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.

Darbe detaliai apžvelgiamos intelektinės nuosavybės techninės apsaugos formos, įvairios jų klasifikacijos, iš kurių šiame kontekste svarbiausias yra skirstymas į aktyvias ir pasyvias techninės apsaugos priemones. Darbe išsamiai analizuoti apsaugos mechanizmai, skirti intelektinę nuosavybę saugančių techninių apsaugos priemonių teisinei apsaugai, pradedant 1996 m. PINO autorių teisių, fonogramų gamintojų ir transliuotojų sutartimis, 2001 m. ES direktyva dėl autorių teisių ir gretutinių teisių informacinėje visuomenėje tam tikrų aspektų suderinimo, baigiant įvairių valstybių (įskaitant ir Lietuvos) nacionaliniu teisiniu reguliavimu. Atliktos teisinės informacijos analizės pagrindu atskleidžiamos intelektinės nuosavybės teisinių ir techninių apsaugos priemonių suderintos ir nesuderintos sritys ir daroma išvada, jog teisinės apsaugos mechanizmas, pasirinktas sureguliuoti techninių apsaugos priemonių naudojimą ir kitus susijusius veiksmus, buvo netikslus ir nepasiteisino, kadangi daugelis valstybių nacionaliniu lygiu skirtingai ir neatsižvelgiant į pirminius tikslus interpretavo ir įgyvendino techninių apsaugos priemonių teisinės apsaugos nuostatas. Praktinis situacijos tyrimas atskleidžia neigiamą visuomenės ir teisių gynimo institucijų požiūrį į pasirinktą teisinės apsaugos modelį ir į techninių apsaugos priemonių naudojimą apskritai, kadangi techninės apsaugos priemonės sukelia daug problemų teisėtiems intelektinės nuosavybės objektų naudotojams ir nedaro poveikio asmenims... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Master Paperwork thoroughly overviews technical protection measures of intellectual property and various classifications of them and determines the main differentiation in this work context – i.e. classification to active and passive technical protection measures. This paperwork also deeply analyses legal protection mechanisms of technical protection measures, starting WIPO Copyright, Phonogram producers and broadcasters treaties of year 1996, continuing to European Union directive on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society of year 2001 and finishing the analysis of the national legal regulations of different world countries, including Lithuania. Under the basis of the analysis of the legal information, the author reveals harmonized and incompatible areas between legal protection of intellectual property and technological protection measures and concludes that the legal protection mechanism, which was chosen to regulate the usage and other related actions of technological protection measures, was not correct and did not serve the purpose, because many countries diversely and without seeking primary goals of WIPO treaties interpreted and implemented the provisions of the legal protection of technological protection measures. The practical survey of the situation reveals negative opinion of society, scholars and justice institutions concerning the chosen legal protection model and concerning the usage of technological... [to full text]

Comme deux éléments qui ne peuvent coexister sans se nuire, les exceptions au droit d’auteur et les mesures techniques de protection sont dans un rapport d’opposition. On ne compte plus dans la littérature spécialisée le nombre d’articles dédiés à leur incompatibilité. Les exceptions au droit d’auteur sont des « dérogations légales » au monopole d’exploitation. Elles permettent d’écarter la mise en oeuvre du droit exclusif alors que les conditions d’application de ce dernier sont réunies. Les mesures techniques de protection sont destinées à empêcher les utilisations interdites par les titulaires de droits. La question est de savoir si ces dispositifs techniques peuvent restreindre l’exercice des exceptions au droit d’auteur. La réponse est positive puisque la directive 2001/29/CE du 22 mai 2001 interdit de contourner des mesures techniques quand bien même il s’agirait de mettre en oeuvre une dérogation au droit d’auteur. Cependant, l’instrument européen instaure un régime de sauvegarde en faveur de certaines exceptions. Aussi, le législateur français a créé une autorité administrative indépendante – la Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des oeuvres et la protection des droits sur Internet – chargée de garantir le bénéfice de ces exceptions. Il est permis de se demander si l’instauration d’un régime de sauvegarde n’est pas la reconnaissance implicite de la valeur impérative des dérogations au droit d’auteur. En tous les cas, cela donne à penser que les exceptions constituent bel et bien des intérêts juridiquement protégés susceptibles d’être portés devant l’autorité judiciaire contrairement à ce qu’a jugé la Cour de cassation. / Like two elements that cannot coexist without working against each other, exceptions to exclusive rights and technological protection measures are in opposition. There are countless articles in the specialised literature devoted to their incompatibility. Exceptions to exclusive rights are “legal exemptions” from the operating monopoly. They enable the implementation of exclusive rights to be neutralised even though the conditions for the application of the latter have been met. Technological protection measures are intended to prevent unauthorised use by rightholders. The question is whether these technological systems can restrict the use of exceptions to exclusive rights. The answer is affirmative, since the directive 2001/29/CE of 22 May 2001 prohibits the circumvention of technological measures even though it would be a case of implementing an exemption to exclusive rights. The European instrument, however, establishes a protection system in favour of certain exceptions. Consequently, French lawmakers have created an independent administrative authority – the High Authority for the dissemination of creative works and protection of rights on the Internet – in order to safeguard the benefits of these exceptions. It could be asked whether the establishment of a protection system implicitly acknowledges the crucial value of these exceptions. In any event, it suggests that they do indeed constitute legally protected interests liable to be brought before the legal authorities, contrary to the Court of Cassation’s assertions.