This blogger has just received an email circular from the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) which, in relevant part, reads as follows:
ECJ [ie CJEU] case: C-279/13: C MORE ENTERTAINMENT
We have received notification of a new case referred to the Court of Justice: C-279/13. A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns an appeal against prosecution in Sweden where it was alleged that the Defendant had breached the rights of C More Entertainment to broadcast a webcast of two ice hockey matches and made them available to the public.
This case and the questions referred to the court can be viewed on our website at:
If you would like to comment on this case please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org by 08 July 2013 [That's only two Mondays from today, but ...].
We understand how difficult it is to provide detailed comments in the time available. The IPO has tight time limits in which to consider and provide advice to ministers on ECJ cases. In order to help us provide the right advice, we just need a short email by the deadline stating whether you think the UK should intervene and some general points about how you think we should answer the questions.
You are welcome to follow this email up with more detailed comments after the deadline, which can be taken into consideration if we have chosen to submit observations or if we decide to attend a hearing.
If you are aware of any references to the ECJ that are not currently included on our website, you are also welcome to send us your views. If you choose to do this, please include clear information about the case to help us to identify it.
Further information on intellectual property ECJ cases can be found on our website http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ecj.htm
The IPO circular doesn't quote the questions verbatim, but they appear to look like this:
"1. Does the expression communication to the public, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive, include measures to make available on a website open to the public a clickable link to a work which is broadcast by the holder of the copyright in that work?
2. Is the manner in which the linking is done relevant to the answer to question 1?
3. Is it relevant if the access to the work to which the linking is done is in any way restricted?
4. May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of rightholders by enabling ‘communication to the public' to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive?
5. May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of authors by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive?"
This reference, and the Swedish litigation leading to it, have so far passed this blogger by. If any readers can supply further background details, can they please share them with us!
I found this blogpost http://www.futureofcopyright.com/home/blog-post/2010/11/20/swedish-court-direct-link-to-sports-game-is-copyright-infringement.html on the first instance decision, which sets out the background facts. I have also found what appears to be the Dutch language version of the reference as published by the CJEU here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minbuza.nl%2Fbinaries%2Fcontent%2Fassets%2Fecer%2Fecer%2Fimport%2Fhof_van_justitie%2Fnieuwe_hofzaken_inclusief_verwijzingsuitspraak%2F2013%2Fc-zakennummers%2Fc-279-13-verwijzingsbeschikking.pdf
Is there any news on this? The Curia website is still silent.
Following Svensson and Bestwater the answer should be pretty straightforward, though, seeing that the defendant circumvents a paywall...
Post a Comment