CJEU C-178/22 national law defines 'serious crime' that allows a court to access traffic data etc. seriously interfering with private life. The definition must satisfy certain conditions and the court must refuse if the offense is not really serious enough curia.europa.eu/juris/document…

CJEU C-470/21 Full Court: domestic data retention and access to IP address contact details to combat regular crime such as p2p sharing may be compatible with EU law in specific conditions that ensure precise conclusions about private life cannot be drawn: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…

The most ridiculous technical issue & handling I've came across in a dozen years: Fortinet FortiClient app blocks renewing DHCP leases, so the VPN goes down once the lease expires (in my case every hour). This is deemed a feature. 'Fix': install a NAT to provide longer leases.

Oikeusministeriö on asettanut työryhmän valmistelemaan pienriitamenettelyä. Mutta sääntely tulee koskemaan aluksi vain häätöä ja huoneenvuokra-asioita. Aikamoinen käänne oikeudenkäyntimenettelyiden uudistamisessa tai oikeastaan uudistamatta jättämisessä. oikeusministerio.fi/hanke?tunnus=O…

C-723/22: installing TVs in hotel rooms and fitness area and transmitting signals through cabling is 'communication to the public'. CJEU also reiterated that hotels are not 'cable operators' and so this is not 'cable retransmission' per SatCab directive: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…

An interesting trend of going for copyright injunctions against DNS recursive resolver service providers. In Finland, there was also a case against a DNS registrar to obtain contact details of a domain name (MAO ruling 77/2023); Finnish law did not provide for that application.

C-260/22: domestic private copying exceptions must grant a fair compensation for reproduction of the broadcasting organizations' broadcast signal if the private copying causes them more than minimal harm: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…

C-201/22: domestic law or precedural principles may grant a collective copyright licensing organization a standing to bring legal proceedings to defend the rights holders on its own name; EU law does not require it curia.europa.eu/juris/document…

C-376/22: member states cannot impose general legislative obligations (e.g. dealing with unlawful content) on intermediaries established in other member states (NB. copyright-related obligations are excepted so this does not fully apply in those contexts): curia.europa.eu/juris/document…

Discover how the EU Court of Justice addressed the expansion of the right of communication to the public in the case of Ocilion(C-426/21), delving into secondary liability and the complex saga of EU copyright law. Don’t miss Tito Rendas’ Op-Ed on the matter. eulawlive.com/op-ed-karmas-a…

C-290/21: a satellite TV package provider needs a copyright license only in the country of origin of the transmission, not in the countries where users can watch the content; the pricing of licenses should nonetheless take into account the public abroad: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…

C‑775/21 and C‑826/21: broadcasting background music on passenger transport implies communication to the public (CTTP). Installing equipment to enable that does not and a domestic rebuttable presumption of CTTP in such a scenario is contrary to EU law: curia.europa.eu/juris/document…

Market Court [FI]: Ty Nant by Lovegrove (the bottles) had a particular shape and were copyright works. However, Finlandia Vodka 2011 or 2018 bottles did not infringe the copyright. Also no likelihood of confusion, so there was no EU trademark infringement: markkinaoikeus.fi/fi/index/paato…

MAO 72/2023: BitTorrent-jakelu täytti KKO 2022:47 perusteella TekL 60 a §:n ns. merkittävyyskynnyksen, vaikka parven käyttäjämäärä ja kokonaisyleisö oli vain 6 (Ään.): markkinaoikeus.fi/fi/index/paato…

MAO 77/2023: TekL 60 a §:n säännöstä teleliittymän yhteystietojen luovuttamisesta ei voitu soveltaa verkkotunnusvälittäjän tiettyjen verkkotunnusten rekisteröineiden asiakkaiden tietojen luovuttamiseen: markkinaoikeus.fi/fi/index/paato…

MAO 61/2023: Sanoma Mediaa voitiin kieltää jatkamasta ja uudistamasta tekijänoikeuden loukkausta, mutta kieltoa ei voitu tehostaa uhkasakolla, koska päätösvalta julkaisuista ei ollut ko. oikeushenkilöllä, vaan lehden päätoimittajalla (SananVapL 4.3 §): markkinaoikeus.fi/fi/index/paato…