases C-293/12 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others and C-594/12 Kärntner Landesregierung and Others [2014] EU:C:2014:238, paras 38 and 47.

  175. 175.

    I elaborate on these solutions in more details in Sganga (2019) paras 84–99.

References

  • Benabou VL (2016) Digital exhaustion of copyright in the EU or shall we cease being so schizophrenic? In: Stamatoudi IA (ed) New developments in EU and international copyright law. Wolters Kluwer, The Hague, pp 351–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler Y (2000) An unhurried view of private ordering in information transactions. Vand Law Rev 53:2063

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle J (2000) Cruel, Mean, or Lavish? Economic analysis, price discrimination and digital intellectual property. Vand Law Rev 53:2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle J (2003) The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. Law Contemp Probs 66:33

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver BW (2010) Why license agreements do not control copy ownership: first sales and essential copies. Berkeley Technol Law J 25(4):1887

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1996) The right to read anonymously: a closer look at copyright management in cyberspace. Conn Law Rev 28:981

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis N (2009) Reselling digital music: is there a digital first sale Doctrine? Loyola Entertain Law Rev 29(3):363

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier T (2013) Online and its effect on the ‘goods versus ‘services’ distinction. IIC 44(2):137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreier T, Leistner M (2013) Urheberrecht im Internet: die Forschungsherausforderungen. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 9:887

    Google Scholar 

  • Favale M, Kretschmer M, Torremans PC (2016) Is there a EU Copyright Jurisprudence? An empirical analysis of the workings on the European Court of Justice. Mod Law Rev 79(1):31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennelly N (2003) Rules and exceptions: freedom of movement and intellectual property rights in the European Union. In: Hansen HC (ed) International intellectual property law & policy, vol 5. Juris, New York, pp 33–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Ficsor M (2002) The law of copyright and the internet. The 1996 WIPO treaties, their interpretation and implementation. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher W (2007) When should we permit differential pricing of information. UCLA Law Rev 55:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Galič (Savič) M (2015) The CJEU allposters case: beginning of the end of digital exhaustion. Eur Intellect Property Rev 37:389

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaubiac Y (2002) The exhaustion of rights in the analogue and digital environment. Copyright Bull 4:9

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghose A, Smith MD, Telang R (2006) Internet exchanges for used books: an empirical analysis of product cannibalization and welfare impact. Info Sys Res 17:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon W (1998) Intellectual property as price discrimination: implications for contracts. Chi-Kent Law Rev 73:1367

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess E (2013) Code-ifying copyright: an architectural solution to digitally expanding the first sale Doctrine. Fordham Law Rev 81:1965

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Infrastructure Task Force (1995) Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, September 1995, 212–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Karapapa S (2014) Reconstructing copyright exhaustion in the online world. IPQ 4:307

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawabata BM (2014) Unresolved textual tension: capitol records v. ReDigi and a digital first sale Doctrine. UCLA Entertain Law Rev 21(1):33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerber W (2016) Exhaustion of digital goods: an economic perspective. Zeitschrift fuer Geistiges Eigentum/Intellect Property J 8(2):149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leistner M (2014) Europe’s copyright law decade: recent case law of the European Court of Justice and policy perspectives. Common Mark Law Rev 51(2):559

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L (2004) Free culture: how big media uses technology and law to lock down culture and control creativity. Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Linklater E (2014) UsedSoft and the big bang theory: is the e-exhaustion meteor about to strike. JIPITEC 5(1):15

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman J (2006) Digital Copyright. Prometheus Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu JP (2001) Owning digital copies: copyright law and the incidents of copy ownership. William Mary Law Rev 42:1245

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunnedy GS Jr (2008) Copyright’s price discrimination Panacea. Harv J Law Technol 21:387

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer SM (1997) Price discrimination, personal use and piracy: copyright protection of digital works. Buff Law Rev 45:845

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer SM (2001–2002) Copyright and price discrimination. Cardozo Law Rev 23:55

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazziotti G (2008) EU digital copyright law and the end-user. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezei P (2015) Digital first sale Doctrine Ante Portas – exhaustion in the online environment. JIPITEC 6:23

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan DK, Schultz JM (2002) Neglecting the national memory: how copyright term extensions compromise the development of digital archives. J App Prac Process 4:451

    Google Scholar 

  • Netanel NW (2008) Copyright paradox. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pallante MA (2013) The next great copyright act. Columbia J Law Arts 38(3):324

    Google Scholar 

  • Perzanowski A, Schultz J (2011) Digital exhaustion. UCLA Law Rev 58:889

    Google Scholar 

  • Pistorius T (2006) Copyright in the information age: the Catch-22 of digital technology. North Cult Media Stud 20:47

    Google Scholar 

  • Reese RA (2002–2003) The first sale doctrine in the era of digital networks. Boston College Law Rev 44:57

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinbothe J, von Lewinski S (2015) The WIPO treaties on copyright. A commentary on the WCT, the WPPT, and the BTAP. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricketson S, Ginsburg JC (2006) International copyrights and neighboring rights. Berne convention and beyond, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimmer M (2007) Digital copyright and the consumer revolution: hands off My iPod. Elgar, Cheltenham-Northampton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosati E (2015) Online copyright exhaustion in a post-Allposters world. J Intellect Property Law Pract 10(9):673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubi Puig A (2013) Copyright exhaustion rationales and used software: a law and economics approach to Oracle v UsedSoft. JIPITEC 4(2):159

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffler F (2007) Is trading in used software an infringement of copyright? The perspective of European law. EIPR 6:380

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffler F (2011) Trading in used software an infringement of copyright? The perspective of European Law. EIPR 6:378

    Google Scholar 

  • Schovsbo J (2012) The exhaustion of rights and common principles of European intellectual property law. In: Ohly A (ed) Common principles of European intellectual property law. Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, pp 169–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze EF (2014) Resale of digital content such as music, films or eBooks under European law. EIPR 36:9

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben M (2012) Die Fortschreibund des urheberrechtlichen Erschopfungsgrundsatzes im digitalen Umfeld. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 40:2924

    Google Scholar 

  • Sganga C (2019) A plea for digital exhaustion in EU copyright law. JIPITEC 9(3):211

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer Van Houweling M (2008) The new servitudes. Georgia Law J 96:885

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith F, Woods L (2005) A distinction without a difference: exploring the boundary between goods and services in the World Trade Organization and the European Union. Columbia J Eur Law 12(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Spedicato G (2015) Online exhaustion and the boundaries of interpretation. In: Caso R, Giovanella F (eds) Balancing copyright law in the digital age - comparative perspectives. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling JAL (2015) World copyright law, 4th edn. Sweet and Maxwelk, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stothers C (2012) When is copyright exhausted by a software license? UsedSoft v Oracle. EIPR 11:788

    Google Scholar 

  • Strowel A, Kim HE (2012) The balancing impact of general EU law on European Intellectual Property Jurisprudence. In: Pila J, Ohly A (eds) The Europeanization of intellectual property law: towards a European legal methodology. OUP, Oxford, pp 121–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjong Tjin Tai E (2003) Exhaustion and online delivery of digital works. EIPR 25:208

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubertazzi B (2014) The principle of free movement of goods: community exhaustion and parallel imports. In: Torremans P, Stamatoudi I (eds) EU copyright law – a commentary. Elgar, Cheltenham-Northampton, pp 38–51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Eechoud M (2012) Along the road to uniformity – diverse readings of the Court of Justice judgments on copyright work. JIPITEC 1:83

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinje T, Marsland V, Gartner A (2012) Software licensing after Oracle v UsedSoft. Comput Law Rev Int 4:97

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bar, C, Clive E, Schulte-Nolte H et al (eds) (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European Private Law – draft common frame of reference, Outline edn. Sellier, Munchen

    Google Scholar 

  • von Lewinski S (2008) International copyright law and policy. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • von Lohmann F (2008) Fair use as innovation policy. Berkeley Technol Law J 23:829

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe A (2010) The economic perspective: exhaustion in the digital age. In: Bently L, Suthersanen U, Torremans P (eds) Global copyright three hundred years since the statute of Anne, from 1709 to cyberspace. Elgar, Cheltenham, p 321

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, PI, Italy

    Caterina Sganga

Authors
  1. Caterina Sganga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caterina Sganga .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou

  2. School of Law, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Philippe Jougleux

  3. School of Law, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Christiana Markou

  4. School of Law, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Thalia Prastitou-Merdi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Sganga, C. (2021). Digital Exhaustion After Tom Kabinet: A Nonexhausted Debate. In: Synodinou, TE., Jougleux, P., Markou, C., Prastitou-Merdi, T. (eds) EU Internet Law in the Digital Single Market. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69583-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69583-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69582-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69583-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation