Cover of book: Reconstructing European Copyright Law for the Digital Single Market
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Reconstructing European Copyright Law for the Digital Single Market

Between Old Paradigms and Digital Challenges
Authors:
Publisher:
 01.08.2017

Summary

The book critically examines the current process of reforming the copyright system in the European Union. On the basis of core elements of the harmonised copyright acquis, the work exposes the shortcomings of current reform proposals with a view to establishing a digital single market. In this regard, it is highlighted that the existing directives and regulations lack fundamental principles that could serve as a basis for a systematically structured European copyright, and that also the current reform proposals do not reflect such an approach. These deficits are addressed by fundamental approaches for an EU copyright reform. For this purpose, three legislative options are discussed. The work takes a clear position in the current debate of EU copyright reform and offers starting points from which a more systematic and coherent copyright system can be developed.

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2017
Publication date
01.08.2017
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-3542-6
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-7875-9
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Luxemburger Juristische Studien - Luxembourg Legal Studies
Volume
10
Language
English
Pages
594
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

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

Bibliography (378)

  1. Bibliography Open Google Scholar
  2. Books Open Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, Christian Alexander. User Generated Content: Urheberrechtliche Zulässigkeit nutzergenerierter Medieninhalte. Springer, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  4. Blomqvist, Jørgen. Primer on International Copyright and Related Rights. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.4337/9781783470976
  5. Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang. Vom Ethos der Juristen (2nd ed.). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2011-07-15. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-53652-8
  6. Borghi, Maurizio, & Stavroula Karapapa. Copyright and Mass Digitization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664559.003.0004
  7. Burrell, Robert, & Allison Coleman. Copyright Exceptions: The Digital Impact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  9. Craig, Paul, & Grainne de Búrca. EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (5th ed.). Oxford, New York etc.: Oxford University Press, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  10. Depreeuw, Sari. The Variable Scope of the Exclusive Economic Rights in Copyright. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  11. Doctorow, Cory. Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age. San Francisco: McSweeney’s, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  12. Dutfield, Graham, & Uma Suthersanen. Global Intellectual Property Law. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. Open Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, Oliver. Perspektiven für ein Europäisches Urheberrecht. Bern: Stämpfli Verlag, 2014. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  15. Gervais, Daniel. The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (3rd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008. Open Google Scholar
  16. Goldstein, Paul, & P. Bernt Hugenholtz. International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York, etc.: Oxford University Press, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  20. Klamert, Marcus. The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783845248936
  22. Kur, Annette, & Thomas Dreier. European Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  23. Lenaerts, Koenraad, & Piet Van Nuffel. European Union Law (3rd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  24. Loewenheim, Ulrich. Handbuch des Urheberrechts (2nd ed.). München: C.H.Beck, 2010. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  26. OECD. Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Networking. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2007. Open Google Scholar
  27. Patterson, L. Ray, & Stanley W. Lindberg. The Nature of Copyright: A Law of User’s Rights. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  29. Rosati, Eleonora. Originality in EU Copyright: Full Harmonization through Case Law. Cheltemham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  30. Savin, Andrej. EU Internet Law. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495274
  33. Sterling, Adrian. World Copyright Law (3rd revised ed.). Sweet & Maxwell, 2008. Open Google Scholar
  34. Stothers, Christopher. Parallel Trade in Europe: Intellectual Property, Competition and Regulatory Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007. Open Google Scholar
  35. Tridimas, Takis. The General Principles of EU Law (2nd ed.). Oxford, New York etc.: Oxford University Press, 2007. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  37. von Lewinski, Silke. International Copyright Law and Policy. Oxford, New York etc.: Oxford University Press, 2008. Open Google Scholar
  38. Book Chapters Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  101. Journal Articles and Scientific Papers Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  104. Akester, Patricia, & Richard Akester, “Digital rights management in the 21st century”. 28(3) European Intellectual Property Review (2006): 159-168. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  110. Ballabh, Animesh, “Paracopyright”. 30(4) European Intellectual Property Review (2008): 138-144. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  114. Berger, Christian, “Aktuelle Entwicklungen im Urheberrecht – Der EuGH bestimmt die Richtung”. 56(5) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2012): 353-361. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  126. Cohen Jehoram, Herman, “Restrictions on copyright and their abuse”. 27(10) European Intellectual Property Review (2005): 359-364. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  128. Cohen, Julie, “The Place of the User in Copyright Law”. 74(2) Fordham Law Review (2005): 347-374. Open Google Scholar
  129. Cook, Trevor, & Estelle Derclaye, “An EU Copyright Code: what and how, if ever?”. 11(3) Intellectual Property Quarterly (2011): 259-269. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  134. Dietz, Adolf, “Perspektiven für ein Europäisches Urheberrecht”. 64(12) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2015): 1186-1190. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  144. Dworkin, Ronald, “Hard Cases”. 88(6) Harvard Law Review (1975): 1057-1109. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  149. Favale, Marcella, “Approximation and DRM: can digital locks respect copyright exceptions?”. 19(4) International Journal of Law and Information Technology (2011): 306-323. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  156. Gaster, Jens, “Die Erschöpfungsproblematik aus der Sicht des Gemeinschaftsrechts”. 49(7) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2000): 571-584. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  164. Geiger, Christophe, “Right to Copy v. Three-Step Test”. 6(1) Computer Law Review International (2005): 7-13. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  176. Gerlach, Tilo, “Europäischer Rechtsrahmen für Verwertungsgesellschaften”. 57(3) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2013): 174-176. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  178. Gillen, Martina, “DRM and Modchips: Time for the Curt of Justice to do the “right” thing”. 11(3) SCRIPTed (2014): 230-244. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  182. Ginsburg, Jane C., “A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America”. 64(5) Tulane Law Review (1990): 991-1031. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  184. Ginsburg, Jane C., “Essay – How Copyright Got a Bad Name For Itself”. 26(1) Columbia Journal of Law & The Arts (2003): 61-73. Open Google Scholar
  185. Ginsburg, Jane C., “Fair Use for Free, or Permitted-but-Paid?”. 29(3) Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2014): 1383-1446. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.253867
  188. Goldstein, Paul, “Fair Use in Context”. 31(4) Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts (2008): 433-443. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  200. Haberstumpf, Helmut, “Josef Kohler und die Erschöpfungslehre”. 6(4) Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum/Intellectual Property Journal (2014): 470-496. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  202. Handig, Christian, “Durch ‘freie kreative Entscheidungen’ zum europäischen urheberrechtlichen Werkbegriff”. 61(11) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (2012): 973-979. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  204. Hargreaves, Ian, & Bernt Hugenholtz, “Copyright Reform for Growth and Jobs, Modernising the European Copyright Framework”. 13) Lisbon Council Policy Brief (2013): 1-16. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  208. Hilty, Reto M., “„Exhaustion“ in the Digital Age”. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper No. 15-09 (2015): 1-23. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  210. Hilty, Reto M., “Vergütungssystem und Schrankenregeln. Neue Herausforderungen an den Gesetzgeber”. 107(10) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (2005): 819-828. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  214. Hoeren, Thomas, & Matthias Försterling, “Onlinevertrieb ‘gebrauchter’ Software. Hintergründe und Konsequenzen der EuGH-Entscheidung ‘UsedSoft’”. 15(10) MultiMedia und Recht (2012): 642-647. Open Google Scholar
  215. Hoeren, Thomas, & Sebastian Jakopp, “Der Erschöpfungsgrundsatz im digitalen Umfeld. Notwendigkeit eines binnenmarktkonformen Verständnisses”. 17(10) MultiMedia und Recht (2014): 646-649. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  218. Hugenholtz, P. Bernt, “Why the Copyright Directive is unimportant, and possibly invalid”. 22(11) European Intellectual Property Review (2000): 499-505. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  221. Jaques, Sabine, “Are national courts required to have an (exceptional) European sense of humour?”. 37(3) European Intellectual Property Review (2015): 134-137. Open Google Scholar
  222. Joseph, Paul, “Copyright reform: end of a dream?”. 10(2) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 73. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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): Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  227. Karapapa, Stavroula, “Padawan v SGAE: a right to a private copy?”. 33(4) European Intellectual Property Review (2011): 252-259. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  229. Karl, Harald, “Urheberrecht: Voraussetzungen der rechtmäßigen Umgehung eines Schutzsystems für Videospielkonsolen”. 25(8) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (2014): 304-307. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpr102
  232. Kleinemenke, Manuel, “Fair Use, Dreistufentest und Schrankenkatalog”. 5(1) Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum (2013): 103-139. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  234. Koelman, Kamiel J., “A Hard Nut to Crack: The Protection of Technological Measures”. 22(6) European Intellectual Property Review (2000): 272-288. Open Google Scholar
  235. Koelman, Kamiel J., “Fixing the three step test”. 28(8) European Intellectual Property Review (2006): 407-412. Open Google Scholar
  236. Koh, Harold Hongju, “Why Do Nations Obey International Law?”. 106(8) Yale Law Journal (1997): 2599-2659. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/797228
  237. Kretschmer, Martin, “Digital Copyright: The End of an Era”. 25(8) European Intellectual Property Review (2003): 333-341. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  243. Lauber-Rönsberg, Anne, “Parodie urheberrechtlich geschützter Werke. Eine Bestandsaufnahme nach der »Deckmyn«-Entscheidung des EuGH”. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2015): 658-666. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  246. Leupold, Andreas, “Umgehung technischer Schutzmaßnahmen in Spielekonsole”. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Praxis im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht (2014): 57-58. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  248. Leval, Pierre N., “Toward a Fair Use Standard”. 103(5) Harvard Law Review (1990): 1105-1136. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  250. Loewenheim, Ulrich, “Harmonization and Intellectual Property in Europe”. 2Columbia Journal of European Law (1996): 481-489. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  254. Marino, Grégorie, “The future of user-generated content is now”. 8(3) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2013): 183. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt002
  255. Marly, Jochen, “Der Handel mit so genannter “Gebrauchtsoftware””. 23(17) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (2012): 654-658. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  257. Merges, Robert P., “Foundations and Principles Redux: A Reply to Professor Blankfein-Tabachnick”. 101(5) California Law Reviev (2013): 1361-1386. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  261. Netanel, Neil Weinstock, “Making Sense of Fair Use”. 15(3) Lewis & Clark Law Review (2011): 715-771. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  270. Peifer, Karl-Nikolaus, “Selbstbestimmung im digitalen Netz – Privatkopie, Faltrate und Fair Use”. 58(2) Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (2014): 86-90. Open Google Scholar
  271. Perzanowski, Aaron, & Jason Schultz, “Digital Exhaustion”. 58(4) UCLA Law Review (2011): 889-946. Open Google Scholar
  272. Perzanowski, Aaron, & Jason Schultz, “Legislating Digital Exhaustion”. 29(3) Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2014): 1535-1558. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  274. Peukert, Alexander, “Intellectual Property as an end in itself?”. 33(2) European Intellectual Property Review (2011): 67-71. Open Google Scholar
  275. Pila, Justine, “Pluralism, Principles and Proportionality in Intellectual Property”. 34(1) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (2014): 181-200. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  287. Rosati, Eleonora, “Editorial: Are EU policy-makers fighting the right copyright battles?”. 10(9) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 651. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  290. Rosati, Eleonora, “Online copyright exhaustion in a post-Allposters world”. 10(9) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2015): 673-681. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  293. Sag, Matthew, “Copyright and Copy-Reliant Technology”. 103(4) Northwestern University Law Review (2009): 1607-1682. Open Google Scholar
  294. Sag, Matthew, “Predicting Fair Use”. 73(1) Ohio State Law Journal (2012): 47-91. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1769130
  295. Sag, Matthew, “The Prehistory of Fair Use”. 74(4) Brooklyn Law Review (2011): 1371-1412. Open Google Scholar
  296. Samartzi, Vasiliki, “Optimal vs sub-optimal use of DRM-protected works”. 33(8) European Intellectual Property Review (2011): 517-527. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  298. Samuelson, Pamela, “Digital Media and the Changing Face of Intellectual Property Law”. 16(2) Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal (1990): 323-340. Open Google Scholar
  299. Samuelson, Pamela, “Google Book Search and the Future of Books in Cyberspace”. 94(5) Minnesota Law Review (2010): 1308-1374. Open Google Scholar
  300. Samuelson, Pamela, “Possible Futures of Fair Use”. 90(2) Washington Law Review (2015): 815-868. Open Google Scholar
  301. Samuelson, Pamela, “Preliminary Thoughts on Copyright Reform”. 3) Utah Law Review (2007): 551-572. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  303. Samuelson, Pamela, “Unbundling Fair Uses”. 77(5) Fordham Law Review (2009): 2537-2621. Open Google Scholar
  304. Savič, Maša, “The CJEU Allposters case: beginning of the end of digital exhaustion”. 37(6) European Intellectual Property Review (2015): 378-383. Open Google Scholar
  305. Schmidt, Manuela Maria, “Die kollektive Wahrnehmung der Online-Musikrechte im Europäischen Binnenmarkt”. 49(11) MultiMedia und Recht (2005): 783-789. Open Google Scholar
  306. Schovsbo, Jens, “Integrating Consumer Rights into Copyright Law: From a European Perspective”. 31(4) Journal of Consumer Policy (2008): 393-408. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  312. Silverman, Ioana, “Copyright and fashion: friends at last?”. 35(11) European Intellectual Property Review (2013): 637-645. Open Google Scholar
  313. Smith, Graham, “Copyright and freedom of expression in the online world”. 5(2) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2010): 88-95. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  317. Stothers, Christopher, “When is copyright exhausted by a software licence?: UsedSoft v Oracle”. 34(11) European Intellectual Property Review (2013): 787-791. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  320. Synodinou, Tatiana-Eleni, “E-Books, a new page in the history of copyright law?”. 35(4) European Intellectual Property Review (2013): 220-227. Open Google Scholar
  321. Tilmann, Winfried, “Europäische Gerichtsstruktur auch für Urheberrechte?”. 113(12) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (2011): 1096-1098. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  323. Ullrich, Hans, “Technologieschutz nach TRIPS: Prinzipien und Probleme”. 44(8/9) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (1995): 623-641. Open Google Scholar
  324. Ungern-Sternberg, Joachim von, “Urheberrechtliche Verwertungsrechte im Lichte es Unionsrechts”. 114(12) Geweblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht (2012): 1198-1206. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  327. Ventroni, Stefan, “Erleichtert die EU-Richtlinie zur kollektiven Rechtewahrnehmung den Erwerb von Online-Musikrechten?”. 2010MultiMedia und Recht (2012): 565-566. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  329. Vinje, Thomas, “The new WIPO Copyright Treaty: a happy result in Geneva”. 19(5) European Intellectual Property Review (1997): 230-236. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar 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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  335. EU Documents Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  343. European Commission, [LEAKED] White Paper. A Copyright policy for Creativity and Innovation in the European Union, […](2014) XXX draft, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  358. European Commission, Communication from the Commission. On content in the Digital Single Market, COM(2012) 789 final, Brussels, 18.12.2012. Open Google Scholar
  359. European Commission, Green Paper Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, COM(2008) 466 final, Brussels, 16.07.2008. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  367. European Commission, Public Consultation on the review of EU copyright rules, 05.12.2013. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  372. European Parliament, Report on a Community framework for collecting societies for authors’ rights, A5-0478/2003, Strasbourg, 11.12.2003. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar
  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. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law"
Cover of book: Der Volkseinwand
Book Titles No access
Florian Feigl
Der Volkseinwand
Cover of book: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Book Titles No access
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover of book: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Edited Book No access
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover of book: Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Book Titles No access
Justus Schmidt
Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Cover of book: From Outlaws to Equal Players – Rebel Courts in International Law
Book Titles No access
Isabella Poewe
From Outlaws to Equal Players – Rebel Courts in International Law

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex