{"title":"交叉检查序言:在欧盟法院最近的判例法中,将 \"仅仅提供有形设施 \"排除在向公众传播的权利之外","authors":"Victor Mütter","doi":"10.1093/jiplp/jpae037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In its two recent decisions in Blue Air Aviation and Ocilion IPTV, the Court of Justice of the European Union has considered the exclusion of ‘the mere provision of physical facilities’ from the scope of the right of communication to the public under Article 3 of Directive 2001/29 (InfoSoc Directive).\n This article explores whether the understanding applied by the Court in these decisions is consistent with the international origins of the exclusion and previous case law of the Court. The article explains why the decision in Blue Air Aviation seems to diverge from previous case law, while this does not appear to be the case in Ocilion IPTV.\n Further, the article argues that the uncertainties regarding the scope of the concept of ‘act of communication’ is caused by the Court’s extensive understanding of indispensability, rather than its interpretation of ‘the mere provision of physical facilities’.","PeriodicalId":315837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice","volume":" 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross-checking the recitals: the exclusion of ‘the mere provision of physical facilities’ from the right of communication to the public in recent CJEU case law\",\"authors\":\"Victor Mütter\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jiplp/jpae037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In its two recent decisions in Blue Air Aviation and Ocilion IPTV, the Court of Justice of the European Union has considered the exclusion of ‘the mere provision of physical facilities’ from the scope of the right of communication to the public under Article 3 of Directive 2001/29 (InfoSoc Directive).\\n This article explores whether the understanding applied by the Court in these decisions is consistent with the international origins of the exclusion and previous case law of the Court. The article explains why the decision in Blue Air Aviation seems to diverge from previous case law, while this does not appear to be the case in Ocilion IPTV.\\n Further, the article argues that the uncertainties regarding the scope of the concept of ‘act of communication’ is caused by the Court’s extensive understanding of indispensability, rather than its interpretation of ‘the mere provision of physical facilities’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":315837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice\",\"volume\":\" 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在最近对 Blue Air Aviation 案和 Ocilion IPTV 案的两项裁决中,欧盟法院审议了将 "仅仅提供有形设施 "排除在第 2001/29 号指令(InfoSoc 指令)第 3 条规定的公众传播权范围之外的问题。本文探讨了法院在这些判决中适用的理解是否与该排除条款的国际渊源和法院以前的判例法一致。文章解释了为什么 Blue Air Aviation 案的判决似乎与以前的判例法不同,而 Ocilion IPTV 案的情况似乎并非如此。此外,文章认为,"通信行为 "概念范围的不确定性是由法院对不可或缺性的广泛理解造成的,而不是其对 "仅仅提供有形设施 "的解释。
Cross-checking the recitals: the exclusion of ‘the mere provision of physical facilities’ from the right of communication to the public in recent CJEU case law
In its two recent decisions in Blue Air Aviation and Ocilion IPTV, the Court of Justice of the European Union has considered the exclusion of ‘the mere provision of physical facilities’ from the scope of the right of communication to the public under Article 3 of Directive 2001/29 (InfoSoc Directive).
This article explores whether the understanding applied by the Court in these decisions is consistent with the international origins of the exclusion and previous case law of the Court. The article explains why the decision in Blue Air Aviation seems to diverge from previous case law, while this does not appear to be the case in Ocilion IPTV.
Further, the article argues that the uncertainties regarding the scope of the concept of ‘act of communication’ is caused by the Court’s extensive understanding of indispensability, rather than its interpretation of ‘the mere provision of physical facilities’.