Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 0:34:30 GMT -5
The referring court also doubts that a company such as Mircom can enjoy the protection conferred by Directive 2004/48 , insofar as it does not actually use the rights transferred by the authors of the films in question, but limits itself to claiming compensation to alleged infringers , a pattern of action that resembles that which characterizes a “copyright troll” ( copyright troll ). The national court raises a huge set of questions that are reformulated by the CJ in order to provide a useful answer.
Pronouncements
The first preliminary question is reformulated by the CJEU in the sense that, through it, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted in the sense of which constitutes a making available to the public the upload, from the terminal Fax Lists equipment of a user of a peer-to-peer network ( peer-to-peer ) and to the equipment of other users of said network , of parts, previously downloaded by the user before cited, of a multimedia file containing a protected work, even though these parts are only usable on their own from a certain download volume and, as a consequence of the configuration of the BitTorrent client exchange software, It is the software itself that automatically gives rise to the aforementioned load.
The ruling is based on the fact that, in the present case, as can be seen from the order for reference, any user of the peer-to-peer network can easily reconstitute the original file from parts available on the computers of the users who participate in the same community. The fact that a user does not individually manage to download the entire original file does not prevent them from making available to their peers the parts of that file that they have managed to download to their computer and, in this way, contributing to generate a situation in which, ultimately, all users participating in the community have access to the entire file.
It also turns out that every user of the peer-to-peer network in question who has not deactivated the upload function of the BitTorrent client exchange software uploads to that network the parts of the multimedia files that he or she has previously downloaded on your computer. Whenever it becomes clear – which is the responsibility of the referring court to verify – that the users in question have decided to use that software and have given their consent to its execution after having been duly informed about its characteristics, such users must be considered to be acting with full knowledge of their behavior and the consequences it may have.
The CJEU warns that the computers of these users who share the same file constitute the peer- to-peer network itself, called the "exchange community", in which they play the same role as the servers in the operation of the Network. (World Wide Web).
It is also clear that such a network is used by a considerable number of people, as can be seen from the high number of IP addresses registered by Mircom. Furthermore, these users can access, at any time and simultaneously, the protected works that are exchanged through said platform. Consequently, this making available is addressed to an undetermined number of potential recipients and involves a considerable number of people.
Pronouncements
The first preliminary question is reformulated by the CJEU in the sense that, through it, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted in the sense of which constitutes a making available to the public the upload, from the terminal Fax Lists equipment of a user of a peer-to-peer network ( peer-to-peer ) and to the equipment of other users of said network , of parts, previously downloaded by the user before cited, of a multimedia file containing a protected work, even though these parts are only usable on their own from a certain download volume and, as a consequence of the configuration of the BitTorrent client exchange software, It is the software itself that automatically gives rise to the aforementioned load.
The ruling is based on the fact that, in the present case, as can be seen from the order for reference, any user of the peer-to-peer network can easily reconstitute the original file from parts available on the computers of the users who participate in the same community. The fact that a user does not individually manage to download the entire original file does not prevent them from making available to their peers the parts of that file that they have managed to download to their computer and, in this way, contributing to generate a situation in which, ultimately, all users participating in the community have access to the entire file.
It also turns out that every user of the peer-to-peer network in question who has not deactivated the upload function of the BitTorrent client exchange software uploads to that network the parts of the multimedia files that he or she has previously downloaded on your computer. Whenever it becomes clear – which is the responsibility of the referring court to verify – that the users in question have decided to use that software and have given their consent to its execution after having been duly informed about its characteristics, such users must be considered to be acting with full knowledge of their behavior and the consequences it may have.
The CJEU warns that the computers of these users who share the same file constitute the peer- to-peer network itself, called the "exchange community", in which they play the same role as the servers in the operation of the Network. (World Wide Web).
It is also clear that such a network is used by a considerable number of people, as can be seen from the high number of IP addresses registered by Mircom. Furthermore, these users can access, at any time and simultaneously, the protected works that are exchanged through said platform. Consequently, this making available is addressed to an undetermined number of potential recipients and involves a considerable number of people.