Consultative Report On The Exceptions And Limitations On Copyright Under Directive

Lionel Bentley and Brad Sherman have, in their book; "Intellectual Property Law” acknowledged that indeed there is tension between competition law and intellectual property law. While discussing the effect of competition law on the exploitation of copyright , they state that a copyright entitles an owner to use the property in a manner which he or she so wishes and that the copyright owner cannot be compelled to apply their rights in a particular manner. This is the exclusivity of a right. They, however, acknowledge that there are circumstances in which competition law may require a property owner to make available the right for use by the public. They state that operators in dominant positions have a special responsibility not to allow their conduct to impair

Several limits must be placed on technology to avoid totalitarian excesses represented in 1984. A government should not spy on its own innocent civilians. Governments should not ever have the power to use technology as a tool to control public and private behavior. A government should not make its citizens paranoid and scared with technology.

Digital economy as a whole has changed a lot throughout history. Digital economy in the aspect

Over the years, we have been enjoying the benefits of technology that it brings with it. But have we ever thought how the same technology can be threatening if fallen in bad hands. One way this is possible is by having government control over science. ¬¬The government can use technology to monitor our activities and personal life. A simple democratic government can become an extreme and abstract socialist by just using technology and making laws that we might find helpful, but indeed control us.

Copyright in a work can be infringed by copying it, issuing copies of it to the public or making an adaptation of it . It is apparent that hyperlinks are not a material form of a copy, but merely an electronic link to another site. Authorisation would only be required for clickable links, if it is substantiated that such links would infringe a copyright held by the original content provider. For our current purposes, clickable links shall be examined in line with the right of communication to the public.

Copyright is the legal right, to an inventor to perform, print, publish, film, or record artistic, literary, or musical material, and to allow others to do the same. Copyright law was developed to provide the creators and inventors of any works with powerful and effective rights of exclusivity over their creations (Patterson & Lindberg, 1991). Over the past, these rights were almost unlimited. People would use existing developments as if they were their own without any regard of the creator’s exclusive rights. The need to balance and limit such rights arose, and governments established these limits for the general good of the public.

We respectfully submit this brief amicus curiae in support of the petitioners, Eldred et al. The petitioners owned the copyrights of works now in the public domain. They challenged the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) on the grounds that the act allows copyrights to exist in perpetuity and restricts free speech, so the act violates the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Justice Ginsburg denied Eldred’s challenges, finding that the terms established by the CTEA are limited terms and that the act accommodates for petitioner’s First Amendment concerns. We submit this amicus curiae in dissent of the court opinion that upheld the CTEA.

Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.

Technology was made to be used personally and democratized, not government controlled. Lisberger also talked about how in the digital world, there are now “alter-egos” of us as humans in tax records, financial transactions, and even online presence

The immense growth of the World Wide Web has astounded large corporations for its easy access, fast communication, and ever growing usage of the large network connecting ordinary people on a daily basis. The internet’s rising popularity and the shifted attention of their competitors’ consumers towards this new innovation, which is cheaper and more accessible, has struck fear into the senior industries. One problem that could affect them, and supposedly the economy, are the loosely regulated websites that allow copyright infringement. These sites are gateways for an endless collection of music, movies, books, video games, and T.V. Programs that can be illegally downloaded for free in one click, through the use of the internet. Copyright regulation

The CJEU case-law on horizontal direct effect of directives arguably lacks consistency in regards to the application of the general principle. The principle of direct effect was established in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. Although there is no set definition of direct effect, a broader definition was provided in Van Gend en Loos that it “can be expressed as the capacity of a provision of EU law to be invoked before a national court.” However, Van Dyun v. Home Office established that directives are capable of direct effect. Furthermore, Marshall v. Southampton established that there could only be vertical direct effect of directives. This stringent principle has arguable ignited the highly contested debate of whether or not horizontal direct effect is applicable to directives or if directives could only have vertical direct effect. However, this essay shall explore the lack of consistency in case-law regarding horizontal direct effect of directives. Firstly, this paper will delve into the case-law of the topic of horizontal direct effect of directives in efforts to try to highlight its consistency in its approach. Secondly, the paper will use case law and the opinion of academics (enter the name of the academics later) to highlight its inconsistencies using the legal mechanisms that have been introduced by the Courts to try to compensate for the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives. Namely, indirect effect, incidental horizontal

Identify and discuss these copyright challenges in the modern digital economy using examples from case law.

The rise of the Internet era opened the whole new market for traditional media full of opportunities as well as threats. Online piracy being one of them because the music and film industry loses £5.4bn in a year and if it was reduced by 10% it could have created up to 13 thousand jobs in the UK. There are various attempts taken to fight with online piracy; a case study of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement will be considered as well as other legislations attempting to regulate copyrights in the Internet. This

The enduring fascination for people is that they want law to be flexible in the matter of copyright. This was clearly expressed by Ed Mayo, Chief Executive of Consumer Focus quoting "UK copyright law is the oldest, but also the most out of date. Before addressing the question it’s important to look at the history and definition of UK Copyright law. It has grown from this beginning to form the main legal basis for the international publishing industry, which contributes so much to literature, learning and culture not only in the UK but it has crossed different nation’s borders.

Directives do not automatically form a part of English law, and therefore Rochelle needs to rely on the doctrine of direct effect if she is to succeed with this Directive. Direct effect applies in principle, to all binding EU law. Broadly the doctrine is ‘provisions of binding EU law which are sufficiently clear, precise, and unconditional to be justiciable can be invoked and relied on by individuals, before national courts’, however such definitions are disputed. (Page 180 – 181 EU LAW text cases and materials 5th edition – Paul Craig)