1 H. Summary The Users' Rights in the Information Society Dissertation thesis "The Users' Rights in the Information Society" focuses on the copyright exceptions and limitations (hereinafter referred to as copyright limitations) as an area which, in addition to the licensed use, affects users of copyrighted works in the most direct way. The term "users" is understood in the concept of this work, in accordance with foreign and Czech scientific literature, in a broad sense, covering also consumers of copyrighted works or users of digital content on the Internet. In the context of copyright limitations users are allowed to use copyrighted works on a non-contractual basis, without the consent of the author, either for free or in the form of a paid statutory license. Copyright limitations include a wide range of uses reaching from the quotations through the use for a private purpose to the so-called news reporting and governmental statutory limitations. The concept of users' rights (despite - as seen from a certain angle - its actual existence) has not been so far defined in the legal literature in a consistent manner. However it attracts an exceptional academic attention for its conceptual and strategic importance. The concept of users' rights represents - rather than a framework of real subjective rights - a...

The text explores the challenges that generative AI poses to EU copyright law, focusing on two main issues: the use of copyrighted materials in developing AI models and the publication of generated digital content. The inquiry assesses the applicability of existing copyright exceptions for tasks like data mining, temporary reproduction, and database rights during the development of AI models. For the publication of generated content, the focus is on determining conditions for legal recognition as a derivative work. The text argues that generative AI falls under the flexible concepts of Arts. 3 and 4 CDSMD, with potential support for AI models generating marketing or entertainment content. However, existing exceptions do not fully support the generative AI development process. Commercial deployment of generated output may not be covered by exceptions, and its classification as a lawful derivative work depends on further clarification from the EU legislator or CJEU. The text suggests that non-authorial output should be allowed as derivative works, considering the low threshold for originality and recognizability criteria. To be lawful, derivative AI works should incorporate original parts that fade into the background, with personal style not protected by copyright but considered in an adapted derivatives test. Fair remuneration is proposed for generative AI services to address economic impacts on creatives.

Beveik nuo pat autorių teisių apsaugos pradžios greta autorių teisių buvo įtvirtinti ir autorių teisių apribojimai. Autorių teisių apribojimai yra viena iš keleto autorių teisių ir visuomenės teisės į informaciją, saviraiškos laisvės, teisės į privatumą, mokslą bei kitų prigimtinių žmogaus teisių suderinimo priemonių, kuri įstatymų specialiai numatytais atvejais riboja autorių turtines teises, suteikdama kūrinių naudotojams teisę atlygintinai ar neatlygintinai naudotis kūriniais be autoriaus ar kito autorių teisių subjekto sutikimo. Atsižvelgiant į autorių teisių apribojimų paskirtį suderinti autorių teises su kitomis prigimtinėmis žmogaus teisėmis, autorių teisių apribojimų sampratą lemia atitinkama autorių teisių ir kitų prigimtinių žmogaus teisių pusiausvyra. Veikiama daugybės skirtingų veiksnių, autorių teisių ir kitų prigimtinių žmogaus teisių pusiausvyra nuolat kinta, o reaguodama į šiuos pokyčius, nuolat kinta ir autorių teisių apribojimų samprata. Pastaruoju metu vis dažniau manoma, kad dėl įvairių veiksnių, ypač dėl technologinių, šiuolaikinė autorių teisių ir kitų prigimtinių žmogaus teisių pusiausvyra yra gerokai pakreipta autorių pusėn, dėl ko autorių teisių apribojimų išlikimui kyla didelė grėsmė. Atsižvelgiant į šias problemas ir siekiant, kad ateityje autorių teisių apribojimai išliktų ir galėtų tinkamai įgyvendinti savo paskirtį, teisės literatūroje pateikiama daugybė pasiūlymų kaip autorių teisių apribojimai ateityje galėtų ir turėtų būti reformuojami... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Almost from the very beginning of the copyright protection copyright limitations by copyright has been established. Copyright limitations are one of a number of copyright and the society’s right to information, freedom of expression, right to privacy, education and other human rights inherent and harmonization measures that restrict the author’s economic rights with the specifically provided cases by the laws giving users the right repayable or gratuitous to use works without the permission of the author or other copyright subject. In view of purpose of copyright limitations to combine copyright with other inherent human rights copyright limitations are determined by the appropriate copyright and other inherent human rights balance. Copyright and other inherent human rights balance is constantly changed by influencing of many different factors and conception of copyright limitations constantly changes too. Recently, it has increasingly thought, that due to a variety of factors, especially technological, modern copyright and other inherent human rights are significantly tilted the balance toward the author, on what copyright limitations are creating a serious threat for survival. In view of these problems and on purpose to remain the future of copyright limitations and could properly fulfil its purpose, legal literature contains numerous suggestions on how copyright limitations in the future could and should be reformed. These above mentioned copyright limitations on the... [to full text]

Digitalisation and the internet have enabled ordinary individuals to make copies of copyrighted content easily, costlessly and with no degradation in terms of quality. While digital private copying is permitted in Europe under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC, it represents a major challenge to the interests of the copyright owners and a thorny issue in the context of digital copyright. Despite the fact that all EU Member States, with the exception of Ireland and the UK, have incorporated a statutory limitation for acts of private copying in their national statutes, there is legal uncertainty as to the scope of this limitation. To be permitted, the use of copyrighted content ought to be private and non-commercial; these concepts, however, do not translate well in the digital environment. For instance, one can only wonder whether facebook friends qualify as a private circle and whether downloading works for free from file-sharing networks is a non-commercial act. This thesis provides answers to these questions and determines the actual scope of the private copying limitation. Yet, perfectly lawful private uses of copyrighted content may have an aggregate impact on the interests of the rightholders in the digital environment, where these activities are more widespread. To deal with the digital impact of private copying, Directive 2001/29/EC sets forth a twofold approach; while private copying is premised on condition that the rightholders are compensated for the unauthorised uses of their works, at the same time, the application of technological protection measures is rigorously protected. We examine the efficacy of these approaches in dealing with digital private copying and their adequacy for policy reasons. This thesis concludes that, even though private copying is permissible under the set of conditions laid down by Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC, its legitimate exercise is jeopardised in the digital environment due to the fact that this limitation is not mandatory. This means that the ability of end users to make private copies may be either technologically or contractually restricted. Yet, the private copying limitation is a manifestation of the fundamental right to privacy, which prevails over copyright enforcement. We therefore urge for an explicit declaration of the imperative status of the private copying limitation against technological or contractual constraints.

Copyright is conventionally justified as an incentive to produce and disseminate works of authorship. We can justify and theorise copyright more richly, not least because empirical evidence does not support the incentive narrative. Rather than focussing on quantitative matters such as the number of works incentivised and produced, we should consider copyright's qualitative influence on culture. A threshold objection to such an approach is the risk of cultural paternalism. This objection can be overcome. Rather than specifying paternalistic standards of merit for works, we can target the conditions under which their creation and consumption takes place. I argue, firstly, that we should adopt the following high-level principles: (i) that the conditions of creation and consumption of works should be conducive to democratic deliberation (democracy) and (ii) that they should facilitate the development of human capabilities (autonomy). Secondly, I propose that we pursue three mid-level objectives, which are helpful indicia of democracy and autonomy: - a fair and wide distribution of communicative and cultural power (inclusiveness); - diversity in the content and perspectives available to the public (diversity); and - conditions that permit authors and users of works to engage rigorously with the conventions of the media in which they operate (rigour). It is often said that copyright obstructs important qualitative objectives, like freedom of expression, and that we could better pursue these goals by weakening copyright and relying on non-proprietary alternatives. My approach produces a more optimistic, but also more complicated, view of copyright. While copyright's qualitative influence is not optimal, reductions in the strength and scope of copyright sometimes produces conditions and incentive structures that are worse for inclusiveness, diversity and rigour than stronger copyright. For example, both attention and wealth are highly concentrated in networked information economies driven by free sharing of content, and this is bad for diversity or inclusiveness. Online business models, based on surveillance of users' consumption of free works, are corrosive of autonomy and democracy. Merely removing copyright-based restrictions on the sharing of works is not a panacea for copyright's ills. A qualitative theory such as mine equips us to better understand and calibrate more richly the trade-offs involved in copyright policy decisions, and encourages us to treat copyright as part of a broader, qualitatively-oriented information and cultural policy.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:25:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Pedro Nicoletti Mizukami.pdf: 4110055 bytes, checksum: fc8c654e19a713787d727a72bbc67a4e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-06-29 / Noticing that debates concerning the constitutional aspects of copyright are either rare or insufficient in Brazilian legal literature especially when it comes to dealing with themes regarding the current crisis of intellectual property rights we sought out to investigate which answers could be found in the Brazilian Constitution for the problem of file sharing. Starting out from the hypothesis that adequate solutions could be found by understanding the meaning and the extent of the social function of property clause established under art. 5º, XXIII of the Constitution, we adopted Lawrence Lessig s model of four modalities of constraint to frame an interdisciplinary approach to the problem. We chose not to ignore legal dogmatics, but to deal with it in a theoretical environment that prioritizes policy considerations, with the goal of developing an optimal regime of copyright exceptions. We conclude that there is room for an interpretation of the Brazilian Constitution under which file sharing would be legal, along with other practices that are currently considered to constitute copyright infringement. On the other hand, we also conclude that any reasonable interpretation of the Brazilian Constitution would disallow maximalist implementations of copyright law, and that the copyright exception regime established by the Brazilian Copyright Statute (Lei n.º 9.610/98) is not wide enough to meet the demands of the social function of intellectual property, as required by the Constitution. If construed restrictively, the Brazilian Copyright Statute is unconstitutional as far as exceptions are concerned. The theoretical framework that guided our interpretation of the Constitution is based on a Kelsenian approach on a metatheoretical level, under which two different approaches were used on a theoretical level, applied separately and not together, and with different methodological consequences: Friedrich Müller s Strukturiende Rechtslehre and Robert Alexy s theory of fundamental rights / Notando que na literatura jurídica brasileira as discussões em torno das dimensões constitucionais dos direitos autorais são raras e insuficientes, ainda mais em se tratando de temas ligados à atual crise da propriedade intelectual, a presente dissertação procurou investigar quais as respostas que Constituição brasileira poderia oferecer ao fenômeno do compartilhamento de arquivos na Internet, partindo da hipótese de que a delimitação do conteúdo da função social da propriedade, inserida no art. 5º, inciso XXIII da CF/88, poderia oferecer soluções adequadas para o problema. Com fundamentação na teoria das quatro modalidades de regulação de Lawrence Lessig, adotou-se uma abordagem de análise interdisciplinar que não ignora problemas de dogmática jurídica, mas os insere em um plano teórico que privilegia a discussão em torno de quais políticas públicas seriam as mais desejáveis em relação a um regime ideal de exceções aos direitos autorais. Concluiu-se que há espaço para uma interpretação da Constituição que autorizaria a prática do compartilhamento de arquivos, bem como outras condutas afins, argumentando-se, por outro lado, que uma política maximalista de propriedade intelectual extrapola qualquer interpretação razoável da dimensão constitucional dos direitos autorais, e que as limitações implementadas infraconstitucionalmente pela Lei n.º 9.610/98 são insuficientes para suprir o que é exigido pela função social da propriedade intelectual e, conseqüentemente, inconstitucionais se interpretadas restritivamente. No tocante aos aspectos teórico-metodológicos específicos de ciência do direito, optou-se por uma perspectiva kelseniana em um nível metateórico, e a aplicação separada de abordagens distintas no plano teórico: a teoria estruturante de Friedrich Müller, e a teoria dos direitos fundamentais de Robert Alexy, cada qual com suas particulares conseqüências metodológicas