The EU copyright reform associated with upload filters have not yet implemented many member states, but also the original 2001 copyright directive still contains some unostated problems. For example, the supreme court of austria has recently asked the european court of justice (ECJ) in two cases for a preliminary ruling in which it is about copyright protection with internet television and streaming as well as geblocking.
The defendant in a legal dispute (AZ.: 4 OB 40 / 21T), over which the ipkat specialist is reported now, opposite commercial customers such as network operators, hotels and stadiums individual IPTV complete solutions in a closed network. In addition to transmitter packages, these include an online video recorder that allows time-shifted television: it can be made for single or series recordings of entire programs.
A copy for all trap
The service also includes a replay function in which up to seven days of consignment content can be controlled again. Recordings by the recorder only when an end user performs an appropriate programming. The replay function must first be activated, the remainder the system leaves fully automatic. In the background you run "de-duplication process". It causes that multiple programming of recordings for several customers will not be created several copies of the content.
The plaintiffs are two TV channels based in germany and austria. You see your rights injured. The defendant stops, the multiplications created by their service are admitted digital private copies. End customers are only provided the technical infrastructure with data storage, but they were able to start and end individual shots. The organizational sovereignty for the copy function and the domination of the use of the system is not the defendant, you do not create copyright-relevant master copy. The in the background procedures of de duplication serve only resource optimization. As a result, blob will be implemented the system of the recorder.
The eastern court now wants to know the ECJ whether the operation of a commercial online video recorder, including weekly prere views, is compatible with the copyright policy. It should be considered that the technology merely referred to an existing copy of the copy if it has already been created by another user. However, the right holder’s consent is not available.
The second question refers to whether a potentially illegal "public playback" exists. Decisive here is that the user also receives access to content that had not been released from the transmitter for online recovery. The system provider knew that his service also allows reception of protective content without the consent of the right holder, but not with this option. Customers were pointed out when concluding the contract that they had to be responsible for the rights of rights.
The fact that the sale of a media player for illegal streams violated the directive had the ECJ already in 2017 in the confrontation between the anti-piracy authority stichting brein VS. Film pelner decided. Here is the situation due to the technology used but more complicated. Although the referring court is inclined to decide in both questions in favor of the right holders. But it wants to go safely in the face of remaining ambiguities.
The second case (AZ.: 4 OB 44/22F) concerns a streaming platform directed to emigrants from the field of former yugoslavia in the EU and the USA. The defendant operation on the basis of license carryforward with TV broadcasters. Accordingly, she was obliged to block the streaming signal for certain broadcasts in certain areas.
The klankin is a company based in serbia. It operates a media company, which are popular among other things – in the countryside of the fruher yugoslavia popular – TV shows. It claims that the circumvention of the defendant’s geblocking measures is relatively simple that they know by customers who used their service outside the licensed area, and that they underclothed it to prevent such illegal utilization.
Here, too, the easter court asks for an interpretation of the term of "positive playback" in the sense of the directive. It highlights that on the streaming service of the reception of content that was not authorized by the rights holders, for several weeks, without virtual private network (VPN) could have been possible. Furthermore, it should be clear if third parties, which advertise for the service, to extract test cancellations with end customers, operate a customer service and accept payments, also liable for potentially illegal playback.
With judgments of the luxembourg richter is expected within a year and a half years.