recently, European court of justice ruling, So-called copyright hooligans can demand an alleged bitstream (BitTorrent) The pirates paid him cash to settle the case.

The European Court of Justice clarified, Sharing a piece of data associated with a bitstream transmission still represents dissemination to the public, It says only in local courts can the cases in question be found to be abuse-free, Reasonable and moderate, Before the trial can proceed.

Cyprus-based company MircomInternational Content Management & Consulting (Hereinafter referred to as "Mircom" ) Is a well-known company in the field of copyright speculation. The company often acts as a middleman between rights holders and legal action against alleged pirates, Asked for a cash settlement to dismiss the lawsuit. Mircom Is often the center of controversy.

2019 years, The decision made by the British High Court Mircom Had to give up trying to get Virgin Media as a client. In Denmark, The company was accused of having no right to Sue. Mircom Requests for user data lead to disputes 2019 years, Mircom Belgium's largest cable broadband provider Telenet Which was accused of using bitstreams to download pornographic movies IP The subscriber's personal details behind the address. Telenet At an Internet service provider Proximus and Scarlet Belgium With the support of, In the commercial court of Antwerp (Ondernemingsrechtbank Antwerpen) Fight back, To protect its customers.

As part of the proceedings, The court referred several questions to the European Court of Justice for clarification. The first concerns the nature of bitstream propagation, And trying to determine which pieces of copyrighted work to download and upload (The fragments themselves are not usable) Whether to constitute "Copyright instruction" Referred to in "Communicate to the public" . The second question concerns clarification of rights related to non-use of copyright (Except for settlement requirements through legal proceedings) Of the copyright contract holder (licensee) Whether they have the same rights as ordinary copyright rights holders.

The European Court of Justice's ruling on whether uploading clips of copyrighted works constitutes infringement, The European Court of Justice clarified, Even if the pieces can't be used alone, But the user is being "Timely notification" Such snippet characteristics also effectively consent to share the snippet with others. The European Court of Justice wrote in its ruling: "When a user downloads a fragment of a file, it also provides other users with the opportunity to upload the fragment.

In this respect, The court held that, It is virtually impossible for users to download even the smallest snippets of a work, And any positive use of the protected work by the user with full understanding of the consequences of the user's actions may constitute 'Provide copyrighted works' . " The second question involves the image Mircom Such an entity——To exercise no rights other than to recover damages from the alleged infringer, The court held that, Under EU law, As long as certain conditions are met, There is no fundamental problem with this approach.

specifically, The claims of copyright hooligans should not be considered "abuse" , However, the threshold must be determined by the courts of each member state in accordance with its specific national circumstances, That could divide opinion within the EU. however, On this point, The European Court of Justice does provide an idea——This is also at the heart of many copyright hooligan claims——If you don't pay compensation, There are few cases where copyright hooligans still Sue. "The court stated that, Any findings of such abuses should be referred to the referral court, For example, The court may determine for this purpose whether legal proceedings have indeed been initiated in cases where an amicable negotiated settlement has been refused. "

"Specifically regarding requests for information, For example Mircom Request made, The Court found that the claim could not be deemed inadmissible on the ground that it was made at a pre-proceeding stage. but, If the request is unreasonable or excessive, It must be dismissed, This is for the referral court to decide.

Through this interpretation, the Court wishes to ensure a high level of protection of intellectual property in the internal market. " IP Address collection and processing Mircom possessed IP Address by FileWatchBT (By the Germany-based Media Protector GmbH operation) The software represents its records. Telenet Collect it IP The legality of the address approach has been called into question, But the court said there was no fundamental problem. The European Court of Justice held that "Copyright instruction" In principle, nothing is excluded "Intellectual property holders and their third-party representatives systematically document peer-to-peer network users whose Internet connections are allegedly being used for infringing activities IP address" .

The court further clarified, There is no problem in communicating the names and postal addresses of these users to the right holders or third parties to file damages claims in civil courts. but, Any initiative or request must be made "reasonable, Moderate and not abusive" , And on the basis of national legislative measures. similarly, It will be up to the courts of each member state to decide. The European court's ruling largely follows that of Judge Spurner (Szpunar) in 2020 Recommendations published in 2000.

(Compiled from torrentfreak. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Wang Dan　proofread: Rason group

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.