Tekijänoikeuden erikoiskirjasto

"Ocilion" : Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) 13 July 2023 – Case No. C-426/21; ECLI:EU:C:2023:564
Muistilista on tyhjä
Vis
Hylly
  • SA-IIC
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö
  • "Ocilion" : Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) 13 July 2023 – Case No. C-426/21; ECLI:EU:C:2023:564
Julkaistu
  • Springer, Heidelberg : 2024.
Ulkoasutiedot
  • s. 464–465
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa
  • IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 55(3)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms.
  • 1. Article 2 and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the exclusive right of authors and broadcasting organisations to authorise or prohibit the reproduction of protected works does not cover a service offered by an operator of retransmission of online television broadcasts to commercial customers allowing, on the basis of a cloud-hosting solution or based on the necessary hardware and software made available on premises, a continuous or one-off recording of those broadcasts, on the initiative of the end users of that service, where the copy made by the first of those users to have selected a broadcast is made available, by the operator, to an indeterminate number of users who wish to view the same content. 2. Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the supply by an operator of retransmission of online television broadcasts to its commercial customer of the necessary hardware and software, including technical assistance, which enables that customer to allow its own customers to replay online television broadcasts, does not constitute a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, even if that operator is aware that its service may be used to access protected broadcasting content without the consent of the authors.
Asiasana
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke
  • IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 0018-9855 ; 55(3).
*000      ab a        ar
*00125227
*008      s2024    gw     e     |||| 0|eng |            
*040  $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*24500$a"Ocilion" :$bDecision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) 13 July 2023 – Case No. C-426/21; ECLI:EU:C:2023:564 /$cOcilion IPTV Technologies GmbH v. Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH and Puls 4 TV GmbH & Co. KG Directive 2001/29/EC, Arts. 3, 5(2)(b).
*264 1$aHeidelberg :$bSpringer,$c2024.
*300  $as. 464–465
*336  $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337  $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338  $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v55(3)
*520  $a1. Article 2 and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the exclusive right of authors and broadcasting organisations to authorise or prohibit the reproduction of protected works does not cover a service offered by an operator of retransmission of online television broadcasts to commercial customers allowing, on the basis of a cloud-hosting solution or based on the necessary hardware and software made available on premises, a continuous or one-off recording of those broadcasts, on the initiative of the end users of that service, where the copy made by the first of those users to have selected a broadcast is made available, by the operator, to an indeterminate number of users who wish to view the same content. 2. Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the supply by an operator of retransmission of online television broadcasts to its commercial customer of the necessary hardware and software, including technical assistance, which enables that customer to allow its own customers to replay online television broadcasts, does not constitute a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, even if that operator is aware that its service may be used to access protected broadcasting content without the consent of the authors.
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 7$atekijänoikeuslaki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p9817
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$apäätökset$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2868$2yso/fin
*650 7$aEU-oikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p20733$2yso/fin
*650 7$atelevisio (joukkoviestimet)$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p5759
*650 7$alähetystekniikka$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p28005$2yso/fin
*653  $ayleisölle välittäminen
*830 0$aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v55(3).
*852  $hSA-IIC
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.
Vis
Lähetä
Niteen tunnusTilaEräpäiväKuuluuSijaintiHylly
Ex1Saatavana (ei lainattavissa) KirjastoKirjasto SA-IIC