InfoSoc Directive fair compensation claims and jurisdiction: your chance to influence things

The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has just been reminding us of the forthcoming Court of Justice the European Union (CJEU) reference in Case C-572/14 Austro-Mechana. This is a request for a preliminary ruling from the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof on the following question:

Does a claim for payment of ‘fair compensation’ under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 ... on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society which, in accordance with Austrian law, is directed against undertakings that are first to place recording material on the domestic market on a commercial basis and for consideration constitute a claim arising from ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation ... 44/2001 ... on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters?

If you would like to comment on this case please email policy@ipo.gov.uk by 9 February 2015. This will give the IPO a window of opportunity within which it will be able to consider whether the UK government should make submissions on this question or whether it should leave it to others. If you can't respond in time, don't panic:

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 CJ 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.

NOTE: since this piece was posted, our friend and reader Axel Paul Ringelhann has furnished us with his English translation of the referring court's decision.  Thanks so much!

Private copying exception should apply only to copies made from lawful sources

As announced by the IPKat, this morning Advocate General (AG) Cruz Villalón released his much awaited Opinion in Case C-435/12 ACI Adam [on which see here], a very interesting reference for a preliminary ruling from The Netherlands seeking clarification as to interpretation of the exception or limitation for private copying, pursuant to Article 5(2)(b) of the InfoSoc Directive.

Among other things, the AG advised the Court to rule that Article 5(2)(b) must be interpreted as meaning that the private copying exception only applies to reproductions of works or other subject-matter protected by copyright and related rights made ​​from legitimate sources.

The Opinion is not yet available in English. As soon as further translations are made available on the Curia website, The 1709 Blog will provide a more detailed analysis of its content.