Copyright in the Digital Age Private Copying Form Illegal Sources: Framing, Embedding and Other Forms of Linking in the CJEU Case Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zuzana CCsaaovv
Keyword(s):  
Digital Age ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Copying

scholarly journals The Right to Be Forgotten in the Digital Age: The Challenges of Data Protection Beyond Borders

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. 55-65
Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini ◽  
Edoardo Celeste
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
High Data ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
High Standards ◽  
Democratic Systems ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article explores the challenges of the extraterritorial application of the right to be forgotten and, more broadly, of EU data protection law in light of the recent case law of the ECJ. The paper explains that there are good arguments for the EU to apply its high data protection standards outside its borders, but that such an extraterritorial application faces challenges, as it may clash with duties of international comity, legal diversity, or contrasting rulings delivered by courts in other jurisdictions. As the article points out from a comparative perspective, the protection of privacy in the digital age increasingly exposes a tension between efforts by legal systems to impose their high standards of data protection outside their borders – a dynamic which could be regarded as ‘imperialist’ – and claims by other legal systems to assert their own power over data – a dynamic which one could name ‘sovereigntist’. As the article suggests, navigating between the Scylla of imperialism and the Charybdis of sovereigntism will not be an easy task. In this context, greater convergence in the data protection framework of liberal democratic systems worldwide appears as the preferable path to secure privacy in the digital age.

CJEU Case Law and the Interplay with Policy and Legislative Action in the DSM

2019 ◽  
pp. 199-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Policy Discourse ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Private Copying ◽  
The Press ◽  
Fair Compensation ◽  
The Eu

The final chapter tackles recent initiatives for a reform of the EU copyright acquis. In particular, it focuses on a number of selected areas in the proposed Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM), which require to be considered in light, not just of existing legislation, but also—and perhaps most importantly—existing case law. These areas are: the ‘value gap’ (‘transfer of value’) proposal, the press publishers’ right, fair compensation for private copying, and licensing of out-of-commerce works. The chapter discusses whether and to what extent the EU copyright reform may be regarded as a ‘codification’ of existing CJEU case law, or rather as a departure from it. Either way, the centrality of judicial interpretation of existing legislation is apparent also in the context of policy discourse.

Right to Copy v. Three-Step Test

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Geiger
Keyword(s):  
Information Society ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Step Test ◽  
Digital Environment ◽  
General Sense ◽  
Private Copying ◽  
Digital World ◽  
Right To Copy ◽  
Legal Grounds

AbstractThe emergence of the information society and the digital age have radically disturbed the balance contained in copyright law. Aware of the dangers for the exploitation of their rights created by new technical opportunities, right holders have constantly challenged the free zones within copyright. Especially the private copy exception seems to be particularlymenaced by the implementation of anti-copying measures (which are themselves protected by law) as well as by the three-step test, which seems to become a real judicial filter for the application of any exception in the digital environment. In reaction to this evolution, a real mobilization of the consumers wanting to enforce their “right of private copying” can be observed. This article analyzes whether there is such a right of the user and - if it is so - on which legal grounds. In a more general sense, it proposes a reflection on the future of the private copy exception in the digital world.

The AMA Guides in Pennsylvania “Post-Protz”: Act 111 and Case Law Update

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 12-19
Author(s):  
Justin D. Beck ◽  
Judge David B. Torrey
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings

Abstract Medical evaluators must understand the context for the impairment assessments they perform. This article exemplifies issues that arise based on the role of impairment ratings and what edition of the AMA Guides to the Impairment of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is used. This discussion also raises interesting legal questions related to retroactivity, applicability of prior precedent, and delegation. On June 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down its decision, Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), which disallows use of the “most recent edition” of the AMA Guides when determining partial disability entitlement under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. An attempted solution was passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly and was signed into law Act 111 on October 24, 2018. Although it affirms that the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, must be used for impairment ratings, the law reduces the threshold for total disability benefits from 50% to 35% impairment. This legislative adjustment benefited injured workers but sparked additional litigation about whether, when, and how the adjustment should be applied (excerpts from the laws and decisions discussed by the authors are included at the end of the article). In using impairment as a threshold for permanent disability benefits, evaluators must distinguish between impairment and disability and determine an appropriate threshold; they also must be aware of the compensation and adjudication process and of the jurisdictions in which they practice.

Shoulder Pain at Work: Causation Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Joel Weddington ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Mark Melhorn ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Shoulder Injury ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Causation Analysis ◽  
Injury Causation ◽  
Relevant Factors

Abstract In most cases of shoulder injury at work, causation analysis is not clear-cut and requires detailed, thoughtful, and time-consuming causation analysis; traditionally, physicians have approached this in a cursory manner, often presenting their findings as an opinion. An established method of causation analysis using six steps is outlined in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Guidelines and in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, Second Edition, as follows: 1) collect evidence of disease; 2) collect epidemiological data; 3) collect evidence of exposure; 4) collect other relevant factors; 5) evaluate the validity of the evidence; and 6) write a report with evaluation and conclusions. Evaluators also should recognize that thresholds for causation vary by state and are based on specific statutes or case law. Three cases illustrate evidence-based causation analysis using the six steps and illustrate how examiners can form well-founded opinions about whether a given condition is work related, nonoccupational, or some combination of these. An evaluator's causal conclusions should be rational, should be consistent with the facts of the individual case and medical literature, and should cite pertinent references. The opinion should be stated “to a reasonable degree of medical probability,” on a “more-probable-than-not” basis, or using a suitable phrase that meets the legal threshold in the applicable jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document