CJEU lays down ground rules for ‘copyright trolls’
Rights holders can request user information such as IP addresses to enforce their IP rights in certain circumstances, the EU’s top court has ruled.
But such requests must be “non-abusive, reasonable, and proportionate,” added the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in a judgment handed down yesterday, June 17.
The ruling arose out of a lawsuit brought by Cyprus-based Mircom against Belgian internet service provider (ISP) Telenet.
Mircom alleged that Telenet customers’ internet connections were used to illegally upload films in its catalogue onto peer-to-peer sharing networks using BitTorrent. Mircom is not the owner of the films’ copyright, but licenses the right to communicate them to the public.
Maciej Szpunar, an advocate general of the CJEU, had described companies such as Mircom, which actively seek damages for the infringed content, as “copyright trolls” in a non-binding opinion to the court last year.
The Cypriot company is seeking an order from an Antwerp court forcing Telenet to disclose user information such as IP addresses so it can enforce its copyright.
The Antwerp Companies Court referred the case to the CJEU, seeking clarification on whether the uploading of content to peer-to-peer networks constitutes a “communication to the public” under EU copyright law.
The Belgian court also sought advice on whether licensees such as Mircom can benefit from the enforcement procedures provided for by EU copyright law, including seeking user information from ISPs.
In yesterday’s judgment, the CJEU ruled that uploading individual pieces of a media file to a network using BitTorrent qualifies as a communication to the public, even though these pieces are not usable on their own.
The court also confirmed that companies which only use the IP rights in question to seek damages, can still benefit from the EU’s copyright enforcement provisions. But requests for user information must be “non-abusive, justified and proportionate,” the court ruled.
“It is for the referring court to ascertain, in any event, whether Mircom has abused measures, procedures and remedies within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2004/48 and, if necessary, to refuse that company’s request,” the judgment said.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
Rise Brewing sues ‘repeat TM offender’ PepsiCo
iLife asks Supreme Court to reconsider Nintendo patent ruling
