Advertisement

Private Copying and Downloading from Unlawful Sources

  • João Pedro Quintais
Article

Abstract

Private copying is one of the most contested areas of EU copyright law. This paper surveys that nebulous area and examines the issue of copies made from unlawful sources in light of the ECJ’s ACI Adam decision. After describing the legal background of copyright levies and the facts of the litigation, the paper scrutinizes the Advocate General’s Opinion and the Court’s decision. The latter is analyzed against the history of copyright levies, the ECJ’s extensive case law on the private copying limitation and Member States’ regulation of unlawful sources. This paper further reflects on the decision’s implications for end-users, rights holders, collective management organizations and manufacturers/importers of levied goods. It concludes that, from a legal and economic standpoint, the decision not only fails to be properly justified, but its consequences will likely diverge from those anticipated by the Court. Most worrisome is the Court’s stance on the three-step test, which it views as a restrictive, rather than enabling, clause. In its interpretation of the test, the decision fails to strike the necessary balance between competing rights and interests. This is due to multiple factors: overreliance on the principle of strict interpretation; failure to consider the fundamental right of privacy; lack of justification of the normative and empirical elements of the test’s second condition; and a disregard for the remuneration element in connection with the test’s third condition. To the contrary, it is argued that a flexible construction of the three-step test is more suited to the InfoSoc Directive’s balancing aims.

Keywords

Private copying Levies Limitations Three-step test ACI Adam 

References

  1. Arezzo E (2014) Hyperlinks and making available right in the European Union – what future for the internet after Svensson? IIC 45(5):541–543 (545 et seq)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Besen SM, Kirby SN (1989) Private copying, appropriability, and optimal copying royalties. J Law Econ 32:255–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carre S (2012) France. In: Hilty R, Nérisson S (eds) Balance copyright – a survey of national approaches. Springer, New York (pp 406–407, 413 and 417–418)Google Scholar
  4. Collová T (1991) A propos de la remuneration pour copie privée. RIDA 149:35–149Google Scholar
  5. Dreier T, Specht E (2012) Germany. In: Hilty R, Nérisson S (eds) Balance copyright – a survey of national approaches. Springer, New York, pp 431–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Copyright Society (2014) Limitations and exceptions as key elements of the legal framework for copyright in the European Union Opinion on the Judgment of the CJEU in Case C - 201/13 Deckmyn. Available at http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Limitations-and-Exceptions-as-Key-Elements-of-the-Legal-Framework-for-Copyright-in-the-EU.pdf
  7. Geiger C (2008) Legal or illegal? That is the question! Private copying and downloading on the internet. IIC 39:602Google Scholar
  8. Geiger C, Hilty R, Griffiths J (2008) Declaration A balanced interpretation of the “three-step test” in copyright law. IIC 6:707–713Google Scholar
  9. Headdon T (2014) An epilogue to Svensson: the same old new public and the worms that didn’t turn. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 9(8):665Google Scholar
  10. Helberger N, Hugenholtz PB (2007) No place like home for making a copy: private copying in European copyright law and consumer law. BTL Rev 22:1072Google Scholar
  11. Hilty R, Nérisson S (2012) Overview. In: Hilty R, Nérisson S (eds) Balance copyright – a survey of national approaches. Springer, New York, p 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hugenholtz PB et al (2006) The recasting of copyright and related rights for the knowledge economy, final report, pp 68–69. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/etd2005imd195recast_report_2006.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2012
  13. Hugenholtz PB (2012) The story of the tape recorder and the history of copyright levies. In: Sherman B, Wiseman L (eds) Copyright and the challenge of the new. Kluwer International, Dordrecht, pp 179–196Google Scholar
  14. Hugenholtz PB, Okediji RL (2008) Conceiving an international instrument on limitations and exceptions to copyright (vol 25). http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/limitations_exceptions_copyright.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2008
  15. Hugenholtz PB, Senftleben M (2011) Fair use in Europe. In search of flexibilities, p 2. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/Fair%20Use%20Report%20PUB.pdf
  16. Hugenholtz PB, Guibault L, Van Geffen S (2003) The future of levies in a digital environment. Inst Inf Law. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/other/DRMandlevies-report.pdf
  17. Kallinikou D (2012) Greece. In: Hilty R, Nérisson S (eds) Balance copyright – a survey of national approaches. Springer, New York, pp 461–463Google Scholar
  18. Karaganis J, Renkema L (2012) Copy culture in the US and Germany. The American Assembly, Columbia University. http://piracy.americanassembly.org
  19. Karapapa S (2012) Private copying. Routledge, London, pp 49–78Google Scholar
  20. Koelman KJ (2005) The Levitation of copyright: an economic view of digital home copying, levies and DRM. Entertain Law Rev 4(75–76):81Google Scholar
  21. Leistner M (2014) Europe’s copyright law decade: recent case law of the European Court of Justice and policy perspectives. Common Mark Law Rev 51:559–600Google Scholar
  22. Mazziotti G (2013) Copyright in the EU digital single market. Centre for European Policy Studies – CEPS Digital Forum, pp 100–101. (rapporteur)Google Scholar
  23. Poort J (2013) Copyright levies. In: Towse A, Handke C (eds) Handbook on the digital creative economy, pp 240–241Google Scholar
  24. Poort J, Leenheer J (2012) File sharing 2012: downloading from illegal sources in the Netherlands. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/poort/Filesharing_2012.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2012
  25. Poort J, Quintais JP (2013) The levy runs dry: a legal and economic analysis of EU private copying levies. JIPITEC 4:206Google Scholar
  26. Quintais JP (2014) Legalizing file-sharing: an idea whose time has come – or gone? Report from the Information Influx Conference. Inst Inf Law (Amst). http://ssrn.com/abstract=2510545. Accessed 30 Nov 2012
  27. Reinbothe J (1981) Compensation for private taping under Sec. 53(5) of the German Copyright Act. IIC 12:36–49Google Scholar
  28. Rognstad OA (2012) Scandinavia (Norway, Denmark and Sweden). In: Hilty R, Nérisson S (eds) Balance copyright – a survey of national approaches. Springer, New York, p 858Google Scholar
  29. Rosati E (2014) Copyright: private copying exception may only apply to reproductions from licensed sources. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 9(9):710–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Savola P (2014) Blocking injunctions and website operators’ liability for copyright infringement for user-generated links. EIPR 36(5):279–288Google Scholar
  31. Senftleben M (2004) Copyright, limitations and the three-step test – an analysis of the three-step test in international and EC copyright law. Kluwer Law International, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  32. Senftleben M (2006) Towards a horizontal standard for limiting intellectual property rights? – WTO panel reports shed light on the three-step test in copyright law and related tests in patent and trademark law. IIC 37:428–429Google Scholar
  33. Senftleben M (2013) Breathing space for cloud-based business models. JIPITEC 4:91–93Google Scholar
  34. Sica V, D’Antonio M (2012) Italia. In: Hilty R, Nérisson S (eds) Balance copyright – a survey of national approaches. Springer, New York, p 541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trampuz M (2012) Slovenia. In: Hilty R, Nérisson S (eds) Balance copyright – a survey of national approaches. Springer, New York, p 869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Eechoud MMM, Hugenholtz PB et al (2008) Harmonizing European copyright law: the challenges of better lawmaking. Kluwer, Kluwer Law International, p 118Google Scholar
  37. Vanbrabant B, Strowel A (2012) Belgium. In: Hilty R, Nérisson S (eds) Balance copyright – a survey of national approaches. Springer, New York, p 119 (137 and 142)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Visser D (2012) Private copying. In: Hugenholtz PB, Quaedvlieg AA, Visser DJG (eds) A century of Dutch copyright law. Auteurswet 1912–2012. deLex, pp 428–433Google Scholar
  39. Vitorino A (2013) Recommendations resulting from the mediation on private copying and reprography levies. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/levy_reform/index_en.html. Accessed 31 Jan 2013
  40. von Lewinski S, Walter MM (2010) Information Society Directive. In: Walter MM, Von Lewinski (eds) European copyright law: a commentary, pp 1032–1033Google Scholar
  41. von Mizaras V (2012) Lithuania. In: Hilty R, Nérisson S (eds) Balance copyright – a survey of national approaches. Springer, New York, p 623 et seqCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xalabarder R (2012) Spain. In: Hilty R, Nérisson S (eds) Balance copyright – a survey of national approaches. Springer, New York (pp 941 (and 942), 949 and 952)Google Scholar
  43. Xalabarder R (2014) A bill to amend the Spanish IP law. http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2014/07/10/a-bill-to-amend-the-spanish-ip-law/. Accessed 10 July 2014

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information Law (IViR)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations