(1) The Court had to answer the question whether an internet service provider could be required to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files. (2) The Court confirmed the possibility of introducing an injunction based on copyright infringement against an access provider even if said provider can benefit from the liability exemption regime provided for in the eCommerce Directive. The injunction does not presuppose any prior finding of fault, and therefore liability, on the part of the intermediary. (3) However, if the theoretical possibility of a blocking order against ISPs was confirmed, it remained to be seen if the provider has, in fact, the material possibility to comply with such an order. The Court ordered an expert testimony on this subject and the reopening of the...
In its report filed January, 3 2007, the expert witness presented 11 solutions that can be applied to block or filter file sharing, including 7 applicable to Scarlet/Tiscali. On the basis of this report and the submissions of the parties, the Court ruled that technical solutions do exist to stop copyright infringements of music files via P2P file sharing. Accordingly, the Court ordered Scarlet to implement such measures to prevent future damage, within a period of time of six months and under a penalty of a fine of 2,500 euros per day of violation. Scarlet was also ordered to provide SABAM a description of the measures taken.
The Court rejected the request of blocking eight "ThePirateBay" websites and other “ThePirateBay” websites extensions. The request was filed against two of the biggest Belgian Internet providers, Telenet and Belgacom. The Court rejected the request by arguing that ThePirateBay was online for a long time without a judicial reaction of the Belgian Anti-Piracy Federation (BAPF), and it was unclear which rights BAPF claimed to have been infringed.
The Court of Appeal of Brussels had to answer the question whether an internet service provider could be required to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files. The Court had to consider the extent to which Internet service providers should support the operational and financial burden of the fight against piracy. Given the complexity of the matter, the Brussels Court of Appeal decided to refer two questions to the ECJ before deciding: (1) Can ISPs be compelled to take preventive technical measures in order to prevent illegal downloading? (2) If yes, to what extent technical and financial burdens can be imposed on them? See also the ECJ's Scarlet Extended judgment.
This is a Community legislation covering Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. This decision gives protection to intellectual works. Article 3 defines “distribution to the public”, “divulgation”, “retransmission” as making the work available to the public by any form. Article 13 gives the exclusive right to the author and/or right holders to authorize or prohibit the reproduction by any means. This decision does not specifically establish provisions regarding intermediary liability on the internet. However, Article 54 may find application in this context, where it states that “No authority or person, whether natural person or legal entity, may authorize the use of a work, performance, phonographic production or broadcast, or lend his support to such use, if the user does not have the express prior authorization of the...