Csak egy breaking, mert egyelőre csak a sajtóközlemény elérhető (innen): a főtanácsnoki indítvány szerint bár a CDSM-irányelv új rendszert vezet majd be a platformok (pontosabban: egyes platformok) felelősségét illetően a végfelhasználók által tömegesen feltöltött tartalmak tárolása és elérhetővé tétele kapcsán, jelenleg direkt felelősség nem vezethető le az InfoSoc-, az Elker- és a Jogérvényesítési irányelvek alapján.

Nagyon nehéz lenne szemezgetni egy ilyen fontos ügy ilyen tömör sajtóközleményéből, de mégis a legfontosabb gondolatok talán ezek (egyelőre nincs magyar verzió):

Directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market1 introduces, for online platform operators such as YouTube, a new liability regime specific to works illegally uploaded by the users of such platforms. That directive, which must be transposed by each Member State into its national law by 7 June 2021 at the latest, requires, inter alia, those operators to obtain an authorisation from the rightholders, for example by concluding a licensing agreement, for the works uploaded by users of their platforms.

That directive is not yet applicable to the cases at hand. The Court of Justice is therefore invited to specify the liability of those operators under the regime currently in force by virtue of Directive 2000/31 on electronic commerce,2 Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society3 and Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. (…)

In today’s Opinion, Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe proposes that the Court rule that operators such as YouTube and Cyando are not directly liable for an infringement of the exclusive right of authors, as recognised under Directive 2001/29,5 to communicate their work to the public, when users of those operators’ platforms illegally upload protected works.

According to the Advocate General, operators such as YouTube and Cyando do not, in principle, carry out an act of ‘communication to the public’ themselves in such a case. The role played by those operators is, in principle, 6 that of an intermediary providing physical facilities which enable users to carry out a ‘communication to the public’. Any ‘primary’ liability arising from that ‘communication’ is therefore borne, as a rule, solely by those users. (…)

The Advocate General further notes that Directive 2001/29 is not intended to govern ‘secondary’ liability, that is to say, the liability of persons who facilitate third parties in carrying out illegal ‘communications to the public’. That liability, which generally involves knowledge of unlawfulness, comes under the national law of the Member States.

Moreover, platform operators such as YouTube and Cyando may, in principle, benefit from the exemption from liability provided for by Directive 2000/31 7 for the files they store at the request of their users, provided that they did not play an ‘active role’ of such a kind as to give them ‘knowledge of, or control over’ the information in question, a role which, in principle, they do not play. The exemption in question provides that the provider of an information society service, which consists of the storage of information provided by the recipient of the service, cannot be held liable for the information thus stored, unless, upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that the users’ information or activities are illegal, it has not expeditiously removed or disabled access to that information.

Nagyon várom a teljes szövege. A legfontosabb kérdésekre már most látjuk a választ, persze az ördög a részletekre rejlik. Ahogy arra is őszintén kíváncsi leszek, hogy fedezhető-e majd fel bármilyen ellentét a Pirate Bay döntéssel.

Tehát: folyt.köv.!