Intervention or mere provision of physical facilities? Has the ECJ clarified the distinction?

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Standard Standard

Intervention or mere provision of physical facilities? Has the ECJ clarified the distinction? / Perry, Thomas; Hyland, Mark.
In: European Intellectual Property Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, 01.03.2020, p. 207-209.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

HarvardHarvard

Perry, T & Hyland, M 2020, 'Intervention or mere provision of physical facilities? Has the ECJ clarified the distinction?', European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 207-209.

APA

Perry, T., & Hyland, M. (2020). Intervention or mere provision of physical facilities? Has the ECJ clarified the distinction? European Intellectual Property Review, 43(3), 207-209.

CBE

Perry T, Hyland M. 2020. Intervention or mere provision of physical facilities? Has the ECJ clarified the distinction?. European Intellectual Property Review. 43(3):207-209.

MLA

Perry, Thomas and Mark Hyland. "Intervention or mere provision of physical facilities? Has the ECJ clarified the distinction?". European Intellectual Property Review. 2020, 43(3). 207-209.

VancouverVancouver

Perry T, Hyland M. Intervention or mere provision of physical facilities? Has the ECJ clarified the distinction? European Intellectual Property Review. 2020 Mar 1;43(3):207-209.

Author

Perry, Thomas ; Hyland, Mark. / Intervention or mere provision of physical facilities? Has the ECJ clarified the distinction?. In: European Intellectual Property Review. 2020 ; Vol. 43, No. 3. pp. 207-209.

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intervention or mere provision of physical facilities? Has the ECJ clarified the distinction?

AU - Perry, Thomas

AU - Hyland, Mark

PY - 2020/3/1

Y1 - 2020/3/1

N2 - Discusses Foreningen Svenska Tonsattares Internationella Musikbyra upa (Stim) v Fleetmanager Sweden AB (C-753/18) (ECJ) on whether short-term hire of vehicles with radio receivers to private clients constituted a "communication to the public" under Directive 2001/29 art.3(1) and Directive 2006/115 art.8. Notes the distinction between a user's act of intervention and the mere provision of physical facilities, and considers the case's implications

AB - Discusses Foreningen Svenska Tonsattares Internationella Musikbyra upa (Stim) v Fleetmanager Sweden AB (C-753/18) (ECJ) on whether short-term hire of vehicles with radio receivers to private clients constituted a "communication to the public" under Directive 2001/29 art.3(1) and Directive 2006/115 art.8. Notes the distinction between a user's act of intervention and the mere provision of physical facilities, and considers the case's implications

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 207

EP - 209

JO - European Intellectual Property Review

JF - European Intellectual Property Review

SN - 0142-0461

IS - 3

ER -