Short Reads

European Court of Justice 12 October 2016 (Alexandrs Ranks – Jurijs Vasiļevičs)

European Court of Justice 12 October 2016 (Alexandrs Ranks – Jurijs Vasiļevičs)

European Court of Justice 12 October 2016 (Alexandrs Ranks – Jurijs Vasiļevičs)

24.02.2017

CJEU re-affirms Usedsoft judgment[1] but finds that lawful computer program acquirers may not resell back-up copies of those programs

On 12 October 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") rendered its judgment in the Ranks and Vasiļevičs case. This is an interesting judgment because it is the first decision after the UsedSoft case regarding the rule of exhaustion of the computer program copyright protection under the Computer Program Directive, which generated a lot of media attention and opened up a market for "second-hand" software.[1]

The origin of the Ranks and Vasiļevičs case lies in Latvia, where criminal charges were brought against Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs, for the unlawful sale of goods protected by copyright and for the intentional unlawful use of another person’s trademark. More specifically, Ranks and Vasiļevičs were charged with violating Latvian criminal law by selling various copyright-protected Microsoft computer programs. It was estimated that they sold more than 3,000 copies of these Microsoft programs and the value of the material damage caused to Microsoft by the unlawful activities of Ranks and Vasiļevičs would be €265,514.

During the proceedings in Latvia, Mr Ranks and Mr Vasiļevičs asked the Criminal Law Division of the Riga Regional Court in Latvia to submit a request to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Computer Programs Directive, which led to the judgment at hand. In essence, the Latvian Court asked the CJEU two questions: whether Articles 4(a) and 4(c), and Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the acquirer of a used copy of a computer program, which is stored on a non-original material medium, may, under the rule of exhaustion of the rightholder’s distribution right, resell that copy where (i) the original material medium of that program, acquired by the initial acquirer, has been damaged and (ii) that initial acquirer has erased his copy or ceased to use it.

The CJEU reaffirms its Usedsoft judgment by considering that the term “sale” in Article 4(c) of Directive 91/250 must be given a broad interpretation. Sale thus encompasses all forms of marketing of a copy of a computer program characterised by the grant of a right to use that copy, for an unlimited period, in return for payment of a fee designed to enable the copyright holder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy.[2] In principle, this includes such cases as the one at hand in which the copyright holder (Microsoft) markets its computer program, which is stored on a medium such as a CD/DVD-ROM, constituting a first sale where such medium is accompanied by a 'perpetual' license. If such a perpetual right is purchased, the copyright holders' rights regarding that copy are exhausted, and the acquirer may resell that copy, even if the applicable license terms contain an interdiction to do so.[3]

However, the Latvian questions do not concern the resale by an acquirer (whether he acquired it from the initial buyer or a subsequent buyer) of the used copy of a computer program that is stored on the original material medium, but rather the resale of the used copy of a computer program that is stored on a non-original material medium. The CJEU holds that the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the initial acquirer may not, in the situation in which the original material medium has been damaged, destroyed, or lost, provide its back-up copy of that program to that new acquirer without the rightholder’s authorization.

The case (C‑166/15) can be found here.

 

[1] Judgment of 3 July 2012, UsedSoft, C‑128/11, EU:C:2012:407.

[2] For an example of attention given by the Dutch press to the Usedsoft judgment, please see: S. Olsthoorn: “Oude software is een verborgen schat”, Het Financieel Dagblad, 27 December 2016.

[3] See judgment of 3 July 2012, UsedSoft, C‑128/11, EU:C:2012:407, paragraph 49.

[4] See judgment of 3 July 2012, UsedSoft, C‑128/11, EU:C:2012:407, paragraph 77

 

Team

Related news

22.02.2019 BE law
Sarah De Wulf on challenges of SAP contracts and indirect use during a Beltug seminar.

Speaking slot - Sarah De Wulf, junior TMT associate, discusses SAP licensing agreements during a Beltug seminar on 20 February 2019. Many of the Beltug members are customers of SAP and face daily questions and challenges regarding SAP's software licensing policies.  These questions include (among others): how the licence models will evolve (especially in terms of the growth of cloud services) and how to cope with indirect access.

Read more

21.03.2019 NL law
15 aspects of Brexit you did not know

Short Reads - A Brexit without a deal, or with a deal that does not cover all relevant aspects, is still a potential scenario. We have highlighted a number of unexpected legal consequences of Brexit in such a no deal or incomplete deal scenario.

Read more

18.02.2019 EU law
Erik Valgaeren moderates a panel on Data Governance and Compliance during IBA's Silicon Beach Conference

Speaking slot - The discussion topic will cover various legal aspects relating to data lifecycle management, both for personal and non personal data. These aspects will include rights in and obligations regarding data, such retention obligations and portability rights. Practical suggestions on holistic data management and the role of the chief data officer will be debated.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring