Study on Online Copyright Enforcement and Data Protection in Selected Member States, European Commission, DG Internal Market and Services, November 2009
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................3 II. AUTHORS OF THE STUDY...........................................................................................................................4 III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................5 IV. NATIONAL SITUATIONS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES..........................................................................6 A. NETHERLANDS .................................................................................................................................................6 1. Nature of an IP address..............................................................................................................................6 2. Processing and retention of IP addresses by ISPs......................................................................................7 3. Monitoring of the Internet (in particular of P2P networks) .......................................................................9 4. Disclosure of the identity of Internet users (in particular of P2P users)..................................................11 B. POLAND.........................................................................................................................................................13 1. Nature of an IP address............................................................................................................................13 2. Processing and retention of IP addresses by ISPs....................................................................................15 3. Monitoring of the Internet (in particular of P2P networks) .....................................................................16 4. Disclosure of the identity of Internet users (in particular of P2P users)..................................................17 C. UNITED KINGDOM..........................................................................................................................................19 1. Nature of an IP address............................................................................................................................20 2. Processing and retention of IP addresses by ISPs....................................................................................21 3. Monitoring of the Internet (in particular of P2P networks) .....................................................................23 4. Disclosure of the identity of Internet users (in particular of P2P users)..................................................24 -2- I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This study is a follow-up to the previous study presented to the European Commission in November 20091 on the legal situation regarding the interaction between online copyright enforcement and data protection at the European Union (EU) level in six selected EU Member States, namely: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden. The initial study has not been updated. This follow-up study covers three additional EU Member States, namely: the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom. It has been prepared on behalf of DG Internal Market and Services of the European Commission by the Brussels office of Hunton & Williams with the assistance of local counsel, and in the context of the “Stakeholders’ Dialogue on Illegal Uploading and Downloading” organized by DG Internal Market and Services. Hunton & Williams instructed local counsel, and coordinated and reviewed their contributions, which included clarification of important legal points, before finalizing them. This follow-up study is current as of April 1, 2010. In line with the previous study, it was purposely kept brief, and is not intended to provide an exhaustive analysis. It is important to realize the limitations of this study. It does not constitute legal advice and decisions in a particular case should not be based on the study without consulting counsel. While great effort has been put into making the study as accurate as possible, many of the legal concepts and questions examined have not been the subject of authoritative decisions by courts or data protection authorities (DPAs) in some of the countries, so that there is a lack of legal certainty about them. In addition, certain concepts may be understood differently in different countries. Thus, some of the positions and descriptions contained in the follow-up study represent our interpretation of the legal situation, rather than a definitive statement of the law. 1 Hunton & Williams, Study on Online Copyright Enforcement and Data Protection in Selected Member States, European Commission, DG Internal Market and Services, November 2009. The initial study is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/study-online-enforcement_en.pdf -3- II. AUTHORS OF THE STUDY Principal Authors: Hunton & Williams Park Atrium Rue des Colonies 11 1000 Brussels Belgium Christopher Kuner, Partner (overall responsibility for the study) E-mail: [email protected] Cédric Burton, LL.M., Avocat au Barreau de Bruxelles (coordination of the study) E-mail: [email protected] For the Netherlands: Annemarie Bloemen-Patberg Houthoff Buruma N.V. Gustav Mahlerplein 50 1082 MA Amsterdam The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] For Poland: Xawery Konarski Traple Konarski Podrecki Kancelaria Prawna sp.j. ul. Królowej Jadwigi 170 30-212 Kraków Poland E-mail: [email protected] For the United Kingdom: Peter Hall Wragge & Co LLP Colmore Row 55 Birmingham B3 2AS United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] -4- III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY While there are a few differences among the three Member States analyzed in this follow-up study (i.e., Poland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), our general conclusions are similar to those of the initial study on Online Copyright Enforcement and Data Protection conducted in November 2009.2 The general rules laid down by the European Court of Justice in the Promusicae and Tele2 cases are applied differently in the three analyzed Member States. In particular, how to apply the proportionality principle in the context of online copyright enforcement and how to strike a fair balance between data protection law and online copyright enforcement seem to be left to the Member States. Further, little consideration was initially given by the Member States to the interaction between data protection rules and implementation of the IP Enforcement Directive into their national law. However, the legal situation in the UK seems to be evolving due to the recent Digital Economy Act, although many issues still need to be clarified in a code of practice. With regard to the specific questions examined in the three Member States, our conclusions are 3 also to a large extent analogous to those in the previous study. 2 Hunton & Williams, Study on Online Copyright Enforcement and Data Protection in Selected Member States, European Commission, DG Internal Market and Services, November 2009. The initial study is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/study-online-enforcement_en.pdf 3 See the Executive Summary on page 4 of the Study on Online Copyright Enforcement and Data Protection in Selected Member States. -5- IV. NATIONAL SITUATIONS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES A. Netherlands Prepared by: Annemarie Bloemen-Patberg Houthoff Buruma N.V. Amsterdam, The Netherlands Table of legislation Denomination Reference DPA College bescherming persoonsgegevens Dutch Data Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens, entry into force on September Protection Act 1, 2001 Dutch Telecommunicatiewet, entry into force on December 15, 1998 Telecommunications Act Stichting BREIN Bescherming Rechten Entertainment Industrie Nederlands Dutch Wet bewaarplicht telecommunicatiegegevens, August 28, 2009 Telecommunications Data Retention Act 1. Nature of an IP address 1.1. Is an IP address considered to be personal data/traffic data? (Please consider temporary and permanent IP addresses and explain your reasoning.) Personal data means any information relating to an identified or identifiable person (Article 1 sub a) of the Data Protection Act). In 2008, the DPA concluded that an IP address is personal data within the scope of the Data Protection Act (Guidelines on the publication of personal data on the internet, December 2007). The DPA argued that both static (permanent) and dynamic (temporary) IP addresses are personal data since a third party (i.e., an ISP) can easily discover the natural person using the IP address. Whether or not an ISP uses the IP address to identify a certain natural person is irrelevant; the possibility of identification is sufficient for the IP address to be considered personal data. Traffic data are defined as data that are processed to transmit communication via an electronic communication network or for the invoicing thereof (Article 11.1 sub b) of the Telecommunications Act). According to the Explanatory Memorandum to this Article, IP addresses are deemed traffic data. -6- 1.2. Is an IP address related to a user committing or facilitating copyright infringement considered to be sensitive data, i.e., judicial data? If so, what is the legal basis for this conclusion and does that regime imply any restrictions, e.g., processing only with consent of the users? Data concerning criminal offences or the suspicion of criminal offences are deemed sensitive judicial