Category: Case Law

Categories
Antitrust Case Law

USA Supreme Court: Apple loses case on its e-book selling tactics : SCOTUSblog

Posted from Diigo.

Categories
Antitrust Case Law Data Privacy

Bundeskartellamt initiates proceeding against Facebook on suspicion of having abused its market power by infringing data protection rules

Posted from Diigo.

Categories
Business Models Case Law Contracts

DIMT: L’Adunanza plenaria del Consiglio di Stato interviene nuovamente sul riparto di competenze in materia di pratiche commerciali scorrette: la competenza è dell’Agcm

Posted from Diigo.

Categories
Case Law Data Privacy

Apple can comply with the FBI court order – Trail of Bits Blog

Posted from Diigo.

Categories
Business Models Case Law Intellectual Property

For Pandora, Ruling on Streaming Royalty Rates Is Crucial – The New York Times

Posted from Diigo.

Categories
Case Law Internet Journalism

La Corte di Giustizia sui filmati nei siti dei quotidiani

  • Corte Giustizia sui filmati nei siti dei quotidiani

    “La Corte rileva… che la versione elettronica di un quotidiano, malgrado gli elementi audiovisivi in essa contenuti, non deve essere considerata come un servizio audiovisivo se tali elementi audiovisivi sono meramente incidentali e servono unicamente ad integrare l’offerta degli articoli di stampa scritta”


Posted from Diigo.

Categories
Case Law Intellectual Property

“Google Books’ libraries scanning is fair use” confirmed by the Court of Appeal

“Google’s copying is fair use under 17 U.S.C. §107 and is therefore not infringing.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the defendant’s copying is transformative within the meaning of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 10 578-585 (1994), does not offer the public a meaningful  substitute for matter protected by the plaintiffs’ copyrights, and satisfies § 107’s test for fair use.”

Court of Appeal ruling here.

Confirming the District Court decision that you can find here.

Categories
Case Law Privacy

ECJ Sets a Crucial Week For Data Protection in Europe

  • European Court of Justice: Judgment in Case C-201/14
    Smaranda Bara and Others (transfer of data between public authorithies)

    “EU law precludes the transfer and processing of personal data between two public administrative bodies without the persons  concerned (data  subjects) having been informed in advance”.

  • ECJ: Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems (USA safe harbour scheme)

    “…the Commission was required to find that the United States  in  fact ensures, by reason of its domestic law or its international commitments, a level of protection of fundamental rights essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the EU under the directive read in the light of the Charter. The Court observes that the Commission did not make such a finding,  but merely examined the safe harbour scheme [.]   National security, public interest and law enforcement requirements of the United States prevail over the safe harbour scheme, so that United States undertakings are bound to disregard, without limitation, the protective rules laid down by that scheme where they conflict with such requirements. The United States safe harbour scheme
    thus enables  interference, by United  States public  authorities,  with the fundamental rights of persons, and the Commission decision does not refer either to the existence, in the United States, of  rules  intended  to limit any such interference or to  the existence of effective legal protection against the interference…”.

  • ECJ: Case C-230/14 Weltimmo (Establishment and EU Data Protection Authorities)

    “…Weltimmo, a company registered in Slovakia, runs a property dealing website concerning Hungarian properties. Within that context, it processes the personal data of the advertisers  [.]  the Court notes that the presence of only one representative can, in some circumstances, suffice to constitute an establishment if that representative acts with a sufficient degree of stability for the provision of the services concerned in the Member State in question [.]  The  Court states that each supervisory authority established by a Member State must ensure compliance, within the territory of that State, with the provisions adopted by all Member States pursuant to the directive. Consequently, each supervisory authority is to hear claims lodged by any person concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data, even if the law applicable to that processing is the law of another Member State”

Posted from Diigo.

Categories
Antitrust Business Models Case Law

Pandora Wins Appeals Court Ruling on Ascap Royalty Rates – NYTimes.com

Posted from Diigo.

Categories
Case Law Intellectual Property

Violazioni copyright in rete: la Corte di Giustizia UE sulla giurisdizione per il risarcimento dei danni

  • CdG – Hejduk

    “L’articolo 5, punto 3, del regolamento (CE) n. 44/2001 del Consiglio, del 22 dicembre 2000, concernente la competenza giurisdizionale, il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale, deve essere interpretato nel senso che, nel caso di un’asserita lesione ai diritti d’autore e ai diritti connessi al diritto d’autore garantiti dallo Stato membro del giudice adito, quest’ultimo è competente, in base al criterio del luogo in cui il danno si è concretizzato, a conoscere di un’azione per responsabilità per la lesione di tali diritti in conseguenza della messa in rete di fotografie tutelate su un sito Internet accessibile nell’ambito territoriale della sua giurisdizione. Tale giudice è esclusivamente competente a conoscere del solo danno cagionato nel territorio dello Stato membro al quale appartiene”.

adde: EU is not the USA

Posted from Diigo.