Explore

Topic, claim, or defense
Document type
Show in map
Legislation

Royal Legislative Decree No. 1/1996, enacting the consolidated text of the Copyright Act, April 12, 1996 (as amended by the Law No. 21/2014, November 4, 2014)

(1) implementing the InfoSoc Directive (2001/29) mandatory exception for temporary acts of reproduction which are transient or incidental, have no independent economic significance, and are an integral and essential part of a technological process whose sole purpose is to enable (a) a transmission in a network among third parties by an intermediary, or (b) a lawful use (art. 31.1); (2) providing that copyright owners may ask for injunctions, where appropriate, against an intermediary whose services are resorted to by a third party to infringe copyright, even where the intermediary’s activity is not infringing in itself (arts. 138, 139.1.h, 141.6); (3) creating an administrative body -- the Second Section of the Copyright Commission (CPI) -- which orders injunctions against information society services who infringe on...
Legislation

Royal Decree No. 1889/2011, on the functions of the Copyright Commission

instituting an administrative body - the Second Section of the Copyright Commission - in charge of issuing orders against information society services hosting copyright infringing materials (Article 43, introducing Article 158. Intellectual Property Commission in the Intellectual Property Law, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996).
Legislation

Law No. 2/2011, on a Sustainable Economy

Law instituting an administrative body - the Second Section of the Copyright Commission - in charge of issuing orders against information society services hosting copyright infringing materials (Article 43, introducing Article 158. Intellectual Property Commission in the Intellectual Property Law, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996).
Legislation

Copyright Act, as amended on January 22, 2014

(1) Intermediary Liability of Copyright Infringement. The inducement liability of copyright infringement was enacted in 2007 under the influence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). However, there is a critical difference between them with regard to the requirement of the resulting acts of infringement by a third party. In Grokster, the court holds that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” However, according to the subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1, article 87 of Taiwan’s Copyright Act, the intermediary’s behavior of enabling copyright infringement itself can be deemed an...