Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
DamianFlisak
Tissituationunderlinestheneedtochangethecurrentapproachtothenotionof
workmultiplication.Teexampleofstreamingclearlyshowsthatsuchanextremetech-
nicalapproach,whichistoverifyiftheresultsofworksegmentationarestillsubject
tocopyrightprotection,willcertainlyposemanyproblemsinpractice.Courtssettling
disputesinthisareawouldhavetorelyonverificationissuesinvolvinganextremely
highdegreeoftechnicalcomplexity.Tisdirectionseemstobeadeadend.Let’snot
forgetthatmostprobablysoonsuchtechnologywillbeinvented,inwhichdatawill
beprovidedonalocaldevicewithoutanytraceoffixationwhatsoever.Whentalking
aboutstreaming,onemustseeaparadoxicalsituation,whenweconsumethework
eventhoughitssegmentationintopartslackingcopyrightprotectiondoesnotallow
suchconsumptiontobeincludedwithinthescopeofcopyrightprotection43.
Onesolutioncouldbetheintroductionoftheconceptof“successivereproduc-
tion”,whichincludesthesumofindividualactionsfinallyresultingintheconsumption
ofthework44.Itisreiteratedhowimportantitistogivelegalactssuchaninterpre-
tationwhichtakesintoaccountalsodevelopmentsintechnology,insteadoffixing
suchactsinthepastbyadoptingtoorigidaninterpretation45.Such“dynamic”or
“evolving”interpretationisveryappealing46,althoughadmittedlysinceArt.2Direc-
tive2001/29/ECwasintendedtoharmonizetheCommunityconceptofreproduction
(atamaximumlevelofprotection),extensionofthemultiplicationconcepttounpro-
tectedpartsofaworkisfarfromobvious.
Respectingtheideaofwidestpossibleaccesstoculture,itisdifculttooverlook
theargumentofageneralnature,whichwouldcallintoquestionArt.23(1)PCAas
apossiblebasisforlegalisingstreaming.Infact,thisprovisionwouldprefertheuseof
worksinthedigitalenvironmentcomparedtothe“traditional”use.Intheanalogue
worldtherearenosimpleopportunitiestoreviewawholefilmorentirebook,orpossi-
blypartsofthese.Toconsumesuchworksintheirentirety,onewouldsimplyneedto
buyacinematicketortopurchaseabook47.Suchusecouldbequestionedalsobased
43Forsimplicity,atthispointIamnotconsideringwhetherindividualpiecesofdatastream,
e.g.screenshotsorsounds,canmeetthecriteriaforcopyrightprotection(orprotectionunder
relatedrights).
44T.Busch,ZururheberrechtlichenEinordnungderNutzungvonStreamingangeboten,Gewerbli-
cherRechtsschutzundUrheberrecht2011,p.499.
45See:paragraph27oftheopinionofAdvocateGeneralM.Szpunardeliveredon16June
2016incaseC-174/15–VerenigingOpenbareBibliothekenvStichtingLeenrecht,EU:C:2016:459.
46“Aninterpretationofthiskind,whichmightbedescribedas‘dynamic’or‘evolving’,is
[ł]necessary,particularlyinfieldswheretechnologicalprogresshasaprofoundefect,suchas
copyright.Indeed,technologicalprogresstodayissorapidthatiteasilyoutstripsthelegislativepro-
cess,suchthatattemptstoadaptlegalprovisionsbysuchmeansareoftendefeated,withlegalacts
becomingobsoletethemomenttheyareadoptedorshortlythereafter”–paragraph28oftheopin-
ionofAdvocateGeneralM.Szpunardeliveredon16June2016incaseC-174/15–Vereniging
OpenbareBibliothekenvStichtingLeenrecht,EU:C:2016:459.Tisistheproperplacetoexpress
deeprecognitionfortheoutstandingopinionsofprof.MaciejSzpunaractingasAdvocateGeneral.
Hisopinionsarecharacterizedbycourage,butatthesametimetheyareverywellembeddedinEU
legislationandthuscanserveasimportantdirectionsforthedevelopmentofcopyrightlaw.
47See:J.Ensthaler,StreamingundUrheberrechtsverletzung,NeueJuristischeWochenschrift
2014,p.1555.
136
