|
| |
2001/29/EC
|
| |
European Parliament & Council
|
| |
Arts 47(2), 55 & 95
|
| |
L167, 2001-06-22 , p 10<br/>L6, 2002-01-10 , p 70
|
| |
2001-05-22
|
| |
2001-06-22
|
| |
2002-12-22
|
| |
C108, 1998-04-07 , p 6<br/>C180, 1999-06-25 , p 6
|
| |
C407, 1998-12-28 , p 30
|
| |
C150, 1999-05-28 , p 171
|
| |
 
|
| |
&mdash
|
| |
92/100/EEC , 93/98/EEC
|
| |
|
| |
&mdash
|
The ,
commonly known as the or the '''Information Society Directive (Infosoc)''', is a
European Union Directive in the field of
Copyright
law, made under the
Internal Market provisions of the
Treaty Of Rome . It is intended to
implement the
WIPO Copyright Treaty , to which the European Union is a party.Council Decision of 16 March 2000 on the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (2000/278/EC), ''OJ'' no. L089 of
2000-04-11 , pp. 6–7.
This highly controversial Directive was, at the time, the most heavily lobbied measure to pass the
European Parliament .http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/opinion-EIPR.html
In its final form, it includes only very narrow exceptions to
Anti-circumvention Measures and
Exclusive Right s. As a result, it is often regarded as a victory for copyright-owning interests (publishing, film, music
and major software companies) over copyright users' interests.
Many important details are not specified in the Directive, and as a result, Member States have significant freedom in
certain aspects of
Implementation . Due to escalating public awareness of the importance of copyright legislation, the
process of implementation has not been entirely predictable. The
European Commission has taken proceedings in the
European Court Of Justice against six Member States for failure to implement the Directive within the required period
(before
2002-12-22 ).
''Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain'' (Case C-31/04), ''OJ'' no. C171 of 9 July 2005, p. 3.
''Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland'' (Case C-56/04), ''OJ'' no. C31 of 5 February 2005, pp. 3–4.
''Commission of the European Communities v French Republic'' (Case C-59/04), ''OJ'' no. C082 of 2 April 2005, p. 5.
''Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'' (Case C-88/04), ''OJ'' no. C045 of 19 February 2005, p. 11. ''Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden'' (Case C-91/04), ''OJ'' no. C019 of 22 January 2005, p. 8.
''Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium'' (Case C-143/04), ''OJ'' no. C006 of 8 January 2005, p. 20.
Articles 2–4 contain a brief definition of the property rights associated with
Copyright and
Related Rights .
They distinguish the "reproduction right" (Art. 2) from the right of "communication to the public" or "making
available to the public" (Art. 3): the latter is specifically intended to cover publication and transmission on the
internet. The two names for the right derive from the
WIPO Copyright Treaty and the
WIPO Performances And Phonograms Treaty
(Arts. 8 & 10 respectively).
The right of communication to the public or making available to the public is also distinguished from the "distribution right"
(Art. 4) by the fact that it is not subject to the
First-sale Doctrine .
Article 5 lists the limitations which Member States may apply to copyright and related rights. The restrictive nature of
the list was one source of controversy over the directive: in principle, Member States may ''only'' apply limitations which
are on the agreed list, although other exceptions and limitations which were in place on
2001-06-22 may remain in force
{Link without Title} . There are no exceptions to copyright (classes of work which are not eligible for copyright), although
many (but not all) Member States exclude laws from copyright protection.
One limitation is obligatory: transient or incidental copying as part of a network transmission or legal use. Hence
Internet Service Provider s are not liable for the data they transmit, even if it infringes copyright. The other
limitations are optional, with Member States choosing which they apply. All limitations must be applied in accordance with
the
Berne Three-step Test , that is in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the
work and which do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder
{Link without Title} .
Article 6 of the Directive provides protection for "technological measures", any technology device or component
which is designed to restrict or prevent certain acts which are not authorised by the rightholder. Member States must
provide "adequate legal protection", which may be civil, criminal or a mix of the two. Technological measures are only
protected if they are "effective", ie they actually work. Rightholders who use such anti-circumvention measures must
allow reproduction which is permitted under the
Limitations To Copyright Protection {Link without Title} .
Digital Rights Management information is similarly protected (Art. 7).
As of September 2006, only
Spain and the
Czech Republic had yet to implement the Directive at the federal level. Some
implementation measures include:
- , better known as ''DADVSI''
