It is reported that the Brussels Court of First instance has on the Belgian copyright rights promotion association (Sabam) Sue social networking sites Netlog The preliminary ruling in this case provided a reference to the European Court of Justice, The European Court of Justice was asked to answer two questions about increasing the responsibility of social-networking services to ensure copyright protection: One is whether to require social networking services to actively monitor and prevent users from uploading copyright-infringing content? The second is whether these sites will monitor and block uploads of infringing content only if they are informed by copyright holders that their sites contain infringing content?

Sabam An application was made to the Belgian courts to initiate compulsory proceedings, Try to force Netlog Establish mechanisms to monitor what users upload to their sites, And check whether the content violates copyright licensing regulations, If it is violated, Netlog We need to stop this content from being uploaded. Netlog The current implementation is "notice/delete" mechanism, That is to say if Sabam (And other rights holders) discover Netlog There is infringing content on the website to be aware of the website, Netlog The infringing content will be removed. This practice is very common, Because as a person "Third-party platform" , If these sites comply with the copyright owner's request to do so, In accordance with relevant EU regulations, These sites are exempt from liability.

The European Court of Justice Sabam v Netlog In the decision of the case "Electronic commerce directive" The interpretation of the exemption clause and its effect "Electronic commerce directive" with "Intellectual property enforcement directive" (IPRED) I'm afraid the crossover part of the explanation is pioneering. "Electronic commerce directive" stipulation "Third-party platform" Should not be forced to participate in surveillance activities (The European Commission will explain these terms in the coming months) . On the other hand, IPRED It also provides that if "Third-party platform" The services provided are used by others to infringe copyright, Can be applied to the "Third-party platform" Issue an injunction. Perhaps only the European Court of Justice can explain the apparently contradictory intersection of the two directives in this case.

Consider the number of social sites and their increasing popularity, It will be interesting to see how the European Court of Justice interprets the issue at hand. (Compiled from www. mondaq. com)

(source: China Intellectual Property Protection Network)