A year later, Advocate General (AG) Campos S\u00e1nchez-Bordona issued his recommendation<\/a> to the Court.<\/p>\n Describing how Filmspeler owner Mr. Wullems knowingly added infringing add-ons to Kodi devices, with hyperlinks to content published by known \u2018pirate\u2019 sites, the AG added that Filmspeler advertised its media players as ways to watch content without paying. This, he said, amounted to a communication to the public and hence copyright infringement.<\/p>\n But while the AG\u2019s opinion was important, it is the EU Court of Justice\u2019s opinion that holds absolute legal weight. After months of deliberation it handed down its decision a few minutes ago and it\u2019s bad news for purveyors of \u2018pirate\u2019 devices all around the EU.<\/p>\n In a long and complex ruling, the ECJ said that a media player with pre-installed addons, accessed through structured menus, grants users \u201cdirect access to the protected works published without the permission of the copyright owners\u201d and \u201cmust be regarded as an act of communication to the public.\u201d<\/p>\n That large numbers of people have bought these players was taken by the Court to mean that there are an \u201cindeterminate number of potential viewers\u201d involving a large number of people (the public).<\/p>\n On the crucial question of whether the copyright works were transmitted to a \u201cnew public\u201d, the Court found that the audience for these devices was not something taken into account by the copyright holders when they first gave permission for their works to be distributed.<\/p>\n Referencing the earlier GS Media case<\/a>, the ECJ placed emphasis on whether links were offered in the knowledge they were infringing and whether the subsequent communication to the public had a profit element.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is common ground that the sale of the \u2018filmerspeler\u2019 multimedia player was made in full knowledge of the fact that the add-ons containing hyperlinks pre-installed on that player gave access to works published illegally on the internet,\u201d the decision reads.<\/p>\n \u201cIn addition, it cannot be disputed that the multimedia player is supplied with a view to making a profit, the price for the multimedia player being paid in particular to obtain direct access to protected works available on streaming websites without the consent of the copyright holders.<\/p>\n \u201cTherefore, it is necessary to hold that the sale of such a multimedia player constitutes a \u2018communication to the public\u2019, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001\/29.\u201d<\/p>\n Having determined that such piracy-configured players can be considered infringing by EU member courts, the ECJ goes on to provide greater clarity on the status of copyrighted content streamed on the Internet without copyright holders\u2019 permission.<\/p>\n The ECJ states that reproduction of content may only be exempt from reproduction rights when it fulfils five conditions:<\/p>\n \u2013 When the act is temporary Since copyrighted works are obtained from streaming websites without obtaining permission from copyright holders, the above standards are not completely met and no copyright exceptions are available. Streaming copyrighted content from an illicit source can therefore be considered illegal.<\/p>\n The Filmspeler case will now head back to the Dutch court but this decision is likely to echo all around Europe and have a notable and immediate effect on pending cases involving \u2018pirate\u2019 boxes and illicit streaming.<\/p>\n The two key points from the decision, as published by the ECJ.<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The concept of \u2018communication to the public\u2019, within the meaning of Article 3(1) 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, must be interpreted as covering the sale of a multimedia player, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on which there are pre-installed add-ons, available on the internet, containing hyperlinks to websites \u2014 that are freely accessible to the public \u2014 on which copyright-protected works have been made available to the public without the consent of the right holders.<\/em><\/p>\n 2. Article 5(1) and (5) of Directive 2001\/29 must be interpreted as meaning that acts of temporary reproduction, on a multimedia player, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a copyright-protected work obtained by streaming from a website belonging to a third party offering that work without the consent of the copyright holder does not satisfy the conditions set out in those provisions.<\/em><\/p>\n Source: \u00a0
\n\u2013 When it\u2019s transient or incidental
\n\u2013 When it\u2019s an integral and essential part of a technological process
\n\u2013 When the sole purpose of that process is to enable a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or a lawful use of a work or protected subject matter
\n\u2013 The act has no independent economic significance<\/p>\n![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"