Editor's note: VCAST It's a British company, It offers its customers the ability to record programmes on Italian television channels through a cloud storage system. plaintiff RTI Be subject to VCAST The above activities affect one of the TV channels. There is evidence of user use VCAST The system can record TV programs by program or time slot. VCAST Collect TV signals through its own antenna, And store the recorded content in the storage space that the user previously acquired from a third party. Whether the action complies with EU law? Look down together.

[background]

VCAST It's a British company, It offers its customers the ability to record programmes on Italian television channels through a cloud storage system. plaintiff RTI Be subject to VCAST The above activities affect one of the TV channels. There is evidence of user use VCAST The system can record TV programs by program or time slot. VCAST Collect TV signals through its own antenna, And store the recorded content in the storage space that the user previously acquired from a third party. VCAST That the services they provided were legal, The reason is that Italian law allows the recording of television programmes for private use. The Turin District Court held that, The key to resolving this dispute lies in understanding the relevant EU law. Therefore, the court decided to suspend the trial, And asked the European Court of Justice (Court of Justice) To make a preliminary determination on the following questions: The laws of Member States prohibit enterprises as legal persons from providing natural persons with recorded copies of copyrighted works through cloud services without the permission of the copyright owner, Whether this provision meets "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonization of parts of copyright and adjacent 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 5. 2. b Provision of article? contrary, If the laws of the member states permit such acts, But by setting up something like compulsory licensing, Compensation shall be given to copyright owners, Whether it complies with EU law?

[conclusion]

First of all, The European Court of Justice summed up the exceptions to private copying that have been identified in recent cases, It also emphasizes that the principle of prudence and strictness should be followed when applying exceptions (reference 2014 years 4 month 10 day "ACI Adam" Judgment of a case, Case number: C-435/12) . Beneficiaries who meet the applicable exceptions may use third-party equipment and devices for private copying (reference 2010 years 10 month 21 day "Padawan" Judgment of a case, Case number: C-467/08) . but, VCAST Not only according to the user's request to record and store video, It also allows users to watch certain TV programs over the Internet and record them remotely. In this sense, Except for the act of copying, VCAST The recordings are also available to the Internet public, Constitute the act of disseminating works to the public, Obviously not belong to "European Union regulation 2001/29/EC Number instruction" The first 5. 2. b Exceptions to the provisions of the article, Because this clause applies only to the act of copying a work. In this case, Although the work in question has been broadcast by television channels, Due to VCAST Reproductions of the above works are disseminated using a technical method different from that of television channels, Therefore constitute (re) Act of spreading works. For that matter, No reexamination VCAST Whether the audience of communication behavior constitutes a new public group (reference 2013 years 3 month 7 day "ITV Broadcasting" Judgment of a case, Case number: C-607/11) . Therefore, VCAST The act constitutes the dissemination of works to different public groups, The copyright owner's permission is required. In summary, European court of justice ruling, "European Union regulation 2001/29/EC Number instruction" The first 5. 2. b Article shall be understood as, It is prohibited to allow enterprises as legal persons without the permission of copyright owners under the laws of member countries, Provide natural persons with remote recording services of copyrighted works through the network cloud system.

[comment]

What's unique about this case is that, The question posed to the European Court of Justice by the Court of Admissibility consisted of two completely opposite assumptions: One hypothesis is that Italian law allows cases to be contested, The other is to ban it. This shows that, In addition to the relationship between EU law and national law of member States, The courts of member States may also make individual requests on matters of national law (European Court of Justice) Give an explanation. Another interesting and enlightening thing about this case, The ECJ ruling was not limited to answering questions from the court of Cassation, That is to say, the behavior in dispute in the case does not belong to the category of private copying, further, identification VCAST The act actually constitutes the communication of the work to the public, The conclusion is explained in detail.

compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel source: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights