Hylly
Henkilönnimi Danbury, Richard, kirjoittaja.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Why Article 15 of the Directive on Copyright in the Single Digital Market Is a Bad Idea
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa European Intellectual Property Review, ISSN 0142-0461 ; 43(11)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. This opinion looks at art.15 of the Directive on Copyright in the Single Digital Market (CDSM Directive), the press publishers’ right. Article 15 creates a right ancillary to copyright that benefits some publishers. It is triggered when some agents perform some online acts in respect of some specific content: in brief, online reproduction and making available news content produced by news publishers by commercial internet concerns. The opinion argues that art.15 is deficient. Among other criticisms that can be made of the provision, the one made here is that the rationales for its passing contained the Recitals of the Directive are unconvincing given the nature of the right, and consequently it unduly benefits commercial news publishers. Moreover, the way art.15 was passed reflects poorly on the European legislature.
Asiasana
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke European Intellectual Property Review, 0142-0461 ; 43(11)
*000 ab a ar
*00116749
*008 s2021||||xxk|||||||||||||||||eng||
*041 $aeng
*1001 $aDanbury, Richard,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aWhy Article 15 of the Directive on Copyright in the Single Digital Market Is a Bad Idea /$cDr Richard Danbury.
*260 $c2021
*300 $as. 695-697
*4901 $aEuropean Intellectual Property Review,$x0142-0461 ;$v43(11)
*520 $aThis opinion looks at art.15 of the Directive on Copyright in the Single Digital Market (CDSM Directive), the press publishers’ right. Article 15 creates a right ancillary to copyright that benefits some publishers. It is triggered when some agents perform some online acts in respect of some specific content: in brief, online reproduction and making available news content produced by news publishers by commercial internet concerns. The opinion argues that art.15 is deficient. Among other criticisms that can be made of the provision, the one made here is that the rationales for its passing contained the Recitals of the Directive are unconvincing given the nature of the right, and consequently it unduly benefits commercial news publishers. Moreover, the way art.15 was passed reflects poorly on the European legislature.
*650 7$atekijänoikeuslaki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p9817
*650 7$aEU-oikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p20733$2yso/fin
*650 7$aEU-direktiivit$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p10768$2yso/fin
*650 7$adigitaaliset tallenteet$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2164
*653 $aDSM-direktiivi
*653 $aartikla 15
*830 0$aEuropean Intellectual Property Review,$x0142-0461 ;$v43(11)
*852 $hSA-EIPR
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.