Labels

§512 DMCA 6th circuit 9th circuit Aasparagus Aerosmith alamy amazing Amerian Airlines anne frank APCA Conference appeal appropriation art ASACAP Axanar axl rose baidu BBC Benelux Berklee blurred lines Bolero BPI British Black Music Month BUMA Canada Captain Kirk Carol M Highsmith cars cayman islands china CJEU CMO Act colours Commissioner of Taxation v Seven Network Limited Congressman Bob Goodlatte content ID copyrght troll copyright Copyright Education and Awareness Symposium Copyright Hub; Richard Hooper copyright infringement copyright law copyright reform copyright term copyright troll copyright trolls copyright; copyright office cox CREATe Festival 2016 crockford cross border portability DCMA DeBanff deposition design rights designs disney Distance Learning Programme leading to a Postgraduate Diploma/Masters in UK EU & US Copyright Law DMCA duration of copyright Ed sheeran events fair use fan fiction FAPL FCCm crossword federal court footbvall freedom of panorama GEMA Germany getty images Ghostface killah Google Google Books grd Hong Kong IFPI IFPI GLOBAL MUSIC REPORT 2016 ILMC image rights In flight Inc IPO ISRC ITV Jennifer Urban Jim Sensenbrenner John doe julia reda justin bieber kickbacks King's College Klingon Kopcke languages protected by copyright law society of scotland led zepplin Lindsay Lohan LLC v. Varsity Brands loi Hadopi MADONNA making available Maurice Ravel monkey selfie naruto. selfie Nelly Furtado New York news NFL Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice OMI online piracy oracle Pei Zhang PETA photocopies for education purposes photograph photography Pirate Bay plagiarism Prelude to Axanar prenda law PRO PRS for Music RIAA richard prince right of publicity rightscorp Robert Mapplethorpe royalties safe habor safe harbour sampling set top box sid vicious songwriters SoundExchange Spock spridningskollen stairway to heaven Star Athletica star trek state law subsistence of copyright substantial similarity Supreme Court Sweden take down takedown taurus the new public UGC UMG US user-generated-content Vantablack vimeo vogue we shall overcome Wikimedia wilful infringement of copyright YouTube

Movie Producers Score Significant Win in French Court


                                                                                   
                                                                Who pays the piper?  ISPs!

French movie producers recently scored a significant legal victory in their continung fight against online piracy.

By a ruling dated March 15th the Paris Court of Appeals not only upheld a lower court's decision that internet access providers and search engines (collectively, ISPs) were obliged to block access (in the case of access providers) and remove links (in the case of search engines) to pirate sites but reversed the trial court's decision that the rightsholders had to bear the costs associated with the implementaion of such measures.  In other words, the appellate court held that such costs were to be borne by the ISPs.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals reasoned as follows:

Section L.336-2 IPC (the French transposition of Article 8, paragraph 3 of the Info Soc Directive), upon which the action against the ISPs was based, is not an action seeking reparation for harm suffered but rather a specific procedure to be used against intermediaries who are not (necessarily) liable for the infringement.  Consequently, a fault-based approach to the determination of the costs issue is not appropriate.

Referring to the CJUE's ruling in the UPC Telekabel case, the Court noted that while it was true that obliging the ISPs to bear the costs of the measures adversely affected their fredom to conduct business, this was not unreasonable given that they were free to determine the precise technological measures deployed based on their resources and capacity (as long as the desired results were achieved).

The Court also referred to the general principle in French law under which it is not for the party who is a victim of wrongdoing and who seeks redress in court to pay the costs associated therewith. The Court noted that the already precarious financial situation of the rights holders would be seriously jeopardized by imposing the costs on them whereas the ISPs "derive an economic profit from the access (in particular by way of advertising on their pages) and it is thus legitimate and proportional that they contribute financially" to implementing the measures.  (This particular finding has already been criticized by certain commentators as factually inaccurate.)

In response to the argument put forth by the access providers that the statutory provision in question did not expressly provide for them to bear the costs whereas certain other statutory provisions did, the Court noted that while this was true the latter existed in contexts where the blocking measures were sought by the State for reasons of public order (online gambling, national defense) and not in contexts of private rights enforcement.  Accordingly, the absence of express provisions imposing such costs on the access providers in Section L.336-2 IPC was not a bar to doing so.

The Court of Appeals' decision has been hailed by many (including the CNC) as an important step in fighting online piracy.  There has been some press speculation that the ISPs intend to appeal to the Cour de cassation.

Link to ruling in French here


0 Response to "Movie Producers Score Significant Win in French Court"

Post a Comment