Wie dit leest pleegt auteursrechtinbreuk (?)
Stel: wij zouden het niet goed vinden dat u dit leest. Maakt u dan terwijl u deze zin leest op uw scherm auteursrechtinbreuk? Bizar maar waar: het antwoord op die vraag is volgens de hoogste Engelse rechter op dit moment nog onbekend.
Wanneer een webpagina wordt bekeken door een internetgebruiker, zonder te worden gedownload, worden automatisch tijdelijke kopieën gemaakt op het computerscherm en in het cachegeheugen op de harde schijf. Het doel van de internetgebruiker is het bekijken van de webpagina. De kopieën op het scherm en in het cachegeheugen zijn inherent aan het gebruiken van een computer om het materiaal te bekijken. Maar: het maken van kopieën van auteursrechtelijk beschermd materiaal is in principe niet toegestaan zonder toestemming van de auteursrechthebbende. De Europese Auteursrechtrichtlijn bevat weliswaar een uitzonderingsbepaling voor - kort gezegd - "tijdelijke reproductiehandelingen" die rechtmatig gebruik van een werk mogelijk maken. Maar is die uitzonderingsbepaling van toepassing op het bekijken van materiaal op een computerscherm?
Het Hof van Justitie van de EU gaat daar nu een ei over leggen. In de Engelse zaak tussen Public Relations Consultants Association Limited tegen The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited e.a. heeft het Engelse Supreme Court de volgende vraag van uitleg gesteld aan de hoogste Europese rechter:
In circumstances where:
(i) an end - user views a web - page without downloading, printing or otherwise setting out to make a copy of it;
(ii) copies of that web - page are automatically made on screen and in the internet "cache" on the end-user's hard disk;
(iii) the creation of those copies is indispensable to the technical processes involved in correct and efficient internet browsing;
(iv) the screen copy remains on screen until the end - user moves away from the relevant web - page, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer;
(v) the cached copy remains in the cache until it is overwritten by other material as the end - user views further web - pages, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer; and
(vi) the copies are retained for no longer than the ordinary processes associated with internet use referred to at (iv) and (v) above continue;
Are such copies (i) temporary, (ii) transient or incidental and (iii) an integral and essential part of the technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC?
De uitkomst laat zich raden - ik verwacht niet dat het HvJEU iedere internetgebruiker tot inbreukmaker zal bestempelen. Benieuwd hoe het Hof dit gaat "wegschrijven". Het auteursrecht en de digitale wereld blijken weer eens lastig met elkaar te verenigen.
Daniël Haije
Are you committing copyright infringement right now?
Suppose we would not consent to you reading this; does reading this sentence on your screen qualify as an act of copyright infringement? Strange enough, the answer to the aforementioned question is, according to the highest English Court, currently still unknown.
Visiting a webpage on the internet automatically creates copies of the visited webpage on your screen and into the cache memory of your hard drive. The aforementioned takes place without actively downloading or printing anything from the page itself. The intention of the internet user is visiting the webpage itself. The copies made on screen and into the cache memory are a necessary evil when using a computer when visiting a webpage. However, creating reproductions of copyright protected material is essentially not allowed without consent of the owner. The European Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC does contain an exception for acts of temporary reproductions to allow lawful use of the copyright protected materials. The question at hand is however, does the aforementioned exception apply to the copy on your screen that you are viewing right now? That is the question the English Supreme Court has asked itself while handling the case of Public Relations Consultants Association Limited vs. The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited a.o. The English Court has asked the European Court of the Justice the following prejudicial question:
In circumstances where:
(i) an end - user views a web - page without downloading, printing or otherwise setting out to make a copy of it;
(ii) copies of that web - page are automatically made on screen and in the internet "cache" on the end-user's hard disk;
(iii) the creation of those copies is indispensable to the technical processes involved in correct and efficient internet browsing;
(iv) the screen copy remains on screen until the end - user moves away from the relevant web - page, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer;
(v) the cached copy remains in the cache until it is overwritten by other material as the end - user views further web - pages, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer; and
(vi) the copies are retained for no longer than the ordinary processes associated with internet use referred to at (iv) and (v) above continue;
Are such copies (i) temporary, (ii) transient or incidental and (iii) an integral and essential part of the technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC?
The answer remains to be seen; however I do not expect the European Court to label all internet users as copyright infringers. Once again it seems difficult to reconcile copyright and the digital world.
Daniël Haije