Cover des Buchs: Reconstructing European Copyright Law for the Digital Single Market
Im Shop erwerben
, um zu prüfen, ob Sie einen Vollzugriff auf diese Publikation haben.
Monographie Kein Zugriff

Reconstructing European Copyright Law for the Digital Single Market

Between Old Paradigms and Digital Challenges
Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 01.08.2017

Zusammenfassung

Die Reformbestrebungen zum Urheberrechtssystem der Europäischen Union werden in diesem Buch kritisch hinterfragt. Anhand der Kernelemente des harmonisierten Urheberrechtsacquis zeigt das Werk die Defizite der aktuellen Reformvorhaben im Hinblick auf die Schaffung eines digitalen Binnenmarktes auf. Hierzu wird besonders herausgestellt, dass ein grundlegender Ansatz als Basis für ein systematisch strukturiertes europäisches Urheberrecht in den bestehenden Richtlinien und Verordnungen nicht erkennbar ist, aber auch noch nicht erkennbar auf der EU-Ebene entwickelt wird. Diesem Problem werden grundlegende Lösungsansätze entgegengestellt. Hierzu werden drei mögliche Optionen zur legislativen Implementierung der Vorschläge diskutiert. Das Werk positioniert sich deutlich in der aktuellen Debatte zur Reform des europäischen Urheberrechts und bietet Ansatzpunkte, von denen ausgehend ein systematischeres und kohärenteres Urheberrecht erwachsen könnte.

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Copyrightjahr
2017
Erscheinungsdatum
01.08.2017
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-3542-6
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-7875-9
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Luxemburger Juristische Studien - Luxembourg Legal Studies
Band
10
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
594
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis Kein Zugriff 1 - 30
    1. A. Copyright Old and New Kein Zugriff
    2. B. A historical perspective: Copyright before digitization Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Efficiency and certainty Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Balance Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. System Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Structure Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. New reproductions Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. New uses Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Different authorization-markets Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Problems with moral rights Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Fragmentation and effects of harmonization Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Rightsholder interests Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. (Private) User interests Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Interests of businesses (and the Commission) Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Single Market Act Kein Zugriff
      2. II. A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights Kein Zugriff
      3. III. Green Paper on the online distribution of audiovisual works Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Stakeholder dialogue “Licenses for Europe” Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. The Public Consultation on the review of EU copyright Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. A leaked White Paper Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. The Commission 2015 Work Programme Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. The “Reda Report” Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. The Digital Single Market Strategy Kein Zugriff
    3. C. Elements of a European Copyright Framework for the Digital Single Market Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886) Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994) Kein Zugriff
      3. III. WIPO Internet Treaties Kein Zugriff
      1. I. The centerpiece of EU copyright – the InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC) Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Vertical harmonization – extending rightsholder protection Kein Zugriff
      3. III. Purposeful copyright management – orphans and online music Kein Zugriff
      4. IV. Interim conclusion: restrictive trends in EU copyright harmonization Kein Zugriff
      1. I. The (early) copyright case-law Kein Zugriff
      2. II. The recent case-law Kein Zugriff
    4. D. The status quo Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Managing multiple rights Kein Zugriff
      2. II. The principle of territoriality in the EU Kein Zugriff
      3. III. Conflicts with the single market Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Basic EU exhaustion Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Regional exhaustion in the EU – legislative certainty Kein Zugriff
          2. b. International exhaustion in the US – an upset Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Territoriality applied to digital works Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Classifying digital content Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Distinguishing goods from services Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Exhausting digital content Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Exhaustion and services Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Exhaustion and communication to the public Kein Zugriff
          1. a. The Opinion of AG Bot Kein Zugriff
          2. b. The Judgment of the Court Kein Zugriff
          3. c. The post-UsedSoft excitement Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Germany – resale denied Kein Zugriff
          2. b. The Netherlands – a waiting game Kein Zugriff
          3. c. German-Dutch disagreements Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Application of exhaustion to digital content Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Functional equivalence of tangible and digital works Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Market impact Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Is exhaustion applicable to services? Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Necessary reproductions Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Preventing piracy Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Infringements Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Defenses Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Sale v. license (goods v. services?) Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Moving files through time and space Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Flexibilities Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Territoriality is there to stay Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Physical goods Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Digital files Kein Zugriff
          3. c. It is services, not sales! Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Coping with territoriality, and (maybe) rebalancing exhaustion Kein Zugriff
          1. a. The ‘secondary’ market Kein Zugriff
          2. b. The ‘primary’ market – establishment and collisions Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Striking the balance for rightsholders Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Striking the balance for users Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Value for money Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Distribution of risk Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Ownership permits resale Kein Zugriff
      9. IX. The future of territoriality and exhaustion Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. The consent barrier Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. The different roles of L&Es Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. L&Es in current EU copyright policy Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. The L&Es of the InfoSoc Directive Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. The exhaustive list of Article 5 InfoSoc Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. The dominance of exclusive rights Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Narrow interpretation of L&Es Kein Zugriff
          2. b. A turn of the tide Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Fundamental rights Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Commercial vs. non-commercial uses Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. User-generated content Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Copy-reliant technologies Kein Zugriff
        5. 5. Technological processes – facilitating the Internet Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Creating a dangerous precedent Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Expected repetitions Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Continuing inflexibility and uncertainty Kein Zugriff
          4. d. The uncertainties of implementation Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Wide interpretation Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Extension by analogy Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Limits of non-restrictive interpretation Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Origins of a ‘flexible’ norm Kein Zugriff
          2. b. The three-step test in EU copyright Kein Zugriff
            1. i. Application by the judiciary Kein Zugriff
            2. ii. Each step revisited Kein Zugriff
            3. iii. Order of interpretation Kein Zugriff
          4. d. Limitations of the three-step test Kein Zugriff
          5. e. Making the test work Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Advantages and disadvantages of fair use Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Is fair use really that flexible? Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Limitations of fair use Kein Zugriff
          4. d. Implanting fair use Kein Zugriff
        5. 5. Including an open norm Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. The locus of an open norm Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. The notion of an open norm Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Fundamental rights and technological developments – shifting standards Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Abandoning restrictive interpretation Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Compatibility with the three-step test Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Introducing technological neutrality Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Economic interests Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Non-economic interests Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Limiting contractual freedom Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Ideally! Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Realistically? Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Critically Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. The ratio of TPMs Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Control over content Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Trust and security Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Legislation on TPMs Kein Zugriff
          1. a. TPMs and fair remuneration Kein Zugriff
          2. b. TPMs and control Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Mod-chips and consoles Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Breaking files and access-controls Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Digital exception Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Exclusion by contract Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Uncertainties and the territorial dimension Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Over-employment Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Technological limits Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. The ability to enable Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Property rights Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Fundamental rights Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Rebalanced TPMs Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. TPMs protect business models Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Primacy of L&Es over TPMs Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Removal of effective obstacles Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Increased efficiency Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Steps in the right direction Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Legislative tasks Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Collective rights management in a historical perspective Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Systematic territoriality Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Collective management in the copyright acquis Kein Zugriff
          1. a. IFPI Simulcasting: exception for concerted practices Kein Zugriff
          2. b. CISAC: a crackdown on segmented markets Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Impetus for anti-territorial legislation Kein Zugriff
          1. a. The Parliament’s Resolution Kein Zugriff
          2. b. The Commission’s reply Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Narrowed scope: online music services Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Relations between CMOs, users and rightsholders Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Abandoning territorial licensing Kein Zugriff
          4. d. Split repertoires Kein Zugriff
          5. e. No effective harmonization Kein Zugriff
            1. i. Options Kein Zugriff
            2. ii. Policy choice Kein Zugriff
            1. i. Options Kein Zugriff
            2. ii. Policy choice Kein Zugriff
            1. i. Governance and transparency Kein Zugriff
            2. ii. Multi-territorial licensing Kein Zugriff
          4. d. Critique Kein Zugriff
            1. i. Definition of CMO Kein Zugriff
            2. ii. Governance and transparency Kein Zugriff
            3. iii. Multi-territorial licensing Kein Zugriff
            4. iv. Individualized exercise of exclusive online-rights Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Extended collective licensing Kein Zugriff
          2. b. The country-of-origin principle Kein Zugriff
          1. a. CMOs and copyright L&Es Kein Zugriff
          2. b. CMOs and TPMs, complementing or replacing? Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. The future of EU collective management Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Efficient copyright management Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Terminological injustice Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Users Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Intermediaries Kein Zugriff
          1. a. The balance must be flexible Kein Zugriff
          2. b. The balance must be based on principles Kein Zugriff
          3. c. The balance must be fair Kein Zugriff
    2. B. The Pieces and the Puzzle Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Defining exclusive rights Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. The Pandora’s Box of L&Es Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Complementary additions Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Advantages of coherent and directly applicable legislation Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Territoriality, again! The inefficiency of ‘mere’ harmonization Kein Zugriff
          1. a. Replacing national titles Kein Zugriff
          2. b. Sectoral protection Kein Zugriff
          3. c. Parallel existing titles or replacement of national copyrights Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. An ‘elegant’ solution Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. The perspective for a unitary copyright title Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Urgent problems need quick responses Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. A word on competence Kein Zugriff
    4. D. Perspective Kein Zugriff
  7. Summary Kein Zugriff 549 - 556
  8. Table of Legislation and Cases Kein Zugriff 557 - 566
  9. Bibliography Kein Zugriff 567 - 594

Literaturverzeichnis (378)

  1. Bibliography Google Scholar öffnen
  2. Books Google Scholar öffnen
  3. Bauer, Christian Alexander. User Generated Content: Urheberrechtliche Zulässigkeit nutzergenerierter Medieninhalte. Springer, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  4. Blomqvist, Jørgen. Primer on International Copyright and Related Rights. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9781783470976
  5. Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang. Vom Ethos der Juristen (2nd ed.). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2011-07-15. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-53652-8
  6. Borghi, Maurizio, & Stavroula Karapapa. Copyright and Mass Digitization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664559.003.0004
  7. Burrell, Robert, & Allison Coleman. Copyright Exceptions: The Digital Impact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511666964
  8. Busche, Jan, Peter-Tobias Stoll, & Andreas Wiebe. Kommentar: TRIPs – Internationales und europäisches Recht des geistigen Eigentums (2nd ed.). Köln: Carl Heymans Verlag, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  9. Craig, Paul, & Grainne de Búrca. EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (5th ed.). Oxford, New York etc.: Oxford University Press, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  10. Depreeuw, Sari. The Variable Scope of the Exclusive Economic Rights in Copyright. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  11. Doctorow, Cory. Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age. San Francisco: McSweeney’s, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  12. Dutfield, Graham, & Uma Suthersanen. Global Intellectual Property Law. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. Google Scholar öffnen
  13. Fischer, Oliver. Perspektiven für ein Europäisches Urheberrecht. Bern: Stämpfli Verlag, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783845254890
  14. Freely, John. Aladdin’s Lamp: How Greek Science Came to Europe Through the Islamic World. New York: Vintage, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  15. Gervais, Daniel. The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (3rd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008. Google Scholar öffnen
  16. Goldstein, Paul, & P. Bernt Hugenholtz. International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York, etc.: Oxford University Press, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  17. Guibault, Lucie, Natali Helberger, Marco Loos et al. Digital Consumers and the Law. Towards a Cohesive European Framework (28). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s10603-012-9201-1
  18. Guibault, Lucie M.C.R. Copyright Limitations and Contracts, An Analysis of the Contractual Overridability of Limitations on Copyright. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002. Google Scholar öffnen
  19. Halpern, Sheldon W., & Phillip Johnson. Harmonising Copyright Law and Dealing With Dissonance: A Framework for Convergence of US and EU Law. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  20. Klamert, Marcus. The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683123.003.0013
  21. Kleinemenke, Manuel. Fair Use im deutschen und europäischen Urheberrecht?: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zur Flexibilisierung des urheberrechtlichen Schrankenkataloges nach dem Vorbild der US-amerikanischen Fair Use-Doktrin. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783845248936
  22. Kur, Annette, & Thomas Dreier. European Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  23. Lenaerts, Koenraad, & Piet Van Nuffel. European Union Law (3rd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  24. Loewenheim, Ulrich. Handbuch des Urheberrechts (2nd ed.). München: C.H.Beck, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  25. Malbon, Justin, Charles Lawson, & Mark Davison. The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary. Cheltemham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  26. OECD. Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Networking. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2007. Google Scholar öffnen
  27. Patterson, L. Ray, & Stanley W. Lindberg. The Nature of Copyright: A Law of User’s Rights. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991. Google Scholar öffnen
  28. Ricketson, Sam, & Jane C. Ginsburg. International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond (2nd ed.). Oxford, New York etc.: Oxford University Press, 2006. Google Scholar öffnen
  29. Rosati, Eleonora. Originality in EU Copyright: Full Harmonization through Case Law. Cheltemham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  30. Savin, Andrej. EU Internet Law. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9781781006016
  31. Senftleben, Martin. Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test: An Analysis of the Three-Step Test in International and EC Copyright Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2004. Google Scholar öffnen
  32. Seville, Catherine. The Internationalisation of Copyright Law: Books, Buccaneers and the Black Flag in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495274
  33. Sterling, Adrian. World Copyright Law (3rd revised ed.). Sweet & Maxwell, 2008. Google Scholar öffnen
  34. Stothers, Christopher. Parallel Trade in Europe: Intellectual Property, Competition and Regulatory Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007. Google Scholar öffnen
  35. Tridimas, Takis. The General Principles of EU Law (2nd ed.). Oxford, New York etc.: Oxford University Press, 2007. Google Scholar öffnen
  36. van Eechoud, Mireille, P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Dr. Lucie Guibault et al. Harmonizing European Copyright Law: The Challenges of Better Lawmaking (19). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2009. Google Scholar öffnen
  37. von Lewinski, Silke. International Copyright Law and Policy. Oxford, New York etc.: Oxford University Press, 2008. Google Scholar öffnen
  38. Book Chapters Google Scholar öffnen
  39. Bauer, Christian Alexander. “User Generated Content – Urheberrechtliche Zulässigkeit nutzergenerierter Medieninhalte”. In Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Nadine Klass, & Silke von Lewinski (Eds.), Nutzergenerierte Inhalte als Gegenstand des Privatrechts: Aktuelle Probleme des Web 2.0 (pp. 1-42). Heidelberg, Dordrecht, etc.: Springer, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  40. Bechtold, Stefan. “From Copyright to Information Law – Implications of Digital Rights Management”. In Tomas Sander (Ed.), Security and Privacy in Digital Rights Management: ACM CCS-8 Workshop DRM 2001, Philadelphia, PA, USA, November 5, 2001. Revised Papers (pp. 213-232). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2002. Google Scholar öffnen
  41. Bently, Lionel. “Introduction to Part I: the history of copyright”. In Lionel Bently, Uma Suthersanen, & Paul Torremans (Eds.), Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, from 1709 to Cyberspace (pp. 7-13). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  42. Bodewig, Theo. “Exhaustion of intellectual property in the European Union”. In Toshiko Takenaka (Ed.), Intellectual Property in Common Law and Civil Law (pp. 401-415). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9780857934376.00028
  43. Christofferson, Jonas. “Human Rights and balancing: The principle of proportionality”. In Christophe Geiger (Ed.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property (pp. 19-38). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  44. Cook, Trevor. “Exhaustion – a casualty of the borderless digital era”. In Lionel Bently, Uma Suthersanen, & Paul Torremans (Eds.), Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, from 1709 to Cyberspace (pp. 354-366). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  45. Dreier, Thomas. “Regulating competition by way of copyright limitations and exceptions”. In Paul Torremans (Ed.), Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 232-254). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007. Google Scholar öffnen
  46. Drexl, Josef. “Competition in the field of collective management: preferring ‘creative competition’ to allocative efficiency in European copyright law”. In Paul Torremans (Ed.), Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 255-282). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007. Google Scholar öffnen
  47. Ducoulombier, Peggy. “Interaction between human rights: Are all human rights equal?”. In Christophe Geiger (Ed.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property (pp. 39-51). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  48. Dusollier, Séverine. “Pruning the European intellectual property tree: in search of common principles and roots”. In Christopher Geiger (Ed.), Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives (pp. 24-57). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  49. Dusollier, Séverine. “DRM at the intersection of copyright law and technology: a case study for regulation”. In Eric Brousseau, Meryem Marzouki, & Cécile Méadel (Eds.), Governance, Regulation and Powers on the Internet (pp. 297-317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  50. Farrand, Benjamin. “The Digital Agenda for Europe, the Economy and its Impact upon the Development of EU Copyright Policy”. In Irini Stamatoudi & Paul Torremans (Eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (pp. 988-1018). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  51. Ficsor, Mihály. “Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights from the Viewpoint of International Norms and the Acquis Communautaire”. In Daniel Gervais (Ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (2nd ed., pp. 29-74). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  52. Gaubiac, Yves, Brigitte Lindner, & John N. Adams. “Duration of copyright”. In Estelle Derclaye (Ed.), Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright (pp. 148-192). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9781848446007.00012
  53. Geiger, Christophe, Daniel J. Gervais, & Martin Senftleben. “Understanding the “three-step test””. In Daniel J. Gervais (Ed.), International Intellectual Property: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 167-189). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  54. Geiger, Christophe, & Franciska Schönherr. “Defining the Scope of Protection of Copyright in the EU: The Need to Reconsider the Acquis regarding Limitations and Exceptions”. In Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou (Ed.), Codification of European Copyright Law. Challenges and Perspectives (pp. 133-168). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  55. Geiger, Christophe, & Franciska Schönherr. “The Information Society Directive (Articles 5 and 6(4))”. In Irini Stamatoudi & Paul Torremans (Eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (pp. 395-536). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  56. Geiger, Christophe, & Franciska Schönherr. “Limitations to copyright in the digital age”. In Andrej Savin & Jan Trzaskowski (Eds.), Research Handbook on EU Internet Law (Research Handbooks in European Law) (pp. 110-142). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9781782544173.00013
  57. Gervais, Daniel. “Collective Management of Copyright: Theory and Practice in the Digital Age”. In Daniel Gervais (Ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (2nd ed., pp. 1-28). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  58. Gervais, Daniel. “Individual and Collective Management of Rights Online”. In Johan Axhamn (Ed.), Copyright in a borderless online environment (pp. 89-99). Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  59. Ginsburg, Jane C. “‘Une chose publique’? The author’s domain and the public domain in early British, French and US copyright law”. In Paul Torremans (Ed.), Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 133-160). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007. Google Scholar öffnen
  60. Ginsburg, Jane C. “Exceptional authorship: the role of copyright exceptions in promoting creativity”. In Suzy Frankel & Daniel Gervais (Eds.), The Evolution and Equilibrium of Copyright in the Digital Age (Vol. 26, pp. 15-28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  61. Gotzen, Frank. “The European Legislator’s Strategy in the Field of Copyright Harmonization”. In Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou (Ed.), Codification of European Copyright Law: Challenges and Perspectives (pp. 41-54). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  62. Graber, Christoph B. “Is there potential for collective rights management at the global level? Perspectives of a new global constitutionalism in the creative sector”. In Suzy Frankel & Daniel Gervais (Eds.), The Evolution and Equilibrium of Copyright in the Digital Age (Vol. 26, pp. 241-268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477179.017
  63. Griffiths, Jonathan, & Luke McDonagh. “Fundamental rights and European IP law: the case of Art 17(2) of the EU Charter”. In Christopher Geiger (Ed.), Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives (pp. 75-93). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  64. Grosheide, Willem. “Transition form guild regulation to modern copyright law – a view from the Low Countries”. In Lionel Bently, Uma Suthersanen, & Paul Torremans (Eds.), Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, from 1709 to Cyberspace (pp. 79-102). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  65. Guibault, Lucie. “Collective Rights Management Directive”. In Irini Stamatoudi & Paul Torremans (Eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (pp. 696-795). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  66. Guibault, Lucie, & Stef van Gompel. “Collective Management in the European Union”. In Daniel Gervais (Ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (2nd ed., pp. 135-168). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  67. Guibault, Lucie M.C.R. “Contracts and Copyright Exemptions”. In P. Bernt Hugenholtz (Ed.), Copyright and Electronic Commerce: Legal Aspects of Electronic Copyright Management (pp. 125-163). The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000. Google Scholar öffnen
  68. Hilty, Reto M. “Reflections on a European Copyright Codification”. In Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou (Ed.), Codification of European Copyright Law: Challenges and Perspectives (pp. 355-372). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  69. Hugenholtz, Bernt. “Is Harmonization a Good Thing? The Case of the Copyright Acquis”. In Justine Pila & Ansgar Ohly (Eds.), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law: Towards a European Legal Methodology (pp. 57-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  70. Hugenholtz, Bernt P. “Copyright without frontiers: the problem of territoriality in European Copyright”. In Estelle Derclaye (Ed.), Research Handbook of the Future of EU Copyright (pp. 12-26). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. Google Scholar öffnen
  71. Hugenholtz, P. Bernt. “The dynamics of harmonization of copyright at the European level”. In Christophe Geiger (Ed.), Constructing European Intellectual Property: Achievements and New Perspectives (pp. 273-291). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  72. Hugenholtz, P. Bernt. “The Wittem Group’s European Copyright Code”. In Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou (Ed.), Codification of European Copyright Law: Challenges and Perspectives (pp. 339-354). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  73. Janssens, Marie-Christine. “The issue of exceptions: reshaping the keys to the gates in the territory of literary, musical and artistic creation”. In Estelle Derclaye (Ed.), Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright (pp. 317-348). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. Google Scholar öffnen
  74. Janssens, Marie-Christine. “The Software Directive”. In Irini Stamatoudi & Paul Torremans (Eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (pp. 89-148). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  75. Karnell, Gunnar W.G. “The Technical Protection of Copyright”. In Johan Axhamn (Ed.), Copyright in a borderless online environment (pp. 119-124). Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  76. Klaas, Nadine, & Hajo Rupp. “Europeana, Arrow and Orphan Works: Bringing Europe’s Cultural Heritage Online”. In Irini Stamatoudi & Paul Torremans (Eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (pp. 946-987). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  77. Lucas-Schloetter, Agnès. “Is there a concept of European Copyright Law? History, Evolution, Policies and Politics and the Acquis Communautaire”. In Irini Stamatoudi & Paul Torremans (Eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (pp. 988-1017). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  78. Lucas, André. “European Copyright Codification”. In Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou (Ed.), Codification of European Copyright Law: Challenges and Perspectives (pp. 373-379). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  79. Lucas, André. “International Exhaustion”. In Lionel Bently, Uma Suthersanen, & Paul Torremans (Eds.), Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, from 1709 to Cyberspace (pp. 304-320). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  80. Ohly, Ansgar. “European Fundamental Rights and Intellectual Property”. In Justine Pila & Ansgar Ohly (Eds.), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law: Towards a European Legal Methodology (pp. 145-163). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  81. Petri, Gunnar. “Transition from guild regulation to modern copyright law (Sweden)”. In Lionel Bently, Uma Suthersanen, & Paul Torremans (Eds.), Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, from 1709 to Cyberspace (pp. 103-115). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  82. Peukert, Alexander. “The fundamental right to (intellectual) property and the discretion of the legislature”. In Christophe Geiger (Ed.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property (pp. 132-148). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9781783472420.00018
  83. Peukert, Alexander. “Why do ‘good people’ disregard copyright on the Internet?”. In Christophe Geiger (Ed.), Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property) (pp. 151-167). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  84. Reinbothe, Jörg. “Foreword”. In Brigitte Lindner & Ted Shapiro (Eds.), Copyright in the Information Society: A Guide to National Implementation of the European Directive (pp. xvi-xxv). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  85. Rognstad, Ole-Andreas. “The multiplicity of territorial IP rights”. In Jan Rosén (Ed.), Individualism and Collectiveness in Intellectual Property Law (pp. 55-68). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9780857939616.00010
  86. Rosén, Jan. “The Nordic Extended Collective Licensing Model as a Mechanism for Simplified Rights Clearance for Legitimate Online Services”. In Johan Axhamn (Ed.), Copyright in a borderless online environment (pp. 65-85). Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  87. Schwemer, Sebastian Felix. “The licensing of online music streaming services in Europe”. In Richard Watt (Ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Copyright: A Guide for Students and Teachers (pp. 141-164). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  88. Shapiro, Ted. “Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright in the information society”. In Brigitte Lindner & Ted Shapiro (Eds.), Copyright in the Information Society: A Guide to National Implementation of the European Directive (pp. 27-56). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  89. Stamatoudi, Irini, & Paul Torremans. “The Information Society Directive”. In Irini Stamatoudi & Paul Torremans (Eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (pp. 395-536). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  90. Strowel, Alain. “Towards a European Copyright Law: Four Issues to Consider”. In Irini Stamatoudi & Paul Torremans (Eds.), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (pp. 1127-1154). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  91. Strowel, Alain, & Bernard Vanbrabant. “Copyright licensing: A European view”. In Jaques de Werra (Ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Licensing (pp. 29-53). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  92. Synodinou, Tatiana-Eleni. “Copyright Law: an ancient history, a contemporary challenge”. In Andrej Savin & Jan Trzaskowski (Eds.), Research Handbook on EU Internet Law (pp. 81-109). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  93. Torremans, Paul. “Questioning the principles of territoriality: the determination of territorial mechanisms of commercialisation”. In Paul Torremans (Ed.), Copyright Law: Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 460-482). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007. Google Scholar öffnen
  94. Torremans, Paul L.C. “The Perspective of the Introduction of a European Fair Use Clause”. In Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou (Ed.), Codification of European Copyright Law: Challenges and Perspectives (pp. 319-337). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  95. Vogel, Martin. “From privilege to modern copyright law”. In Lionel Bently, Uma Suthersanen, & Paul Torremans (Eds.), Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, from 1709 to Cyberspace (pp. 116-121). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  96. von Lewinski, Silke. “Copyright in a Borderless Online Environment: EU Cross-Border Licensing of Rights”. In Johan Axhamn (Ed.), Copyright in a borderless online environment (pp. 101-118). Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik, 2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  97. Voorhoof, Dirk. “Freedom of expression ad the right to information: Implications for copyright”. In Christophe Geiger (Ed.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property (Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property) (pp. 331-353). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  98. Woods, Tanya. “Multi-territorial Licensing and the Evolving Role of Collective Management Organizations”. In Daniel Gervais (Ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (2nd ed., pp. 105-133). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  99. Yu, Peter K. “Digital copyright enforcement means and their human rights threats”. In Christophe Geiger (Ed.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property (pp. 455-476). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9781783472420.00037
  100. Yu, Peter K. “The confuzzling rhetoric against new copyright exceptions”. In Peter Drahos, Gustavo Ghidini, & Hanns Ullrich (Eds.), Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property (pp. 278-307). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  101. Journal Articles and Scientific Papers Google Scholar öffnen
  102. Akester, Patricia, “The Impact of Digital Rights Management on Freedom of Expression – the First Empirical Assessment”. 41(1) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2010): 31-58. Google Scholar öffnen
  103. Akester, Patricia, “The new challenges of striking the right balance between copyright protection and access to knowledge, information and culture”. 32(8) European Intellectual Property Review (2010): 372-381. Google Scholar öffnen
  104. Akester, Patricia, & Richard Akester, “Digital rights management in the 21st century”. 28(3) European Intellectual Property Review (2006): 159-168. Google Scholar öffnen
  105. Alich, Stefan, “Neue Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet der Lizenzierung von Musikrechten durch Verwertungsgesellschaften in Europa”. 57(12) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2008): 996-1007. Google Scholar öffnen
  106. Apel, Simon, “Keine Anwendung der »UsedSoft«-Rechtsprechung des EuGH jenseits von Computerprogrammen – Eine Bestandsaufnahme zur Erschöpfung bei »gebrauchten« digitalen Gütern”. Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum/Intellectual Property Journal (2015): 640-648. Google Scholar öffnen
  107. Arezzo, Emanuela, “Competition and Intellectual Property Protection in the Market for the Provision of Multi-Territorial Licensing of Online Rights in Musical Works – Lights and Shadows of the New European Directive 2014/26/EU”. 46(5) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2015): 534-565. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s40319-015-0354-8
  108. Arnold, Richard, & Eleonora Rosati, “Are national courts the addressees of the InfoSoc three-step test?”. 10(10) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 741-749. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv138
  109. Arrezzo, Emanuela, “Video Games and Consoles Between Copyright and Technical Protection Measures”. 40(1) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2009): 82-95. Google Scholar öffnen
  110. Ballabh, Animesh, “Paracopyright”. 30(4) European Intellectual Property Review (2008): 138-144. Google Scholar öffnen
  111. Batchelor, Bill, & Luca Montani, “Exhaustion, essential subject matter and other CJEU judicial tools to update copyright for an online economy”. 10(8) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 591-600. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv093
  112. Beebe, Barton, “An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions”. 156(3) University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2008): 549-624. Google Scholar öffnen
  113. Beebe, Barton, “Does Judicial Ideology Affect Copyright Fair Use Outcomes? Evidence From the Fair Use Case Law”. 31(4) Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts (2008): 517-624. Google Scholar öffnen
  114. Berger, Christian, “Aktuelle Entwicklungen im Urheberrecht – Der EuGH bestimmt die Richtung”. 56(5) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2012): 353-361. Google Scholar öffnen
  115. Bernhard, Jochen, & Heinrich Nemeczek, “Grenzüberschreitende Fussballübertragungen im Lichte von Grundfreiheiten, geistigem Eigentum und EU-Wettbewerbsrecht. Zugleich Anmerkung zum EuGH, Urteil vom 4. Oktober 2011, verb. Rs. C-403/08 und C-429/08 (Football Association Premier League Ltd. u.a.)”. 56(4) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2012): 293-300. Google Scholar öffnen
  116. Biehler, Manuel, & Simon Apel, “Anmerkung zu OLG Hamm, Urteil vom 15. Mai 2014 – I-22 U 60/13 – Keine Erschöpfung des Verbreitungsrechts bei per Download vertriebenen Hörbüchern”. 58(8/9) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2014): 727-729. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.7328/jurpcb2014296109
  117. Birnhack, Michael, “Judicial snapshots and fair use theory”. 5(3) Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property (2015): 264-284. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2015.03.02
  118. Blankfein-Tabachnick, David H., “Intellectual Property Doctrine and Midlevel Principles”. 101(5) California Law Reviev (2013): 1315-1360. Google Scholar öffnen
  119. Braun, Nora, “The interface between the protection of technological measures and the exercise of exceptions to copyright and related rights: comparing the situation in the United States and the European Community”. 25(11) European Intellectual Property Review (2003): 496-503. Google Scholar öffnen
  120. Bulayenko, Oleksandr, “Permissibility of Non-Voluntary Collective Management of Copyright under EU Law. The Case of the French Law on Out-of-Commerce Books”. 7(1) Journal of Intellectual Property, Imformation Technology and E-Commerce Law (2016): 51-68. Google Scholar öffnen
  121. Cabay, Julien, & Maxime Lambrecht, “Remix prohibited: how rigid EU copyright laws inhibit creativity”. 10(5) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 359-377. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv015
  122. Calboli, Irene, “The United States Supreme Court’s Decision in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons: An „Inevitable“ Step in Which Direction?”. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2014): 75-90. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0146-y
  123. Challis, Ben, “More ‘Blurred Lines’ when it comes to writing songs?”. 10(8) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 586-588. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv076
  124. Christie, Andrew F., & Robin Wright, “A Comparative Analysis of the Three-Step Test in International Treaties”. 45(4) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2014): 409-434. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0202-2
  125. Christmann, Sabine, “”Murphy”: Zwischen Revolution und Einzelfallentscheidung”. 56(3) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2012): 187-188. Google Scholar öffnen
  126. Cohen Jehoram, Herman, “Restrictions on copyright and their abuse”. 27(10) European Intellectual Property Review (2005): 359-364. Google Scholar öffnen
  127. Cohen Jehoram, Herman, “Is there a hidden agenda behind the general non-implementation of the EU three-step test?”. 31(8) European Intellectual Property Review (2009): 408-410. Google Scholar öffnen
  128. Cohen, Julie, “The Place of the User in Copyright Law”. 74(2) Fordham Law Review (2005): 347-374. Google Scholar öffnen
  129. Cook, Trevor, & Estelle Derclaye, “An EU Copyright Code: what and how, if ever?”. 11(3) Intellectual Property Quarterly (2011): 259-269. Google Scholar öffnen
  130. Craig, Carys J., “Locke, Labour and Limiting the Author’s Right: A Warning against a Lockean Approach to Copyright Law”. 28(1) Queen’s Law Journal (2002): 1-60. Google Scholar öffnen
  131. Depreeuw, Sari, & Jean-Benoît Hubin, “Of availability, targeting and accessibility: online copyright infringements and jurisdiction in the EU”. 9(9) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2014): 750-764. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu132
  132. Derclaye, Estelle, “The Court of Justice copyright case law: quo vadis?”. 36(11) European Intellectual Property Review (2014): 716-723. Google Scholar öffnen
  133. Diaz, Angel Siegfried, “Fair Use & Mass Digitisation: The Future of Copy-Dependent Technologies After Authors Guild v. HathiTrust”. 28(4) Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2013): 683-714. Google Scholar öffnen
  134. Dietz, Adolf, “Perspektiven für ein Europäisches Urheberrecht”. 64(12) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2015): 1186-1190. Google Scholar öffnen
  135. Dietz, Adolf, “Schutz der Kreativen (der Urheber und ausübenden Künstler) durch das Urheberrecht oder Die fünf Säulen des modernen kontinentaleuropäischen Urheberrechts”. 64(4) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2015): 309-319. Google Scholar öffnen
  136. Drassionover, Abraham, “From Distribution to Dialogue: Remarks on the Concept of Balance in Copyright Law”. 34(4) The Journal of Corporation Law (2009): 991-1007. Google Scholar öffnen
  137. Dreier, Thomas, “Limitations: The Centerpiece of Copyright in Distress”. 1(2) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (2010): 50-54. Google Scholar öffnen
  138. Dreier, Thomas, “Überlegungen zur Revision des Schrankenkatalogs der Richtlinie 2001/29/EC”. 64(7/8) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2015): 648-657. Google Scholar öffnen
  139. Drexl, Josef, Sylvie Nérisson, Felix Trumpke et al., “Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European parliament and of the Council on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the Internal market COM (2012)372”. 44(3) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2013): 322-351. Google Scholar öffnen
  140. Dusollier, Séverine, “A manifesto for an e-lending limitation in copyright”. 5(3) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (2014): 2013-2229. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107300880.014
  141. Dusollier, Séverine, “Electrifying the Fence: The Legal Protection of Technological Measures for Protecting Copyright”. 21(6) European Intellectual Property Review (1999): 285-297. Google Scholar öffnen
  142. Dusollier, Séverine, “Exceptions and Technological Measures in the European Copyright Directive of 2001 – An Empty Promise”. 34(1) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2003): 62-75. Google Scholar öffnen
  143. Dusollier, Séverine, “Technology as an Imperative for Regulating Copyright: From the Public Exploitation to the Private Use of the Work’”. 27(6) European Intellectual Property Review (2005): 201-204. Google Scholar öffnen
  144. Dworkin, Ronald, “Hard Cases”. 88(6) Harvard Law Review (1975): 1057-1109. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/1340249
  145. Enßlin, Holger, “Die Rechtssache BSkyB vor dem EuGH: Fällt das Territorialitätsprinzip?”. 55(10) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2011): 714-719. Google Scholar öffnen
  146. Erickson, Kristofer, “User illusion: ideological construction of ‘user-generated content’ in the EC consultation on copyright”. 3(4) Internet Policy Review (2014): 1-19. Google Scholar öffnen
  147. Erickson, Kristofer, Andrea Varini, Martin Kretschmer et al., “The reasons for copyright takedown on Youtube, and what they tell us about copyright exceptions: Paper presented to EUROCPR conference, 24-25 Mar 2014, Brussels”. Paper presented to EUROCPR conference, 24-25 Mar 2014, Brussels (2014): 1-26. Google Scholar öffnen
  148. Favale, Marcella, “A Wii too stretched? The ECJ extends to game consoles the protection of DRM – on tough conditions”. 37(2) European Intellectual Property Review (2015): 101-106. Google Scholar öffnen
  149. Favale, Marcella, “Approximation and DRM: can digital locks respect copyright exceptions?”. 19(4) International Journal of Law and Information Technology (2011): 306-323. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/ear010
  150. Favale, Marcella, “Fine-Tuning European Copyright Law to Strike A Balance Between the Rights of Owners and Users”. 33(5) European Law Review (2008): 687-708. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2613454
  151. Favale, Marcella, “The Right of Access in Digital Copyright: Right of the Owner or Right of the User?”. 15(1) The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2012): 1-25. Google Scholar öffnen
  152. Fischman Afori, Ori, “Proportionality – A New Mega Standard in European Copyright Law ”. 45(8) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2014): 889-915. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0272-1
  153. Frankel, Suzy, “The International Copyright Problem and Durable Solutions”. 18(1) Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law (2015): 101-137. Google Scholar öffnen
  154. Ganzhorn, Marco, “Ist ein E-Book ein Buch? Das Verhältnis von Büchern und E-Books unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der UsedSoft- Rechtsprechung”. 30(8) Computer und Recht (2014): 492-497. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.9785/cr-2014-0804
  155. Gaster, Jens, “Das urheberrechtliche Territorialitätsprinzip aus Sicht des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts”. 50(1) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2006): 8-14. Google Scholar öffnen
  156. Gaster, Jens, “Die Erschöpfungsproblematik aus der Sicht des Gemeinschaftsrechts”. 49(7) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2000): 571-584. Google Scholar öffnen
  157. Geiger, Christophe, “Copyright and free access to information: for a fair balance of interests in a globalised world”. 28(7) European Intellectual Property Review (2006): 366-373. Google Scholar öffnen
  158. Geiger, Christophe, “Creating Copyright Limitations Without Legal Basis: The “Buren” Decision, a Liberation?”. 36(7) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2005): 852-850. Google Scholar öffnen
  159. Geiger, Christophe, “Flexibilising Copyright – Remedies to the Privatisation of Information by Copyright Law”. 39(2) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2008): 178-192. Google Scholar öffnen
  160. Geiger, Christophe, “From Berne to national law, via the Copyright Directive: the dangerous mutations of the three-step-test”. 29(12) European Intellectual Property Review (2007): 486-491. Google Scholar öffnen
  161. Geiger, Christophe, “Fundamental Rights, a Safeguard for the Coherence of Intellectual Property Law?”. 35(3) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2004): 268-280. Google Scholar öffnen
  162. Geiger, Christophe, “Intellectual Property shall be protected!? Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: a mysterious provision with an unclear scope”. 31(3) European Intellectual Property Review (2009): 113-117. Google Scholar öffnen
  163. Geiger, Christophe, “Rethinking Copyright Limitations in the Information Society – The Swiss Supreme Court Leads the Way”. 39(8) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2008): 943-948. Google Scholar öffnen
  164. Geiger, Christophe, “Right to Copy v. Three-Step Test”. 6(1) Computer Law Review International (2005): 7-13. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.9785/ovs-cri-2005-7
  165. Geiger, Christophe, “The answer to the machine should not be the machine: safeguarding the private copy exception in the digital environment”. 30(4) European Intellectual Property Review (2008): 121-129. Google Scholar öffnen
  166. Geiger, Christophe, “The Role of the Three-Step Test in the Adaptation of Copyright Law to the Information Society”. UNESCO e-Copyright Bulletin (2007): 1-21. Google Scholar öffnen
  167. Geiger, Christophe, “The Three-Step Test, a Threat to a Balanced Copyright Law?”. 37(6) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2006): 683-698. Google Scholar öffnen
  168. Geiger, Christophe, “„Constitutionalising“ Intellectual Property Law? The Influence of Fundamental Rights on Intellectual Property in the European Union”. 37(4) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2006): 371-406. Google Scholar öffnen
  169. Geiger, Christophe, Daniel J. Gervais, & Martin Senftleben, “The Three-Step-Test Revisited: How to Use the Test’s Flexibility in national Copyright Law”. 29(3) American University International Law Review (2014): 581-626. Google Scholar öffnen
  170. Geiger, Christophe, Jonathan Griffiths, Lionel Bently et al., “Limitations and exceptions as key elements of the legal framework for copyright in the European Union. Opinion on the Judgment of the CJEU in Case 201/12 Deckmyn”. 46(1) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2015): 93-101. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s40319-015-0297-0
  171. Geiger, Christophe, Reto M. Hilty, & Jonathan Griffiths, “Declaration: A Balanced Interpretation Of The “Three-Step Test” In Copyright Law”. 39(6) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2008): 707-713. Google Scholar öffnen
  172. Geiger, Christophe, Reto M. Hilty, Jonathan Griffiths et al., “Declaration: A Balanced Interpretation Of The “Three-Step Test” In Copyright Law”. 1(2) Journal of Intellectual Property, Imformation Technology and E-Commerce Law (2010): 119-122. Google Scholar öffnen
  173. Geiger, Christophe, & Elena Izyumenko, “Copyright on the Human Rights’ Trial: Redefining the Boundaries of Exclusivity Through Freedom of Expression”. 42(3) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2014): 316-342. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0181-3
  174. Geiger, Christophe, Franck Macrez, Adrien Bouvel et al., “What Limitations to Copyright in the Information Society? A Comment on the European Commission’s Green Paper “Copyright in the Knowledge Economy””. 40(4) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2008): 412-433. Google Scholar öffnen
  175. Geller, Paul Edward, “Beyond the Copyright Crisis: Principles for Change”. 55(2-3) Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A (2008): 165-199. Google Scholar öffnen
  176. Gerlach, Tilo, “Europäischer Rechtsrahmen für Verwertungsgesellschaften”. 57(3) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2013): 174-176. Google Scholar öffnen
  177. Gervais, Daniel, “Towards a new core international copyright norm: the reverse three-step test”. 9(1) Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review (2005): 1-35. Google Scholar öffnen
  178. Gillen, Martina, “DRM and Modchips: Time for the Curt of Justice to do the “right” thing”. 11(3) SCRIPTed (2014): 230-244. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2966/scrip.110314.229
  179. Gillen, Martina, “The software Proteus – UsedSoft changing our understanding of software as ‘saleable goods’”. 28(1) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology (2014): 4-20. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2013.869911
  180. Gilliérion, Philippe, “Collecting Societies and the Digital Environment”. 37(8) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2006): 939-969. Google Scholar öffnen
  181. Ginsburg, Jane C., “’European Copyright Code’ – Back to First Principles (with some additional detail)”. 58(2) Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. (2010-2011): 265-300. Google Scholar öffnen
  182. Ginsburg, Jane C., “A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America”. 64(5) Tulane Law Review (1990): 991-1031. Google Scholar öffnen
  183. Ginsburg, Jane C., “Authors and Users in Copyright”. 45(1) Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. (1997-1998): 1-20. Google Scholar öffnen
  184. Ginsburg, Jane C., “Essay – How Copyright Got a Bad Name For Itself”. 26(1) Columbia Journal of Law & The Arts (2003): 61-73. Google Scholar öffnen
  185. Ginsburg, Jane C., “Fair Use for Free, or Permitted-but-Paid?”. 29(3) Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2014): 1383-1446. Google Scholar öffnen
  186. Ginsburg, Jane C., “Legal Protection of Technological Measures Protecting Works of Authorship: International Obligations and the US Experience, Paper No. 05-93”. Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers (2005): 1-26. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.785945
  187. Ginsburg, Jane C., “Toward supranational copyright law? The WTO panel decision and the “three-step test””. 187) Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur (2001): 48-52. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.253867
  188. Goldstein, Paul, “Fair Use in Context”. 31(4) Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts (2008): 433-443. Google Scholar öffnen
  189. Gordon, Wendy J., “Excuse and Justification in the Law of Fair Use: Transaction Costs Have always Been Part of the Story”. 50(The 50th Anniversary Volume) Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. (2003): 149-198. Google Scholar öffnen
  190. Gordon, Wendy J., “Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the Betamax Case and its Predecessors”. 82Columbia Law Review (1982): 1600-1657. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/1122296
  191. Gorini, Sabina, “European Commission: Infringement Proceedings Against 11 Member States for Failure to Implement the Directive on Copyright in the Information Society”. 9(8) IRIS – Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory (2003): 6. Google Scholar öffnen
  192. Graber, Christoph B., “Tethered technologies, cloud strategies and the future of the first sale/exhaustion defence in copyright law”. 5(4) Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property (2015): 389-408. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2015.04.02
  193. Grassie, Gill, “A UK Copyright Exchange, will the pipe dream ever come true?”. 7(1) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2012): 23-29. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpr176
  194. Griffiths, Jonathan, “Constitutionalising or harmonising? The Court of Justice, the right to property and European copyright law”. 31(1) European Law Review (2013): 65-78. Google Scholar öffnen
  195. Griffiths, Jonathan, “The “Three-Step-Test” in European Copyright Law – Problems and Solutions”. No. 31/2009Queen Mary Univerity School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper (2009): 1-22. Google Scholar öffnen
  196. Griffiths, Jonathan, “Unsticking the centre-piece – the liberation of European copyright law?”. 1(1) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (2010): 87-95. Google Scholar öffnen
  197. Grünberger, Michael, “Bedarf es einer Harmonisierung der Verwertungsrechte und Schranken? Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung dogmatischer Bausteine eines umweltsensiblen Urheberrechts”. 59(4) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2015): 273-290. Google Scholar öffnen
  198. Guibault, Lucie M.C.R., “Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC”. 1(1) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (2010): 55-66. Google Scholar öffnen
  199. Gyertyánfy, Peter, “Collective Management of Music Rights in Europe After the CISAC Decision”. 41(1) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2010): 59-89. Google Scholar öffnen
  200. Haberstumpf, Helmut, “Josef Kohler und die Erschöpfungslehre”. 6(4) Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum/Intellectual Property Journal (2014): 470-496. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1628/186723714X14277207345964
  201. Haedicke, Maximilian, “Beschränkung der Parodiefreiheit durch europäisches Urheberrecht”. 64(7/8) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2015): 664-670. Google Scholar öffnen
  202. Handig, Christian, “Durch ‘freie kreative Entscheidungen’ zum europäischen urheberrechtlichen Werkbegriff”. 61(11) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2012): 973-979. Google Scholar öffnen
  203. Handig, Christian, “Was erfordert “die Einheit der Kohärenz des Unionsrechts”? – das urheberrechtliche Nachspiel der EuGH-Entscheidung Football Association Premier League”. 61(1) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2012): 9-14. Google Scholar öffnen
  204. Hargreaves, Ian, & Bernt Hugenholtz, “Copyright Reform for Growth and Jobs, Modernising the European Copyright Framework”. 13) Lisbon Council Policy Brief (2013): 1-16. Google Scholar öffnen
  205. Hart, Michael, “The proposed directive for copyright in the information society: nice rights, shame about the exceptions”. 20(5) European Intellectual Property Review (1998): 169-171. Google Scholar öffnen
  206. Hartmann, Thomas, “Weiterverkauf und „Verleih” online vertriebener Inhalte. Zugleich Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urteil vom 3. Juli 2012, Rs. C-128/11 - UsedSoft./. Oracle”. 61(11) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2012): 980-989. Google Scholar öffnen
  207. Heine, Robert, & Sonja Eisenberg, “Verwertungsgesellschaften im Binnenmarkt: Die kollektive Wahrnehmung von Urheberrechten nach der Dienstleistungsrichtlinie”. 58(4) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2009): 277-283. Google Scholar öffnen
  208. Hilty, Reto M., “„Exhaustion“ in the Digital Age”. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper No. 15-09 (2015): 1-23. Google Scholar öffnen
  209. Hilty, Reto M., “Declaration on the Three-Step Test: Where do we go from here?”. 1(1) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (2010): 83-86. Google Scholar öffnen
  210. Hilty, Reto M., “Vergütungssystem und Schrankenregeln. Neue Herausforderungen an den Gesetzgeber”. 107(10) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (2005): 819-828. Google Scholar öffnen
  211. Hilty, Reto M., Kaya Köklü, & Fabian Hafenbrädl, “Software Agreements: Stocktaking and Outlook – Lessons from the UsedSoft v. Oracle Case from a Comparative Law Perspective”. 44(3) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2013): 263-292. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0041-6
  212. Hilty, Reto M., Sebastian Krujatz, Benjamin Bajon et al., “European Commission – Green Paper: Copyright in the Knowledge Economy – Comments by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law”. No. 08-05Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series (2008): 1-20. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1317730
  213. Hoeren, Thomas, & Christine Altemark, “Musikverwertungsgesellschaften und das Urheberrechtswahrnehmungsgesetz am Beispiel der CELAS”. 112(1) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (2010): 16-22. Google Scholar öffnen
  214. Hoeren, Thomas, & Matthias Försterling, “Onlinevertrieb ‘gebrauchter’ Software. Hintergründe und Konsequenzen der EuGH-Entscheidung ‘UsedSoft’”. 15(10) MultiMedia und Recht (2012): 642-647. Google Scholar öffnen
  215. Hoeren, Thomas, & Sebastian Jakopp, “Der Erschöpfungsgrundsatz im digitalen Umfeld. Notwendigkeit eines binnenmarktkonformen Verständnisses”. 17(10) MultiMedia und Recht (2014): 646-649. Google Scholar öffnen
  216. Holzmüller, Tobias, “Der Entwurf der Richtlinie über kollektive Wahrnehmung von Urheberrechten und verwandten Schutzrechten – Anmerkungen zu den Regelungen über die grenzüberschreitende Lizensierung von Musikrechten”. 57(3) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2013): 168-174. Google Scholar öffnen
  217. Holzmüller, Tobias, & Moritz Lichtenegger, “Die Premier-League-Entscheidungen des High Court of Justice: Der Anfang vom Ende des Territorialitätsprinzips bei Sportrechten?”. Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2009): 195-201. Google Scholar öffnen
  218. Hugenholtz, P. Bernt, “Why the Copyright Directive is unimportant, and possibly invalid”. 22(11) European Intellectual Property Review (2000): 499-505. Google Scholar öffnen
  219. Hugenholtz, P. Bernt, & Ruth Okediji, “Conceiving an International Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright, Study supported by the Open Society Institute (OSI)”. Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-43; Institute for Information Law Research Paper No. 2012-37, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2017629 (2008): 1-55. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2017629
  220. Janik, Victor, & Constanze Tiwisina, “Neuer europäischer Rechtsrahmen für Verwertungsgesellschaften – Einstieg in den Ausstieg aus dem System des „collective rights management“?”. 57(3) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2013): 177-180. Google Scholar öffnen
  221. Jaques, Sabine, “Are national courts required to have an (exceptional) European sense of humour?”. 37(3) European Intellectual Property Review (2015): 134-137. Google Scholar öffnen
  222. Joseph, Paul, “Copyright reform: end of a dream?”. 10(2) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 73. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu228
  223. Joseph, Paul, & Adam Cusworth, “Meltwater: liability for internet browsing”. 9(11) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2014): 885-887. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu147
  224. Jurčys, Paulius, “The Role of the Territoriality Principle in Modern Intellectual Property Regimes: Institutional Lessons from Japan”. Fourth Annua Kyushu University Law Conference (February 2010): Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1080/13600861003794437
  225. Jütte, Bernd Justin, “Coexisting digital exploitation for creative content and the private use exception”. 24(1) International Journal of Law and Information Technology (2016): 1-21. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eav020
  226. Jütte, Bernd Justin, “The EU’s Trouble with Mashups: From Disabling to Enabling a Digital Art Form”. 5(3) Journal of Intellectual Property, Imformation Technology and E-Commerce Law (2014): 173-193. Google Scholar öffnen
  227. Karapapa, Stavroula, “Padawan v SGAE: a right to a private copy?”. 33(4) European Intellectual Property Review (2011): 252-259. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2574636
  228. Karjala, Dennis S., ““Copying” and “Piracy” in the Digital Age”. 52(2) Washburn Law Journal (2013): 245-266. Google Scholar öffnen
  229. Karl, Harald, “Urheberrecht: Voraussetzungen der rechtmäßigen Umgehung eines Schutzsystems für Videospielkonsolen”. 25(8) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (2014): 304-307. Google Scholar öffnen
  230. Kawabata, B. Makoa, “Unresolved Textual Tension: Capitol Records v. ReDigi and a Digital First Sale Doctrine”. 21(1) UCLA Entertainment Law Review (2014): 34-78. Google Scholar öffnen
  231. Kerremans, Robin, Katleen Janssen, & Peggy Valcke, “Collective solutions for cultural collections online: Search and select!”. 6(9) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2011): 638-650. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpr102
  232. Kleinemenke, Manuel, “Fair Use, Dreistufentest und Schrankenkatalog”. 5(1) Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum (2013): 103-139. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1628/186723713X13639496217100
  233. Kleinemenke, Manuel, “Google Books und Fair Use – Lehren für eine flexiblere Ausgestaltung und Anwendung urheberrechtlicher Schrankenbestimmungen (auch) im deutschen und europäischen Recht”. 63(10) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2014): 892-901. Google Scholar öffnen
  234. Koelman, Kamiel J., “A Hard Nut to Crack: The Protection of Technological Measures”. 22(6) European Intellectual Property Review (2000): 272-288. Google Scholar öffnen
  235. Koelman, Kamiel J., “Fixing the three step test”. 28(8) European Intellectual Property Review (2006): 407-412. Google Scholar öffnen
  236. Koh, Harold Hongju, “Why Do Nations Obey International Law?”. 106(8) Yale Law Journal (1997): 2599-2659. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/797228
  237. Kretschmer, Martin, “Digital Copyright: The End of an Era”. 25(8) European Intellectual Property Review (2003): 333-341. Google Scholar öffnen
  238. Kretschmer, Martin, “The failure of property rules in collective administration: rethinking copyright societies as regulatory instruments”. 24(3) European Intellectual Property Review (2002): 126-137. Google Scholar öffnen
  239. Krüger, Stefan, Manuel Biehler, & Simon Apel, “Keine ‘Used Games’ aus dem Netz Unanwendbarkeit der „UsedSoft”-Entscheidung des EuGH auf Videospiele”. 16(12) Multimedia und Recht (2013): 760-765. Google Scholar öffnen
  240. Kubach, Laura, “Musik aus zweiter Hand – ein neuer digitaler Trödelmarkt. Zur Zulässigkeit eines Weiterverkaufs digitaler Musik nach dem EuGH-Urteil ‘Used Soft’”. 29(5) Computer und Recht (2013): 279-284. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.9785/ovs-cr-2013-279
  241. Kuhlen, Rainer, “Richtungsweisend oder eine nur begrenzt wahrgenommene Chance? Der Copyright-Code des Wittem-Projekts”. 2(2) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (2011): 18-25. Google Scholar öffnen
  242. Kur, Anette, & Jens Schovsbo, “Expropriation or Fair Game for All?: The Gradual Dismantling of the IP Exclusivity Paradigm”. No. 09-04Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper (2009): 35. Google Scholar öffnen
  243. Lauber-Rönsberg, Anne, “Parodie urheberrechtlich geschützter Werke. Eine Bestandsaufnahme nach der »Deckmyn«-Entscheidung des EuGH”. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2015): 658-666. Google Scholar öffnen
  244. Leistner, Matthias, “Europe’s Copyright Law Decade: Recent Case Law of the European Court of Justice and Policy Perspectives”. 51(2) Common Market Law Review (2014): 559-600. Google Scholar öffnen
  245. Leistner, Matthias., “Copyright law in the EC: Status quo, recent case law and policy perspectives”. 46(3) Common Market Law Review (2009): 847-884. Google Scholar öffnen
  246. Leupold, Andreas, “Umgehung technischer Schutzmaßnahmen in Spielekonsole”. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Praxis im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht (2014): 57-58. Google Scholar öffnen
  247. Leval, Pierre N., “Campbell v. Acuff-Rose: Justice Souter’s Rescue of Fair Use”. 13(1) Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal (1994): 19-26. Google Scholar öffnen
  248. Leval, Pierre N., “Toward a Fair Use Standard”. 103(5) Harvard Law Review (1990): 1105-1136. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/1341457
  249. Linklater, Emma, “UsedSoft and the Big Bang Theory: Is the e-Exhaustion Meteor about to Strike?”. 5(1) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (2014): 12-22. Google Scholar öffnen
  250. Loewenheim, Ulrich, “Harmonization and Intellectual Property in Europe”. 2Columbia Journal of European Law (1996): 481-489. Google Scholar öffnen
  251. Longdin, Louise, Ian Eagles, & Pheh Hoon Lim, “Sale versus offline and online: can competition law bridge the doctrinal gap?”. 22(4) International Journal of Law and Information Technology (2014): 311-333. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eau006
  252. Lucas, André, “For a reasonable interpretation of the three-step-test”. 32(6) European Intellectual Property Review (2010): 277-282. Google Scholar öffnen
  253. Lüder, Tilman, “The Next Ten Years in EU Copyright: Making Markets Work”. 18(1) Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal (2007): 1-60. Google Scholar öffnen
  254. Marino, Grégorie, “The future of user-generated content is now”. 8(3) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2013): 183. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt002
  255. Marly, Jochen, “Der Handel mit so genannter “Gebrauchtsoftware””. 23(17) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (2012): 654-658. Google Scholar öffnen
  256. Matulionytė, Rita, “Cross-Border Collective Management and Principle of Territoriality: Problems and Possible Slutions in the EU”. 11(5/6) The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2009): 467-497. Google Scholar öffnen
  257. Merges, Robert P., “Foundations and Principles Redux: A Reply to Professor Blankfein-Tabachnick”. 101(5) California Law Reviev (2013): 1361-1386. Google Scholar öffnen
  258. Metzger, Axel, “Licensing and collecting in the 21st century: what’s in sight and who’s ahead?”. 59(8/9) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2012): 687-689. Google Scholar öffnen
  259. Metzger, Axel, & Tobias Heinemann, “The Right of the Author to Grant Licenses for Non-Commercial Use”. 6(1) Journal of Intellectual Property, Imformation Technology and E-Commerce Law (2015): 11-22. Google Scholar öffnen
  260. Mezei, Peter, “Digital First Sale Doctrine Ante Portas. Exhaustion in the Online Environment”. 6(1) Journal of Intellectual Property, Imformation Technology and E-Commerce Law (2015): 23-71. Google Scholar öffnen
  261. Netanel, Neil Weinstock, “Making Sense of Fair Use”. 15(3) Lewis & Clark Law Review (2011): 715-771. Google Scholar öffnen
  262. Nehl, Hanns Peter, “Neues zum Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Urheberrechtsschutz und Dienstleistungsfreiheit. Kurzbesprechung der Schlussanträge der Generalanwältin Kokott vom 3.2.2011 in den Rechtssachen C-403/08 und 429/08 - Football Association Premier League Ltd. u.a./QC Leisure”. 55(5) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (2011): 413-414. Google Scholar öffnen
  263. Nérisson, Sylvie, “Europäischer Rechtsrahmen für Verwertungsgesellschaften: Die hochfliegenden Pläne der Europäischen Kommission in ihrem Richtlinienvorschlag”. 57(3) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2013): 185-191. Google Scholar öffnen
  264. Nérisson, Sylvie, “Has Collective Management of Copyright Run Its Course? Not so Fast”. 46(5) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2015): 505-508. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s40319-015-0370-8
  265. Newton, Heather, Andrew Moir, & Rachel Montagnon, “CJEU increases burden on manufacturers of games consoles to prove the unlawfulness of devices circumventing technological protection measures and that their TPMs are proportionate”. 9(6) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2014): 456-458. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu050
  266. Niemann, Fabian, “Der gerechte Ausgleich nach den Urteilen des EuGH “VG Wort” und ‘Amazon’”. JurPC Web Dok. 178/2013 (2013): 1-45. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.7328/jurpcb20132810174
  267. Olmedo Cuevas, Míchel, “Dutch copyright succumbs to aging as exhaustion extends to e-books”. 10(1) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 8-10. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu200
  268. Peifer, Karl-Nikolaus, “Das Territorialitätsprinzip im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht vor dem Hintergrund der technischen Entwicklungen”. 50(1) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2006): 1-8. Google Scholar öffnen
  269. Peifer, Karl-Nikolaus, “Territorialität und Dienstleistungsfreiheit: Der Fall ‘Karen Murphy’ vor dem EuGH”. 3(19) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht. Praxis im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht (2011): 435-438. Google Scholar öffnen
  270. Peifer, Karl-Nikolaus, “Selbstbestimmung im digitalen Netz – Privatkopie, Faltrate und Fair Use”. 58(2) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2014): 86-90. Google Scholar öffnen
  271. Perzanowski, Aaron, & Jason Schultz, “Digital Exhaustion”. 58(4) UCLA Law Review (2011): 889-946. Google Scholar öffnen
  272. Perzanowski, Aaron, & Jason Schultz, “Legislating Digital Exhaustion”. 29(3) Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2014): 1535-1558. Google Scholar öffnen
  273. Peukert, Alexander, “’Copydan/Nokia’ und die Zukunft des gesetzlichen Ver¬gü¬tungs¬an¬spruchs für die digitale Privatkopie”. 117(5) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (2015): 452-456. Google Scholar öffnen
  274. Peukert, Alexander, “Intellectual Property as an end in itself?”. 33(2) European Intellectual Property Review (2011): 67-71. Google Scholar öffnen
  275. Pila, Justine, “Pluralism, Principles and Proportionality in Intellectual Property”. 34(1) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (2014): 181-200. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqt029
  276. Quintais, João Pedro, “Proposal for a Directive on collective rights management and (some) multi-territorial licensing”. 35(2) European Intellectual Property Review (2013): 65-73. Google Scholar öffnen
  277. Quintais, João Pedro, “The Empire Strikes Back: CISAC beats Commission in General Court”. 8(9) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2013): 680-683. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt134
  278. Ramalho, Ana, “Conceptualising the European Union’s Competence in Copyright – What Can the EU Do?”. 45(2) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2014): 178-201. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0161-7
  279. Rehse, Mario, “Europäischer Rechtsrahmen für Verwertungsgesellschaften”. 57(3) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2013): 191-193. Google Scholar öffnen
  280. Rendas, Tito, “Destereotyping the Copyright Wars: The ‘Fair Use vs. Closed List’ Debate in the EU”. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2657482 (2015): 1-16. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2657482
  281. Rendas, Tito, “Lex specialis(sima): video games and technological protection measures in EU copyright law”. 37(1) European Intellectual Property Review (2015): 39-45. Google Scholar öffnen
  282. Rigamonti, Cyrill P., “Schutz gegen Umgehung technischer Maßnahmen im Urheberrecht aus internationaler und rechtsvergleichender Perspektive”. 54(1) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2005): 1-14. Google Scholar öffnen
  283. Rognstad, Ole-Andreas, “Legally Flawed but Politically Sound? Digital Exhaustion of Copyright in Europe after UsedSoft”. 1(1) Oslo Law Review (2014): 1-19. Google Scholar öffnen
  284. Rosati, Eleonora, “CJEU rules on the notion of parody (but it will not be funny for national courts)”. 64(1) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2015): 102-104. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu220
  285. Rosati, Eleonora, “CJEU says that copyright exhaustion only applies to the tangible support of a work”. 10(5) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 329-330. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv033
  286. Rosati, Eleonora, “Copyright in the EU: in search of (in)flexibilities”. 63(4) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2014): 419-428. Google Scholar öffnen
  287. Rosati, Eleonora, “Editorial: Are EU policy-makers fighting the right copyright battles?”. 10(9) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 651. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv134
  288. Rosati, Eleonora, “Editorial: Do ask, do tell, do nothing: the EU Commission and all those copyright consultations”. 9(10) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2014): 785. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu181
  289. Rosati, Eleonora, “Just a Laughing Matter? Why the CJEU Decision in Deckmyn is Broader than Parody”. 52(2) Common Market Law Review (2015): 511-530. Google Scholar öffnen
  290. Rosati, Eleonora, “Online copyright exhaustion in a post-Allposters world”. 10(9) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 673-681. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv122
  291. Rosati, Eleonora, “The Wittem Group and the European Copyright Code”. 5(12) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2010): 862-868. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpq140
  292. Rupp, Martin, “Die Richtlinie über Verwertungsgesellschaften und Mehrgebietslizenen. Ein europäischer Rahmen für das Recht der kollektiven Wahrnehmung von Urheberrechten”. 17(4) MultiMedia und Recht (2014): 217-221. Google Scholar öffnen
  293. Sag, Matthew, “Copyright and Copy-Reliant Technology”. 103(4) Northwestern University Law Review (2009): 1607-1682. Google Scholar öffnen
  294. Sag, Matthew, “Predicting Fair Use”. 73(1) Ohio State Law Journal (2012): 47-91. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1769130
  295. Sag, Matthew, “The Prehistory of Fair Use”. 74(4) Brooklyn Law Review (2011): 1371-1412. Google Scholar öffnen
  296. Samartzi, Vasiliki, “Optimal vs sub-optimal use of DRM-protected works”. 33(8) European Intellectual Property Review (2011): 517-527. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2011.03.09
  297. Samuelson, Pamela, “Copyright and Freedom of Expression in Historical Perspective”. 10(2) Journal of Intellectual Property Law (2003): 319-344. Google Scholar öffnen
  298. Samuelson, Pamela, “Digital Media and the Changing Face of Intellectual Property Law”. 16(2) Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal (1990): 323-340. Google Scholar öffnen
  299. Samuelson, Pamela, “Google Book Search and the Future of Books in Cyberspace”. 94(5) Minnesota Law Review (2010): 1308-1374. Google Scholar öffnen
  300. Samuelson, Pamela, “Possible Futures of Fair Use”. 90(2) Washington Law Review (2015): 815-868. Google Scholar öffnen
  301. Samuelson, Pamela, “Preliminary Thoughts on Copyright Reform”. 3) Utah Law Review (2007): 551-572. Google Scholar öffnen
  302. Samuelson, Pamela, “Symposium: Collective Management of Copyright: Solution or Sacrifice? Legislative alternatives to the Google Book Settlement”. 34(4) Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts (2011): 697-729. Google Scholar öffnen
  303. Samuelson, Pamela, “Unbundling Fair Uses”. 77(5) Fordham Law Review (2009): 2537-2621. Google Scholar öffnen
  304. Savič, Maša, “The CJEU Allposters case: beginning of the end of digital exhaustion”. 37(6) European Intellectual Property Review (2015): 378-383. Google Scholar öffnen
  305. Schmidt, Manuela Maria, “Die kollektive Wahrnehmung der Online-Musikrechte im Europäischen Binnenmarkt”. 49(11) MultiMedia und Recht (2005): 783-789. Google Scholar öffnen
  306. Schovsbo, Jens, “Integrating Consumer Rights into Copyright Law: From a European Perspective”. 31(4) Journal of Consumer Policy (2008): 393-408. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s10603-008-9079-0
  307. Schulze, Gernot, “Schleichende Harmonisierung des urheberrechtlichen Werkbegriffs? Anmerkung zu EuGH ‘Infopaq/DDF’”. 111(11) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (2009): 1019-1022. Google Scholar öffnen
  308. Senftleben, Martin, “Die Fortschreibung des urheberrechtlichen Erschöpfungsgrundsatzes im digitalen Umfeld. Die UsedSoft-Entscheidung des EuGH: Sündenfall oder Befreiungsschlag?”. 65(40) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2014): 2924-2927. Google Scholar öffnen
  309. Senftleben, Martin, “The International Three-Step-Test. A Model Provision for EC Fair Use Legislation”. 1(2) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (2010): 67-82. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1597123
  310. Senftleben, Martin, “Towards a Horizontal Standard for Limiting Intellectual Property Rights? – WTO Panel Reports Shed Light on the Three-Step Test in Copyright Law and Related Tests in Patent and Trademark Law”. 37(4) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2006): 407-438. Google Scholar öffnen
  311. Senftleben, Martin, “Bridging the Differences between Copyright’s Legal Traditions – The Emerging EC Fair Use Doctrine”. 53(3) Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A (2010): 521-552. Google Scholar öffnen
  312. Silverman, Ioana, “Copyright and fashion: friends at last?”. 35(11) European Intellectual Property Review (2013): 637-645. Google Scholar öffnen
  313. Smith, Graham, “Copyright and freedom of expression in the online world”. 5(2) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2010): 88-95. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpp222
  314. Smith, Joel, & Rachel Montagnon, “The Hargreaves Review – a ‘digital opportunity’”. 33(9) European Intellectual Property Review (2011): 596-599. Google Scholar öffnen
  315. Soma, John T., & Michael K. Kugler, “Why Rent When You Can Own? How ReDigi, Apple, and Amazon Will Use the Cloud and the Digital First Sale Doctrine to Resell Music, E-Books, Games, and Movies”. 15(3) North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology (2014): 425-461. Google Scholar öffnen
  316. Staats, Robert, “Der EU Richtlinienvorschlag über die kollektive Rechtewahrnehmung – Stellungnahme aus Sicht der Praxis”. 57(3) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2013): 162-168. Google Scholar öffnen
  317. Stothers, Christopher, “When is copyright exhausted by a software licence?: UsedSoft v Oracle”. 34(11) European Intellectual Property Review (2013): 787-791. Google Scholar öffnen
  318. Svantesson, Dan, “The holy trinity of legal fictions undermining the application of law to the global Internet”. 23(3) International Journal of Law and Information Technology (2015): 219-234. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eav007
  319. Sweet, Kimberly L., “One Problem Solved, Another Created? The European Commission’s Struggle with Fostering Competition in the Market for Pan-European Licenses of Musical Works”. 29(3) Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review (2009): 397-405. Google Scholar öffnen
  320. Synodinou, Tatiana-Eleni, “E-Books, a new page in the history of copyright law?”. 35(4) European Intellectual Property Review (2013): 220-227. Google Scholar öffnen
  321. Tilmann, Winfried, “Europäische Gerichtsstruktur auch für Urheberrechte?”. 113(12) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (2011): 1096-1098. Google Scholar öffnen
  322. Trimble, Marketa, “The Future of Cybertravel: Legal Implications of the Evasion of Geolocation”. 22(3) Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal (2012): 567-657. Google Scholar öffnen
  323. Ullrich, Hans, “Technologieschutz nach TRIPS: Prinzipien und Probleme”. 44(8/9) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (1995): 623-641. Google Scholar öffnen
  324. Ungern-Sternberg, Joachim von, “Urheberrechtliche Verwertungsrechte im Lichte es Unionsrechts”. 114(12) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (2012): 1198-1206. Google Scholar öffnen
  325. van Eechoud, Mireille, “Along the Road to Uniformity – Diverse Readings of the Court of Justice Judgments on Copyright Work”. 3(1) Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (2012): 60-80. Google Scholar öffnen
  326. Vantsiouri, Petroula, “A legislation in bits and pieces; the overlapping anti-circumvention provisions of the Information Society Directive, the Software Directive and the Conditional Access Directive and their implementation in the UK”. 34(9) European Intellectual Property Review (2012): 587-598. Google Scholar öffnen
  327. Ventroni, Stefan, “Erleichtert die EU-Richtlinie zur kollektiven Rechtewahrnehmung den Erwerb von Online-Musikrechten?”. 2010MultiMedia und Recht (2012): 565-566. Google Scholar öffnen
  328. Vinje, Thomas, “A brave new world of technical protection systems: will there still be room for copyright?”. 18(8) European Intellectual Property Review (1996): 431-440. Google Scholar öffnen
  329. Vinje, Thomas, “The new WIPO Copyright Treaty: a happy result in Geneva”. 19(5) European Intellectual Property Review (1997): 230-236. Google Scholar öffnen
  330. von Einem, Götz, “Grenzüberschreitende Lizenzierung von Musikwerten in Europa – Auswirkungen der Empfehlung der EU-Kommission zur Rechtewahrnehmung auf das System der Gegenseitigkeitsvertäge”. 9(19) MultiMedia und Recht (2006): 647-652. Google Scholar öffnen
  331. von Lewinski, Silke, “Rights Management Information and Technical Protection Measures as Implemented in EC Member States”. 35(7) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2004): 844-849. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.3167/092012904782311272
  332. Westkamp, Guido, “Copyright Reform and Necessary Flexibilities”. 45(5) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition (2014): 497-499. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0232-9
  333. Wiese, Henning, “The justification of the copyright system in the digital age”. 24(8) European Intellectual Property Review (2002): 387-396. Google Scholar öffnen
  334. Xalabarder, Raquel, “Google Books and Fair Use: A Tale of Two Copyrights?”. 5(1) Journal of Intellectual Property, Imformation Technology and E-Commerce Law (2014): 53-59. Google Scholar öffnen
  335. EU Documents Google Scholar öffnen
  336. Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document, Study on a Initiative on the Cross-border Collective Management of Copyright, Brussels, 07.07.2005. Google Scholar öffnen
  337. Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document. Impact Assessment reforming cross-border collective management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services, SEC(2005) 1254, Brussels, 11.10.2005. Google Scholar öffnen
  338. Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Paper on the review of the EC legal framework in the field of copyright and related rights, SEC(2004) 995, Brussels, 19.07.2004. Google Scholar öffnen
  339. Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee. The Management of Copyright and Related Rights in the Internal Market, COM(2004) 261 final, Brussels, 16.04.2004. Google Scholar öffnen
  340. Commission of the European Communities, Green Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology – copyright issues requiring immediate action, COM(88) 172 final, Brussels, 07.06.1988. Google Scholar öffnen
  341. European Commission, Creative Content in a European Digital Single Market: Challenges for the Future. A Reflection Document of DG INFSO and DG MARKT, 22.10.2009. Google Scholar öffnen
  342. European Commission, [LEAKED] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Towards a modern, more European copyright framework, […](2015) XXX draft, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  343. European Commission, [LEAKED] White Paper. A Copyright policy for Creativity and Innovation in the European Union, […](2014) XXX draft, 2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  344. European Commission, Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A coherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market for e-commerce and online services, COM(2011) 942, Brussels, 11.01.2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  345. European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document. A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe - Analysis and Evidence. Accompanying the document: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, SWD(2015) 100 final, Brussels, 06.05.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  346. European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document. Impact Assessment accompanying the document. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market, SWD(2012) 204 final, Brussels, 11.07.2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  347. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Single Market Act. Twelve levers to boost growth and strenghthen confidence. “Working together to create growth”, COM(2011) 206 final, Brussels, 14.04.2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  348. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights. Boosting creativity and innovation to provide economic growth, high quality jobs and first class products and services in Europe, COM(2011) 287 final, Brussels, 24.05.2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  349. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM(2010) 245 final/2, Brussels, 26.08.2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  350. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, COM(2010) 546 final, Brussels, 6.10.2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  351. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The Digital Agenda for Europe - Driving European growth digitally, COM(2012) 784 final, Brussels, 18.12.2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  352. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM(2015) 192 final, Brussels, 06.05.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  353. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. Commission Work Programme 2015. A New Start, COM(2014) 910 final, Brussels, 16.12.2014. Google Scholar öffnen
  354. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Towards a modern, more European copyright framework, COM(2015) 626 final, Brussels, 09.12.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  355. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Creative Europe - A new framework programme for the curltural and creative sectors, COM(2011) 786 final, Brussels, 23.11.2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  356. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Promoting a fair, efficient and competitive European copyright-based economy in the Digital Single Market, COM(2016) 592 final, Brussels, 14.09.2016. Google Scholar öffnen
  357. European Commission, Communication from the Commission. EUROPE 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final, Brussels, 3.3.2010. Google Scholar öffnen
  358. European Commission, Communication from the Commission. On content in the Digital Single Market, COM(2012) 789 final, Brussels, 18.12.2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  359. European Commission, Green Paper Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, COM(2008) 466 final, Brussels, 16.07.2008. Google Scholar öffnen
  360. European Commission, Green Paper on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union: opportunities and challenges towards a single market, COM(2011) 427 final, Brussels, 13.07.2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  361. European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain permitted uses of works and other subject-matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled and amending Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, COM(2016) 596 final, Brussels, 14.09.2016. Google Scholar öffnen
  362. European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market, COM(2016) 593 final, Brussels, 14.09.2016. Google Scholar öffnen
  363. European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market, COM(2012) 372 final, Brussels, 11.07.2012. Google Scholar öffnen
  364. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes, COM(2016) 594 final, Brussels, 14.09.2016. Google Scholar öffnen
  365. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on ensuring the cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, COM(2015) 627 final, Brussels, 09.12.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  366. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the cross-border exchange between the Union and third countries of accessible format copies of certain works and other subject-matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled, COM(2016) 595 final, Brussels, 14.09.2016. Google Scholar öffnen
  367. European Commission, Public Consultation on the review of EU copyright rules, 05.12.2013. Google Scholar öffnen
  368. European Parliament, European Parliament resolution of 13 March 2007 on the Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services (2005/737/EC) (2006/2008(INI)), OJ 301 E, 13.12.2007, p. 64-69, P6_TA(2007)0064, Strasbourg, 13.03.2007. Google Scholar öffnen
  369. European Parliament, European Parliament resolution of 25 September 2008 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services, P6_TA(2008)0462, Brussels, 25.09.2008. Google Scholar öffnen
  370. European Parliament, European Parliament resolution of 9 July 2015 on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (2014/2256(INI)), T8-0273/2015, Strasbourg, 09.07.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  371. European Parliament, European Parliament resolution on a Community framework for collective management societies in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights (2002/2274(INI)), P5_TA(2004)0036, Strasbourg, 15.01.2004. Google Scholar öffnen
  372. European Parliament, Report on a Community framework for collecting societies for authors’ rights, A5-0478/2003, Strasbourg, 11.12.2003. Google Scholar öffnen
  373. European Parliament, Report on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, A8-0209/2015, 24.06.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  374. European Parliament, Amendement 1-280, Draft report Julia Reda on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, 2014/2256(INI), 05.02.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  375. European Parliament, Amendement 281-556, Draft report Julia Reda on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, 2014/2256(INI), 05.02.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  376. European Parliament - Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for the Committee on Legal Affairs on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, 2014/2256(INI), 20.04.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  377. European Parliament - Committee on Legal Affairs, Draft report on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, 2014/2256(INI), 15.01.2015. Google Scholar öffnen
  378. European Parliament - Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for the Committee on Legal Affairs on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, 2014/2256(INI), 25.03.2015. Google Scholar öffnen

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus dem Schwerpunkt "Europarecht & Internationales Recht & Rechtsvergleichung"
Cover des Buchs: Der Volkseinwand
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Florian Feigl
Der Volkseinwand
Cover des Buchs: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover des Buchs: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover des Buchs: Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Justus Schmidt
Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Cover des Buchs: From Outlaws to Equal Players – Rebel Courts in International Law
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Isabella Poewe
From Outlaws to Equal Players – Rebel Courts in International Law

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login via Open Athens
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex