Alain Strowel, Professor, Facultes Universitaires Saint

European Union and International
Developments Regarding Copyright
Enforcement on the Internet
Actions against intermediaries, « graduated
responses » and other initiatives
Alain Strowel
Prof. Facultés universitaires Saint Louis –
Université de Liège, UCL, Avocat, Covington &
Burling LLP, Bruxelles
Véronique Delforge
Assistante droits intellectuels Université de
Liège & Avocat – Cabinet Ulys
Outline
•
•
•
•
The challenge
The European framework
Injunctions against intermediaries
Graduated responses and other systems in EU:
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
France
UK
Ireland
Belgium
The Netherlands
Denmark
• Systems outside Europe
▫ USA
▫ New Zealand
▫ South Korea
• Conclusions
The challenge
How to reconcile the views
and rights of:
• Right owners: copyright, injunctions
against intermediaries, IP as fundamental
right…
• ISPs: no monitoring obligation, freedom
to conduct business, net neutrality…
• Citizens: data protection, Internet access,
freedom of expression…
The ‘Old’ Hard Law Framework in the EU
Rightholders
Directive 2001/29/EC
(art.8)
“Member States shall ensure that
rightholders are in a position to apply
for an injunction against intermediaries
whose services are used by a third
party to infringe a copyright or related
right.”
“(…) In many cases such
intermediaries are best placed to bring
such infringing activities to an end “
(rec.59)
Directive 2004/48/EC
« (…) rightholders should have the
possibility of applying for an injunction
against an intermediary whose
services are being used by a third
party to infringe the rightholder's
industrial property right. (…).»(rec.23)
ISP
Users
Directive 2000/31/EC
“(…) Member States shall not impose
a general obligation on providers,
when providing the services…, to
monitor the information which they
transmit or store, nor a general
obligation actively to seek facts or
circumstances indicating illegal
activity” (art.15)
Directive 2009/140/EC
“Measures taken by Member States regarding endusers access' to, or use of, services and applications
through electronic communications networks shall
respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of
natural persons, as guaranteed by the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of
Community law (…)” (art3.bis)
“The limitations of the liability of
intermediary service providers
established in this Directive do not
affect the possibility of injunctions of
different kinds; such injunctions can in
particular consist of orders by courts or
administrative authorities requiring the
termination or prevention of any
infringement, including the removal of
illegal information or the disabling of
access to it” (rec.45)
Directive 2002/58/EC
Directive 95/46/EC
New piece: Art. 3 Telecom Package
The end-user access may be subject to measures if :
Respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons
Are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic
society
Procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Right to effective judicial protection and due process
Respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence and the
right to privacy
A prior, fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed
The right to effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed
A «new internet
freedom »
The ‘New’ European Soft Law:Vague Orientations
Communications
(Commission)
Resolutions
(Eur. Parliament)
Strategy
(Commission)
Education & Prevention
Development and
accessibility of the online
offer
Cooperation and
enforcement
Reports
(for ex. on Enforcement
Directive)
Opinions
(Data Protection
Supervisor)
Recent Developments at EU Level
Court of Justice of the EU
Recent decisions:
• Scarlet/SABAM (24.11.2011)
• Netlog/SABAM (16.02.2012)
• Bonnier (20.4.2012)
Pending cases:
• UPC Telekabel Wien (filtering)
• ACI v. Stichting (private copying)
European Parlement
QuickTime™ et un
décompresseur
sont requis pour visionner cette image.
Could filtering be as easy
as that? From the IPKat
Rejection of ACTA (July 2012) because of Internet provision (art. 27)
Injunctions Against Intermediaries
• Definition of the “outer limit”:
▫ Hosting providers: CJEU, 16 Febr. 2012, C-560/10
(Netlog v. SABAM)
▫ Access providers: CJEU, 24 Nov. 2011, C-70/10
(Scarlet v. SABAM)
• Proportionality of injunctions against access
provider:
▫ UK: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. British
Telecommunications PLC, EWHC 1981 (Ch.) of
July 28, 2011 et EWHC 2714 (Ch.) of October 26,
8
2011 (Newsbin2)
Art. 8(3) of 2001/29 Directive
• Art. 8(3): « Member States shall ensure that
rightholders are in a position to apply for an
injunction against intermediaries whose
services are used by a third party to infringe a
copyright or related right. »
▫Independent from any liability (thus compatible
with liability exemptions of e-Commerce Dir.)
▫Based on a broad notion a « duty to care »
9
Art. 8(3) of 2001/29 Directive
• Recital (59): “In the digital environment, in particular, the
services of intermediaries may increasingly be used by
third parties for infringing activities. In many cases such
intermediaries are best placed to bring such
infringing activities to an end. Therefore, without
prejudice to any other sanctions and remedies available,
rightholders should have the possibility of applying for an
injunction against an intermediary who carries a third
party's infringement of a protected work or other subjectmatter in a network. This possibility should be available
even where the acts carried out by the intermediary
are exempted under Article 5. The conditions and
modalities relating to such injunctions should be left to the
national law of the Member States.”
10
No broad filtering obligation for access
providers (Scarlet)
“Do
Directives (...) in the light of Articles 8 and 10 of the European
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, permit Member States to authorise a national court,
(…) to order an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to introduce, for all
its customers, in abstracto and as a preventive measure,
exclusively at the cost of that ISP and for an unlimited period, a
system for filtering all electronic communications, both incoming
and outgoing, passing via its services, in particular those involving
the use of peer-to-peer software, in order to identify on its network
the sharing of electronic files containing a musical,
cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which the
applicant claims to hold rights, and subsequently to block the
transfer of such files, either at the point at which they are
11
requested or at which they are sent? “
No broad filtering obligation for access
providers (Scarlet)
• The question for the CJEU related to:
▫ a system for filtering all electronic communications
 both incoming and outgoing
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
for all its customers
in abstracto
as a preventive measure
exclusively at the cost of that ISP
for an unlimited period
to block the transfer of such files
• No broad filtering obligations
12
But narrow injunctions/filtering
obligations against access providers can
be proportional
• UK:
• Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. BT PLC, EWHC 1981
(Ch.) of July 28, 2011 et EWHC 2714 (Ch.) of October 26,
2011 (Newsbin2)
• Dramatico Entertainment Ltd & others v British Sky
Broadcasting Ltd & others [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch) (20
February 2012) (The Pirate Bay)
• Belgium:
• Court of appeal, Antwerp, BAF v. Telenet & Belgacom, 26
Sept. 2011
• NL:
• Court of The Hague, BREIN v. XS4All & Ziggo (11 Jan.
2012)
• Austria:
• UPC Telekabel now before the CJEU (C-314/12)
13
Filtering technologies
• Technologies for preventing piracy:
▫ URL blocking
▫ DN blocking
▫ Protocol/Port blocking
▫ Content identification
▫ Bandwidth shaping (Deep Packet
Inspection)
▫ Account suspension/termination
14
Graduated responses in Europe
Graduated responses in place - not implemented in UK
Graduated response considered
Others measures
Finland
Norway
Graduates responses not yet under
serious consideration
Sweden
Denmark
Ireland
UK
Belgium
Germany
France
Spain
Portugal
Czech Republic
Austria
Romania
France
Two laws on graduated response:
•
•
•
Law 2009-669 of 12 June 2009 on « creation and internet »
Law 2009-1311 of 28 Oct. 2009 on criminal aspects
Implementing Decrees
Two avenues are explored:
1) New sanctions: in case of ‘negligence in the implementation of the
security measures’
•
•
If negligence: fine of 1500 € / Not a copyright infringement/sanction
Décret n°2010-695 of 25 June 2010 - R. 335-5 Code de la propriété intellectuelle
Additional sanction: suspension of internet access for 1 month
2) New support for licit offers through the labelling system
France
Label PUR
France
pour lever l’anonymat
France
How to assess the HADOPI system :
•
•
•
Less illicit sharing of works?
Improvement of legal offer
Effect of recommandations?
Numbers (July 2012):
•
•
•
•
1.090.000 1st email warnings = 4,7% of all internet
subscribers in France
99.000 2nd warning
314 files in phase 3 (150 since Dec. 2011)
13.09.12: first decision: 150 € of fine
UK
• Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 “CPDA”
 Civil and criminal sanctions (s. 97A, 107(2), 24(2), 27(2), etc.)
“The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an
injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual
knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright. » (97.a)
• « Digital Economy Act »(DEA) - 8 April 2010
▫ Notification system with ISP obligations: to notify subscribers and to
maintain infringement lists according to Code
 Code of practice: Draft initial Obligation Code (OFCOM)- May/July 2010
▫ 6 March 2012: Court of appeal confirms the DEA in British Telecom &
Talk Talk
▫ 26 June 2012: new version of draft code from OFCOM – public
consultation
▫ Implementation for 2014?
UK
• Notification process under the OFCOM’s authority
Identification of
cases of
infringement by RH
and sending IP
addresses to ISP
Check by ISP and
notification to IP
addresses’
associated
subscribers
Rightholders
ISP
Communication of
the recidivist user’s
identification data –
Court order
« Final warning »
sent by RH before
likely court action
Rightholders
Judge : Norwish Pharmacal
ISP keep track of
the number of
reports about each
subscriber
ISP
On request by a
RH, ISP compile on an
anonymous basis a list
of subscribers (above a
threshold/ see code)
Rightholders
OFCOM ‘s code of practice
Aim : to implement ISP’s technical duties – system of quality assurance, etc.
Suspension of access? – Only upon State Secretary’s decision
UK
OFCOM : Consultation of 26 June 2012
UK
Allocation of cost : ISP/Right Holders
Ireland
• Copyright and Related Act (2000)
• Private deal in Jan. 2009: Agreement between EIRCOM (ISP)/ IRMA (Irish
Recorded Music Association) = court settlement
DetectNet- detect illegal
download-identify
computer and inform RH
Rightholders(Irma)
Implementation of a STP
by Eircom: notification
to subscribers detected
infringing copyrights
(phone call)
ISP (Eircom)
Without any reaction
« Removing of the
Internet Service »
7 days to 1 year
ISP (Eircom)
14 d – on a second
detection : written
warning by Eircom to
subscribers – threat of
disconnection
ISP (Eircom)
Third detection: review
all the evidence/possible
representation Termination
notice giving 14j before
internet connection be
removed
ISP (Eircom)
Ireland
 May 2010: three months pilot program to implement the policy
 11 Oct. 2010: Dublin High Court : legal victory of UPC:
questioning about the legality of the agreement IRMA/EIRCOM
 Dec. 2011: Data Protection Commissionner: violation of privacy
 June 2012: overturned by High Court
 29 Febr. 2012: amendment to Copyright and Related Rights Act
2000 – injonction to ISPs to block access to infringing sites
(injunction against intermediary – art. 8(3) Dir 2001/29)
“(5A) (a) The owner of the copyright in a work may, in respect of that work, apply to the High Court for an injunction
against an intermediary to whom paragraph 3 of Article 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 May 2011 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
applies.
In considering an application for an injunction under this subsection, the court shall have due regard to the rights of any
person likely to be affected by virtue of the grant of any such injunction and the court shall give such directions (including,
where appropriate, a direction requiring a person be notified of the application) as the court considers appropriate in all of
the circumstances.” (…)
Belgium
• Three draft Laws in 2010: now off the table
• First draft law: mandatory collective management
• Second draft law: actions against financial
intermediaries
• For ex. PayPal which channelled millions of $ to the group behind
MegaUpload
• Third draft law: global license (as proposed in France
back in 2005)
The Netherlands
• Is downloading from illegal sources prohibited or covered by
the private copying exception?
▫ Court of Appeal, The Hague, 15 November 2010:
 ACI et al. v. Stichting de Thuiskopie:
▫ Court considered that in the Netherlands downloading for private
use, even from an illegal source, is legal. It then decided that
offering a site that facilitates downloading of copyrighted content does
not constitute a copyright infringement.
“(…) It should therefore be taken into account when determining the level of
the levy, that should also compensate for loss of income due to downloading
from illegal sources”
▫ Supreme Court in Sept 2012: asks questions to the CJEU
USA
• Existing law: the DMCA 1998 already contains a rule on repeat
infringers
▫ « Notice and take down » (art. 512 c. et s.)
▫ Rules on «repeat infringers »
▫ Numerous lawsuits filed by the RIAA (more than 35.000 since
2003)
• Private initiative: the “six strikes” model for P2P sharing:
▫ July 2011: after 3 years of negotiations, announcement of the six
“strikes” or copyright alerts:
 4 alerts
 Then «mitigation measures » at the ISP’s choice: reduce the
connection speed, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber
contacts the ISP, etc.
▫ July 2012: Not yet implementated – announced for end of 2012
USA
• Failure of legislation: Bills COICA + SOPA (Chamber) / PIPA
(Senate)
▫ Allows the Attorney General to police the Internet in the name of copyright enforcement
▫ Allows new copyright enforcement powers in particular: the ability to make entire website
disappear from the internet if infringement or even link to infringement are deemed to be “central” to
the purpose of the site.
▫ Domestic sites :

The Attorney general can request a judge issue a court order to break the Internet one domain at a time- by
requiring domain registrars, registries, ISPs, DNS providers and others to block Internet Users from reaching certain
websites.
▫ Non domestic sites:

The attorney general can request a court order requiring ISP to block access to the infringing sites, credit card
companies to suspend processing transactions for them, and ad networks to suspend serving ads to these site.
▫ « Blacklisting » by the Attorney General:
 All domain name that the court have found to be infringing on copyright protected content
 List of sites alleged/deemed to be dedicated to infringing on copyright protected content, but
where a court order has not yet been obtained.
South Korea
• Law in 2009
• Several public bodies: Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST)
and the Copyright Commission
a. Against end-users
Warning & Account Restriction order (by MCST)
b. Against Bulletin Boards Services
Deletion & BBS suspension Order (by MCST)
c. Corrective Recommendation (by Copyright Commission)
Overview of graduated and warning systems
• France:
▫ work done, effect achieved?
• UK:
▫ work in progress
• Ireland:
▫ first private system, working but effective?
• US:
▫ another private system, not yet implemented
• South Korea:
▫ State-run system in place, but lack of information to assess
• Hungary?
• ...
31
Conclusions - Trends to Fight Online Infringement
Enhanced cooperation of ISPs for « policing the Internet » and enhanced
awareness of end-users
Three ways:

Legislative (FR, UK, Korea,…),

Case law (BE, UK, IE, …)

Collective agreements (DN…)
Four tools:




Graduated response (with possibility of suspension)
Warnings system
Blocking intermediaries (hosting or access providers)
Global license
New bodies in charge :

Hadopi in France, OFCOM in UK, IP Commission in Korea… between rightholders/users/courts
Uncertainty concerning the illicit character of downloading:

In Europe, is private copying (downloading) licit when the source is illicit (new referral from the NL
Supreme Court to the CJEU)?
Uncertainty regarding the suspension of access: proportionnal?
Thank you for your attention
10 juillet 2012
Graduated response
En place
Envisagée
Non encore envisagée
France
Italie (en discussion) + Mais projet
Lettonie, Hongrie,
Autriche, Grèce, Portugal,
République Tchèque,
Décision de non
intervention: Suisse, PB
Royaume-Uni
Finlande
Belgique : Propositions de loi (MR, gestion
Irlande
Norvège
Espagne : blocage sites
(loi +décrets)
(Loi- Code?)
(accord
Eircom/IRMA) – ms
blocage site envisagé
Corée
de réglementation AGCOM
(blocage)
(Projet de loi : réponse graduée
limitée aux avertissements)
(Prop. de modification loi: réponse
graduée limitée aux
avertissements)
Autres mesures envisagées (blocage,
licence,…)
Allemagne: débats politiques en cours
(Licence obligatoire vs. Réponse)
collective oblig) Ecolo, - Licence- PS)
Jurisprudence (Sabam/Tiscali : non au
filtrage/blocage « général »)
Commission Propriété intellectuelle
(loi)
Allemagne? (en débat) –
Proposition Ministre culture in mai
2011
Suède: « Kopimism », Injonction FAI,
Taiwan
Singapour
Danemark
Nouvelle-Zélande
Turquie
Norvège : Prop. Loi - blocage sites
Australie (proposition des FAI:
USA
(Loi)
(Loi)
réponse graduée limitée aux
avertissements)
données personnelles internautes
Plan: « Pirate Package » initiative - blocage
sites / prop. Licence collective étendue
Projet de loi COICA/SOPA/PIPA: blocage
sites + Accords entre acteurs
Pays
Angleterre
France
Accords
volontaires
Role des FAI
Source de la
copie
Virgin
Media/Universal
Juin 2009
V° Ofcom
Légale (27(2))
Pas encore de
mesure suspension
accès
Accord Olivienne/
Daily Motion
V° Hadopi L324/L335
Légale
Implantation actuelle
de la RP par Hadopi
Initiative Légale


Digital Economy Act 8/04/10
Hadopi


Particularité



Légale (art. L.
Oblig FAI de comm.DP –
122-5, 2° CPI, loi
CJUE art.53 c & g
du 20 déc. 2011)
No (ms régime en place
sévère) IPRED
?
Espagne
Ley de economia sostenible –
Coupure accès 01/10
?
V° loi
(« accès légal »
(31.2)
Finlande
Projet Loi Oct.2010- limité aux
avertissements
?
Envoi Avertissements
Légale (art.12)
JP: the Finreactor
Case /droit fond.accès
OUI:
EIRCOM/IRMA
Rôle déterminant
EIRCOM - coûts
?
Justice valide accord
04/2010 ms JP-UPC /
Blocage site
Oblig. Filtrage CJUE
Controverse
CJUE: JP/-SabamScarlet –
Sabam/Netlog
?
?
?
JP: Peine prison
titulaire site
?
Encadrement impt par
DPA sect° 101
Copy: “Not
obviously
unlawful”
Débats politiques:
licence obligatoire/
Augmenter resp.FAI +
autorégulation
Suède
Irlande
Belgique
Roumanie
Allemagne
Suisse
Norvège
No- accords entre AD/FAI

No- Prop.Loi (Réponse
graduée souple vs « Licence
globale »)

No
No ms régime en place sévère
No- recherche autres mesures
Juin 2012: adoption d’un
postulat sur introduction taxe
(licence globale)
No (License globale?) – Prop.
Loi: limité avertissements/ FAI
+ Prop. Loi Blocage sites
2003/2005
IFPI/ISPA...


CJUE: JP- Ephone
JP « Promusicae »




?
JP Logistep 2009-2010
Légale
?
JP Telenor 2010
“Not result from
infringing act”
Discussions: quid de
la légalisation
Téléchargement P2P?
Rappel à l’ordre USA
JP IFPI/Telenor
Discussions
Pays
Initiative Légale
Conclusion
Hongrie
Pays Bas
Danemark
Italie
République
Tchèque
Lettonie
No – système souple
No
No –ms discussions seraient
en cours (AD, FAI, Gvt)
Accord coopération avec la
France Janvier 2009
No
No (attente voir efficacité
France)
Role des FAI
Source de la
copie
?
?
Téléchargement à
fins privées pas
interdit
?
Rôle important
Commission Vie
privée - JP
JP
2010:Téléchargeme
nt à fins privées pas
interdit
?
JP IFPI/AllofMP3
2006-IFPI/
Telenor(2008) Force
ISP a bloquer tt
accès au site
Accords volontaires
?
Particularité
Pirate Package
JP ISP
Art.50.2 Licence
collective étendue
Problème mise en
œuvre sanction /
Rapport de
l’AGCOM // avec
COICA (Usa)
blocage site
Consultations,
« Public awareness
strategy »
?
JP:
Mediaset/Youtube
2009
?
Accords informels
IFPI/FAI
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Discussions / JP en
cours: actions SGC
c/FAI
Grèce
No
?
Art.64A (injonction)
Consultation en
cours (DPA – secret
des
communications)
Autriche
No
?
?
Controverse
JP: LSG/ Télé 2
(données perso)