EU court decided to collect tax from printer manufacturers due to possible copyright violations
A group Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort, engaged in collecting secondary royalties from copyrighted works in Germany, filed a lawsuit with the European Court (Court of Justice of the European Union) in Luxembourg against printer manufacturers like Canon, Epson, Fujitsu and HP, pointing out that that the printers they produce can be used to make legal products — in other words, prints. Thus, it is logical to collect a certain tax from the companies listed in the lawsuit.
The court acknowledged the correctness of Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort and issued a resolution yesterday, which is obvious - the tax on the reproduction of works under copyright may be imposed on manufacturers of printers or computers. .
Slightly more specifically, the position of the court is characterized by the following statement ( free translation ):
The next point is also curious - the defendants should provide the court with information to the plaintiff about the number of printers sold since 2001; however, companies such as Kyocera, Epson and Xerox must pay appropriate compensation in favor of Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort for not only printers sold from 2001 to 2007, but also personal computers and plotters.
')
[ Source ]
The court acknowledged the correctness of Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort and issued a resolution yesterday, which is obvious - the tax on the reproduction of works under copyright may be imposed on manufacturers of printers or computers. .
Slightly more specifically, the position of the court is characterized by the following statement ( free translation ):
According to the law of the European Union, its members should provide the authors and owners of the respective rights the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the reproduction of their works or other subjects of law. However, members of the Union may provide for exceptions or limitations on this exclusive right. According to this, they may allow you to make copies of a work privately on paper or other similar media, using any type of photocopying or something like that. Members of the Union, who allow it, must, however, ensure that the owners of the rights to the work can receive “fair compensation "Intended to pay its authors for reproduction of their works without permission.
Original (eng.)
According to the law of the law, it is a member of the law. However, Member States may provide that exclusive right. It may be necessary to follow up the process. A copyright holders receive "fair compensation". That compensation is to compensate the authors for their reproduction, without their authorization, of their protected works.
According to the law of the law, it is a member of the law. However, Member States may provide that exclusive right. It may be necessary to follow up the process. A copyright holders receive "fair compensation". That compensation is to compensate the authors for their reproduction, without their authorization, of their protected works.
The next point is also curious - the defendants should provide the court with information to the plaintiff about the number of printers sold since 2001; however, companies such as Kyocera, Epson and Xerox must pay appropriate compensation in favor of Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort for not only printers sold from 2001 to 2007, but also personal computers and plotters.
')
[ Source ]
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/185018/
All Articles