State secretary Teeven has guidance as to where consumers will need to pay attention to not accidentally from illegal source to download. However, it remains unclear what an “obvious illegal source’ or ‘large-scale downloader.
State secretary Teeven of Security and Justice has questions from mps about his size won’t fit all Copyright answered. In that letter, he made his intention known to the downloading of copyrighted material from obvious illegal source is unlawful to make, and the system of kopieheffingen to abolish.
Members of parliament wanted to among other things know what ‘obvious illegal source’ should be understood. “Something is clearly unlawful as for any person to immediately clear is that the work is illegally distributed”, writes Teeven, but he admits that the assessment on the basis of the circumstances should take place. He does, however, give some clues. The secretary of state mentions the general fame of the work, by the consumer the price paid and the nature and design of the source as well as factors that may play a role.
“A concrete example is, for me, the download of a hollywood movie still in the cinema via a website or peer-to-peer system, and for which nothing needs to be paid,” said Teeven. Or a pay site that neatly looks, but that the rights do not pay also fall, such as the D66-group wanted to know, it is not immediately clear. In the past, for example, was Allofmp3 such a site.
The delimitation is of importance, because the responsibility will be the consumer. If the user is ‘on a large scale of such a source uses, can, under certain circumstances, even his name and address information by rights holders be requested. “Consumers are expected to use the law and security search or their actions legal. I realize that this is in respect of information on the internet can get tricky. Therefore, I would like a provision in the law that only the download from an obvious illegal source illegal. I think that with this criterion the consumer sufficient protection is taken”, says the secretary of state about this.
What ‘large scale’ should be understood, Teeven is not yet clear. However, he emphasizes that personal data will only through the court can be demanded as other opportunities to put an end to the infringement have been exhausted and if there was a “balancing of interests” has occurred. Several times try the secretary of state, members of parliament hesitate to say by writing that he wants the responsibility for enforcement will lie at the source of the illicit supply and not for individual users.
He gives that Brain probably easier. “I want to include the case law on the structural promotion of copyright infringements in the law to capture. Also is it possible to, in the extreme case, the right to request a website to block. The changes I want to implement will be more opportunities to yield to the copyright law to maintain. Will Foundation Brain can use. I assume that the end-user as regards the sanctions, few will notice.”
Furthermore, says Teeven’s no reason to see to the removal of the copying charges, and even longer to make. For many details about the coming changes indicates Teeven to the next bill. Under other has clarity about the blocking of sites, the issue of personal data and, even if a legitimate private copying is considered. “Under this last fall, at least the copy of, for example, a legally downloaded music file to an mp3-player and copy to a television program to watch later,” said Teeven. At the end of 2011, beginning of 2012, the bill on the table.