Editor's note: SBS It's a private broadcaster, The program bearer signal is transmitted to other allocators through the private line (distributors) , Use a different technology from the allocator (cable, satellite, xDSL line, And so on) Transmit the received signal to the respective user. SABAM As the copyright collective governing body for the rights of the authors of musical works in Belgium SBS Take to court, What is the reason? How will the court decide? Look down together.

[background]

SBS It's a private broadcaster, use "Direct transport (direct injection) " Technology broadcasts radio programs in Belgium, The program bearer signal is transmitted to other allocators through the private line (distributors) , The signal is not touched by the user at any time during transmission. Signal receiver, Immediate distributor, And then we use different techniques (cable, satellite, xDSL line, And so on) Transmit the received signal to the respective user. SABAM It is the collective copyright authority responsible for the management of the rights of the authors of musical works in Belgium. The agency will SBS Take to court, It is considered that the transmission of program signals by the latter constitutes the communication to the public, Therefore, Should pass SABAM Obtain permission from the corresponding copyright owner and pay remuneration. but, SBS The allocator that transmits the received signal to the end user is the subject of communication behavior to the public. After the Court of Appeal in Brussels accepted the case, Appeal to the European Court of Justice (Court of Justice) confirm SBS Constitutes an act of communication to the public in the sense of Community law.

[conclusion]

In-depth analysis of this case ruling "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonization of specific copyright and related rights in the information society (The first 2001/29/EC No) " (Hereinafter referred to as "European Union regulation 2001/29/EC Number instruction" ) The first 3. 1 prescribed "Communicate behavior to the public" Conceptual problem of. Just as it did in the case of settled precedent, The European Court of Justice first analyzed separately the two constituent concepts of conduct provided for in the above article. The first concept is, "Propagation behavior (the act of communication) " .

For that matter, The European Court of Justice previously ruled against "Communicate to the public" A broad interpretation is given: Refers to the "It can make the works accessible to the public" act, Whether or not the work is actually accessible to the public. For details, see the following case: 2011 years 10 month 4 day, Football Association Premier League case (Case number: C-403/08) ; 2011 years 10 month 13 day, Airfield case (Case number: C-431/09) ; and, 2012 years 3 month 15 day, PPL case (Case number: C-162/10) . The second concept is, "public (public) " . Just as the European Court of Justice SGAE case (Case number: C-306/05) and ITV Broadcasting and Others case (Case number: C-607/11) As stated in the ruling, "public" Refers to an unspecified number of recipients, Potential TV audience, And that means a lot of people. If the work or service has previously been made available to the public, Only new "spread" When the target public of the behavior is different from the public that previously transmitted the behavior, Talent composition "Communicate to the public" act (See also 2014 years 2 month 13 day, Svensson Case judgment, Case number: C-466/12) .

For that matter, The European Court of Justice has stated that, The new public means "Not included in the scope of the first dissemination authorized by the copyright owner" The public. An important factor considered by the European Court of Justice in determining whether a particular public constitutes a new public is, The participation degree of the actor who carries out the second communication behavior. If the subject of the second transmission act (In the act of transmission) Merely acting as a technical intermediary, Then the European Court of Justice held that this second act of communication did not constitute an act of communication to the public, Can only be seen as a continuation of the first act of transmission. The European Court of Justice is particularly emphatic, Receiving in this case SBS The behavior of the signal distributor "It does not merely provide technical means to ensure or improve the collector's reception of the original broadcast signal" , It constitutes a separate service. Through this behavior, the actor obtains economic benefits and enables the public to access the works involved. Therefore, The European Court of Justice found a new act of public communication in the case, distributor (Not the defendant in this case SBS) Allow public access to the works involved, Is the agent.

[comment]

The European Court of Justice further explained the concept and scope of the right of public communication through this case, This is in all kinds of intellectual property issues, If not the most controversial, It is also the issue on which the European Court of Justice is most frequently asked to rule. Although the European Court of Justice's analysis of this case has been fully included in previous cases of similar controversy, Part II Pair "public" The analysis is not even necessary compared to previous rulings. By the European Court of Justice's own standards, A general communication process to the public, Agents use different communication techniques, There are two communication behaviors for different user groups (See also, 2013 years 3 month 7 day, TVCatchup case, Case number: C-607/11) . In any case, The ruling in this case does help clarify the controversial "Communicate to the public" concept.

compile: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property cover image source: Bing Pictures