PROTECTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS IN EUROPEAN AND …

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 237

PROTECTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS IN EUROPEAN AND CROATIAN LAW – CURRENT ISSUES

AND DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

Assist. Tihomir Katulić, Ph. D. * UDK: 347.77.038(497.5:4EU)004.4:347.77(497.5:4EU)

339.923:061.1>(4)EU Izvorni znanstveni rad Primljeno:ožujak2015.

Protection of computer programs through copyright is marked with distinctive limitations and exceptions compared to other categories of works. The nature of computer programs differs from other works protected by copyright. Its utilitarian nature and the role it plays in the information revolution offers insights into the long lasting struggle of intellectual property versus competition regulation. An examination of the formative moments of the development of copyright protection for computer programs reveals an opportunity to refine the status of software. Potential for misuse and endangerment of privacy call for open access to the source code and decompilation right as a recognized copyright limitation.

Keywords: computer program, copyright, digital rights management, decompi-lation, personal data protection

1. INTRODUCTION

Usingcomputersoftware1onaneverydaybasishasbecomeanunavoidablepartofprofessionalandprivatelife.Computerprogramsarepresentonour

* TihomirKatulić,Ph.D.,SeniorAssistant,FacultyofLaw,UniversityofZagreb,TrgmaršalaTita14,Zagreb;[email protected]

1 Thedefinitionofsoftwareinthispaperrelatestocomputerprograms,preparatoryworkand relateddata,both inpurelydigital formaswell as storedonmaterialmedia.Theterm“computersoftware”isnormallynotdefinedinlawsorinterna-tionaltreaties,usuallyforreasonsoftechnicalneutralityandtheobviousriskofanysuchdefinitionbecomingquicklyoutdatedduetofastadvancesofinformationtechnology.ForclarificationseeI.KundaandR.MatanovacVučković:Raspolaganje autorskim pravom na računalnom programu,ZbornikPravnogfakultetauRijeci,No.1,2010,pp.85–132.

T. Katulić: Protection of Computer Programs in European and Croatian Law...238

personalcomputers,smartphones,tabletsandothersmartappliances2,bothaslocalapplicationsaswellasmereinterfacestocloud-based services.3 Smartphonesfollowoureverydaylives,analyzewhereweareandwhatwedo,meticulou-slynotingwhatwesearchforusingsearchenginesandwhatcontentwevisitthroughwebbrowsersandsocialnetworkapplications.Allthesefunctionsim-plementedinmodernsmartdevicesaremanifestationsofcomputersoftware,auniversallyacceptedcategoryofworkqualifiedtoreceivecopyrightprotection.

Andyet,forthirtyyearstherehasbeenasubstantialamountofcriticismregarding the legal status of software. Some criticize the whole concept ofsoftwarecopyright.4Others focusoncertainaspectsofcopyrightprotectionwithregard(only)tosoftware.5Othersstillquestionthesystemofintellectualpropertyingeneral,thecopyrightsystemforallofdigitalcontentinparticu-lar6 or at least the traditional licencing schemes7 in the digital environment. Finally,therearetheusers,thethirdelementofthecopyrightequationalon-

2 Evensimplemechanicaldevicesarenowimbuedwithelectronicsystems,thusbe-coming smart and connecting to the emerging Internet of Things–atermdescribingtheinterconnectionofuniquelyidentifiableembeddedcomputingdeviceswithintheexistingInternetinfrastructure.SeeJ.Höller,V.Tsiatsis,C.Mulligan,S.Kar-nouskos,S.AvesandandD.Boyle:From Machine-to-Machine to the Internet of Things: Introduction to a New Age of Intelligence,Elsevier,Oxford,2014.

3 Onerecentdefinitiondescribescloudcomputingas“...amodelforenablingubiqui-tous,convenient,on-demandnetworkaccesstoasharedpoolofconfigurablecom-putingresources.Theseresources(e.g.,networks,servers,storage,applications,andservices)areinterfacedthroughasoftware,virtualizationlayerandcanberapidlyprovisionedandreleasedwithminimalmanagementeffortorserviceproviderin-teraction.”SeeP.MellandT.Grance:The NIST definition of cloud computing,Rec-ommendationsoftheNationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology,NIST,USDepartmentofCommerce,Gaithersburg,2011,p.2.

4 R.M. Stallman:Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman,GNUPress,Boston,Massachusetts,2010;H.J.Meeker:The Open Source Alternative: Understanding Risks and Leveraging Opportunities,JohnWiley&Sons,Hoboken,N.J.,2008.

5 E.S.Raymond:The Cathedral and the Bazaar,O’ReillyMedia,availableat:http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html, last ac-cessedonJanuary12,2015.

6 S.Kinsella:Against Intellectual Property,LudwigvonMisesInstitute,Auburn,2008;R.Fleischer:Musikens Politiska Ekonomi,Inkbokförlag,Stockholm,2012;S.Vaid-hyanathan: Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity,NYUPress,NewYork,2001;etc.

7 L. Lessig:Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, PenguinPress,NewYork,2008;Free Culture,CCby-nc1.0,availableat:http://www.free-culture.cc/,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 239

gsidetheinterestsofauthorsandthesocietyitself.8Alothasbeensaidandwrittenregardingtheusers’behaviourinthedigitaldomainconcerningdigitalcontent;recentstudies,however,showthatamajorityofusersarenotmeregreedyfreeloaderslookingonlytoavoidpayinglicencingfees,butareinfactprimarilymotivatedbytheeaseandpracticalityofaccesstocontent.9 The no-tionofusers’rightsregardingaccesstoprotectedcontent,asopposedtoexclu-siverightsoftheauthor,hasalsoreceivedafairshareofattentioninrecentliterature.10Thesecriticisms,sometimesstemmingfromperceiveddangersofregulationmisuse,sometimesfromthinlyveiledideologicalrecourse,someti-meswithcompletedisregardforpositiveaspectsofintellectualpropertylegalframeworkinforce(namely,thevastcultural,technicalandscientificprogress,wholenewsectorsofeconomyandhundredsofmillionsofjobsworldwide11) still point to certain inadequacies concerning some types of content in thedigital domain.

Criticismaside,thecopyrightframeworkinforceremainsthecurrentpara-digmofsoftwareprotectionandthatisunlikelytochangeintheforeseeablefuture.Thecopyrightframeworkhasproventobeasecureandenforceablefra-

8 P. Drahos: A philosophy of intellectual property, Dartmouth Publishing, Hanover,1996,p.27.

9 Detaileddataregardingthecharacterofinternetdatatrafficisnowavailable,ob-taineddirectlyfromtheactivenetworkequipmentusedasthebasic internet in-frastructure.CompanieslikeCisco,Huawei,EricssonorNokiaSiemensNetworksmanufactureroutersandotherintelligentnetworkappliancesthatrouteandman-ageinternettraffic.Thesedevicesalsotrackthevolumeandcharacterofdatapack-etstravellingthroughthemanagednetworks.Thedataforyear2010revealedthatalmost40%ofallinternetdatatrafficwascomingthroughpeer-to-peernetworks.Inthelastfewyears(2011–2013),thedataexposedtheadventofglobalstream-ingservices,followingthewidespreadsuccessofservicessuchasNetflix,Pandora,Spotify,Last.FMetc.Researchavailableat:http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/ip-ngn-ip-next-generation-network/white_paper_c11-481360.html,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

10 G.Mazzioti:EU Digital Copyright Law and the End-User,Springer,Berlin2008;R.Sciaudone:Personal data protection and IP rights enforcement: two worlds apart?,JournalofIntellectualPropertyLaw&Practice,Vol.7,No.4,2012,p.236;N.Irving:Copyright Law for the Digital World: Evaluation of Reform Proposals,AsperReviewofInternationalBusinessandTradeLaw,Vol.10,2010,p.141;D.Gesmann-NuisslandK.Wün-sche: Neue Ansätze zur Bekämpfung der Internetpiraterie - ein Blick über die Grenzen,Gew-erblicherRechtsschutzundUrheberrecht,InternationalerTeil,2012,pp.225–234.

11 K. Idris: Intellectual property: A powertool for economic growth,WIPO,Geneva, 2003,availableat:http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/888/wipo_pub_888_1.pdf,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.


meworkandhassuccessfullyfosteredthegrowthanddevelopmentofcontentindustry,softwareincluded.Somemodificationsoftheparadigmconcerningsoftware,however,mightbeinorder,especiallyconsideringtherisingaware-nessregardingpersonaldataprotection,informationsecurityetc.TheaimofthispaperistoreflectondevelopmentsinEuropeanandnationalcopyrightlaw,mostnotablytherecentEuropeanOrphanWorksDirective12 and its si-gnificantomissionofcomputerprogramsasworksthatcould,undercertainconditions, be considered orphaned. These programs, colloquially often re-ferredtoasabandonware,whilenotregulatedbytheDirective,arenonethelessverymuchexistent,facilitatedbytherapidlychanginganddevelopingsoftwa-reindustry.Companiesdevelopsoftware,theirsoftwareecosystemsrise,spre-adand fall only tobe replacedwithnew technologyoften leaving licenceduserswithoutrecourse.13AfurtherissueconsideredisthestatusoftheEuro-peancopyrightreform,especiallytheperspectiveofthedevelopmentofatrueunifiedEuropeandigitalmarket14,andhowitwillrelatetothesoftwaredeve-lopmentindustryandtheusers.15Developmentsinthefieldofpersonaldataprotection16 and electronic communications regarding network neutrality17,andhowtheseseeminglyunrelatedissuesintertwineandreflectonthestatus

12 Directive2012/28/EUoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCounciloncertainpermittedusesoforphanworks,OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion,L299/5,25 October 2012.

13 Abandonware isatermdescribingsoftwareabandonedbyitsrightsholder,typicallyacompanythatproduceditorasoftwarepublishingcompany,andforwhichprod-uctsupportisnolongeravailable,usuallybecausethemanufacturerhasmovedontonewproductsandhasnocommercial interest in supportingcontinueduseoftheolderproduct,oralegalobligationtodosostemmingfromtheoriginallicenceagreementusersacceptedwhenoriginallyobtainingthesoftware.

14 ThenewEuropeanCommissionhasproclaimedtheformationofaunifieddigitalmarketasoneof itsprimarygoals, in linewith theprogrampresentedby Jean-ClaudeJunckerasacandidateforthePresidentofEuropeanCommissionintheEuropeanParlliamentinJuly2014.TheEuropeanCommissionwebpagestatestheDigitalSingleMarketasoneofthetopthreepriorities,alongwithJobs,GrowthandInvestment,andEnergyUnionandClimate.AccordingtoECathttp://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

15 ReviewoftheEUCopyrightRules,resourcesavailableat:http://ec.europa.eu/inter-nal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index_en.htm,lastaccessedonDe-cember22,2014.

16 EuropeanCommission proposes a comprehensive reform of the data protectionrules,resourcesandfurtherlinksavailableat:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm;lastaccessedonDecember22,2014.

17 TheEuropeanCommissionproposalandthelegislativepackagenamedConnected Continent, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package,lastaccessedonDecember22,2014.

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 241

ofcomputerprogramsasobjectsofcopyrightprotectionarealsoconsidered.Thisisespeciallyevidentinthecaseofdecompilingastheonlytechnicalme-ansofgaininganinsightintotheinnerworkingsofsoftwarewithoutaccesstothesoftwaresourcecode.Anadditionalgoalwasrevisitingtheformativeyearsofcomputerprogramprotectionandthenotionofadoptingasui generis right,aroadultimatelynottaken18,butstillaninterestingalternativetothecurrentcopyrightparadigm.19Toourknowledge,theissuesdescribedhavenotrecentlybeenvisitedinCroatianlegalliterature.Theseareimportant,layeredquestionsthatrequireattentionandwillhaverepercussionsonthesoftwareindustry,computersoftwaredevelopersandusersintheyearstocome.Hope-fullythispaperwillincitefurtherstudy.

2. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Historically, the first law that explicitly adopted copyright protectionfor computer programs came into being in 1980.20 In the thirty five yearssince,theimportanceofsoftwareandthesoftwareindustryhaschangedsi-gnificantly.Fromafledglingindustry,peripheralworkofasmallnumberofauthors, ithasbecomeamainstayofthesocalled“contentindustry”asanincreasinglyimportantpartoftheglobaleconomyformedaroundeconomicexploitation of protectedworks. Currently, the software industry is one of

18 J.C.Ginsburg:Four Reasons and A Paradox: The Manifest Superiority Of Copyright over Sui Generis Protection of Computer Software,ColumbiaLawReview,Vol.94,1994,p.2559,availableat:https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/commentary/gns94txt.htm,lastaccessedonMarch11,2015.Seealso J.M.Jr.Griem:Against A Sui Gen-eris System of Intellectual Property for Computer Software,HofstraLawReview,Vol.22,1993,p.145;P.Goldstein:Comments on A Manifesto Concerning The Legal Protection of Computer Programs,ColumbiaLawReview,Vol.94,1994,p.2310.

19 V.N.Vasudeva:A Relook at Sui Generis Software Protection Through the Prism of Mul-ti—Licensing,TheJournalofWorldIntellectualProperty,Vol.16,No.1-2,2013,pp. 87 – 103. See alsoU. Loewenheim:Legal Protection for Computer Programs in West Germany,BerkeleyTechnologyLawJournal,Vol.4,1989,p.187,availableat:http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol4/Loewenheim/html/text.html,lastaccessedonMarch11,2015;M.Flinders:Protecting Computer Software - Analysis and proposed alternative, JournalofHighTechnologyLaw,Vol.7,2006,p.71;P.Samuelson:CONTU Revisited: The Case Against Copyright Protection for Computer Pro-grams in Machine-Readable Form,DukeLawJournal,1984,p.663;S.Corbett:What If Object Code Had Been Excluded from Protection as A Literary Work in Copyright Law? A New Zealand Perspective, MichiganStateLawReview,No.1,2008,p.173.

20 The Computer Software Copyright Act,anamendmenttoearlierActfrom1974and1976,wasadoptedbytheUSCongressonDecember12th,1980.


thefastestgrowingindustries,developingnewtechnologies,businessmodels,productsandservicesatanastoundingrate.AccordingtoEconomy Watch, the softwareindustryrepresentsthefastestgrowingaspectoftheglobaleconomyin general.21Otherdatarevealthatthevolumeofglobalsoftwareindustryhasexceeded400billionUSdollarsin2013.22Thisfiguredoesnotincludelossesincurredbysoftwarepiracy23,especiallywidespreadindevelopingeconomieslikethoseoftheBRICbloc,orresultsofneighbouringindustries(telecommu-nications,computerhardware,consulting),butsolelyoneconomicexploitati-onofsoftwarethroughlicencing.24Thelegalframeworkchosenforcomputerprogramshashad a profound impact on thedevelopment of this industry.Eventherecession-riddeneconomyoftheRepublicofCroatiahashadsomemodestsuccessinthisfield,characterisedbyeffortsofmanysmallcompaniesandafewmediumenterprises.25

TheissueofregulationofcomputerprogramshaspreviouslybeenvisitedinCroatianlegal literatureatdifferenttimesandindifferentstagesof legaldevelopment,firstfollowingtheinstitutionofCroatiaasanindependentlegalsystem(alongthelinesoftheestablishedCentralEuropeanlegaltradition26),and thenusually following the adoption of newnational laws27,28, newEu-

21 According to EconomyWatch: http://www.economywatch.com/world-industries/software/,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

22 SeeGartnerreport:www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2696317,lastaccessedonJan-uary12,2015.

23 AccordingtoBusinessSoftwareAlliance(BSA),unlicencedsoftwareinBRICcoun-triesamountedto67%intheyear2013.Seehttp://globalstudy.bsa.org/2013/down-loads/studies/2013GlobalSurvey_Study_en.pdf,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

24 Ibid.25 IDCAdriaticsmarketresearchfor2013showsthatsoftwareexportsfromCroatiahaveamountedto1.22billionkunaandthatthesectoremploysalittleovertenthousanddevelopers,mostlyinsmallandmediumenterprises.AccordingtoPoslov-ni.hr,availableat:http://www.poslovni.hr/tehnologija/hrvatska-softverska-industri-ja-lani-zaposlila-1066-radnika-273543,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

26 Z.Parać:Imovinskopravna zaštita i prijenos kompjutorskog softwarea,doctoraldisserta-tion,UniversityofZagreb,FacultyofLaw,Zagreb,1990;id.: Autorskopravna zaštita kompjutorskih programa,in:I.Henneberg(ed.):Nove tehnologije i autorsko pravo,Autor-skaagencijazaSRHrvatsku,Zagreb,1989.

27 Z.Parać:Autorskopravna zaštita kompjutorskih programa nakon izmjene Zakona o autor-skom pravu,dio prvi,Privredaipravo,Vol.29,No.9-10,1990,pp.645–661;id.: Autorskopravna zaštita kompjutorskih programa nakon izmjene Zakona o autorskom pravu,dio drugi,Privredaipravo,Vol.29,No.11-12,1990,pp.793–807.

28 R.MatanovacVučković and I. Gliha:Novela Zakona o autorskom pravu i srodnim pravima iz 2007. godine,in:R.Matanovac(ed.): Prilagodba hrvatskog prava intelektual-

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 243

ropean Directives etc.29Inordertopresentthelegalregulationofcomputerprograms in the comparativeEuropeanandCroatian legal framework therearebuttwobasicchoices.Onewouldbestartwithananalysisofournational,specificregulations,courtrulingsanddecisions,andthenmovetotheinterna-tionalframework,especiallytheWIPOTreaties,EUDirectivesanddecisionsby the European Court of Justice30 and the national courts31 that had the opportunitytoconsidertheabovementionedissues.Thealternativewouldbetoanalyzeprimarilythedevelopmentoftheinternationalsystemofprotectionandcompareittolocallegalregulation.Bothoftheseapproacheshavemerit.However, taking intoaccount thehigh levelof internationalactivity in thefieldofintellectualpropertyontheonehand,andthelackofsignificantnati-onalcourtpracticeontheother,andtakingintoaccounttherecentaccessionoftheRepublicofCroatia(anditslegalsystem)totheEU,itwouldseemmoreappropriatetostartthisanalysiswithareviewofEuropeanandinternationalefforts.

Ontheoutside,followingthedevelopmentofinformationandcommunica-tiontechnologies,itisclearthatsomeofthetreatiesandagreementspresentedbringforthnewsubstantiveprovisionsintothebodyofcopyrightlaw.Newprovisionsaregraduallyintroducedtoregulatethechanginguserandrights-holderbehaviour,theirusagepatternsandbusinessplansspecifictothedigitalenvironment.Someofthechangesareindeedspecificandaimedatsolvingcri-ticalissues,suchasthewidespreaddigitalpiracy.Othersconcerndevelopingalternativemethodsofprotectionwhichmightbemoresuitedtosoftware.Itisfrequentlyobservedthat,inthethreehundredyearssincethedevelopmentofthefirstmoderncopyrightstatute32,therelationsbetweenauthors,publis-hersandusershavemostlyremainedinthesame,age-oldbalance.Whathas

nog vlasništva europskom pravu,NarodnenovineandDržavnizavodzaintelektualnovlasništvoRepublikeHrvatske,Zagreb,2007,pp.115–146.

29 KundaandMatanovacVučković,op. cit. (fn.1).SeealsoN.FikeysKrmić:Licencni ugovori za računalni software,ZbornikHrvatskogdruštvazaautorskopravo,Vol.10,2009,pp.123–132;M.Vukmir:Abundance of sources – the true meaning of the terms copy and original; semantic changes in art and copyright terminology in digital environment and change of the role of law in digital societies,ZbornikHrvatskogdruštvazaautorskopravo,Vol.11-12,2011,pp.71–152.

30 SAS InstituteIncvWorldProgrammingLtd,ECJC-406/10.31 AVMComputersystemeVertriebsGmbHvCybitsAG,LandgerichtBerlin16O

255/10.32 See L.Bentley,U.SuthersanenandP.Torremans:Three hundred years since Statute of

Anne, from 1709 to Cyberspace,EdwardElgarPublishing,London,2010.


substantially changed, andhadaprofound impacton the copyright-relatedindustries,isthearrivalofdigitaltechnology,thecreationofonlinecontentstoresanddistributionchannels,newservices,andnewmarkets.Thisobser-vationiseasilyconfirmedbyevenacursoryanalysisofthelegalframeworkinforce–therehasbeenaproverbialfloodofnewregulations,treaties,directivesandnationallaws33inthelasttwentyyearsthathasnotbeenseeninthefieldofcopyrightsincetheformativeyearsoftheBerneConvention.Itisquiteclearthatwefindourselvesinaneraakintothetimewhentheinventionoflong-distancecommunications,suchasthetelegraph,telephoneandradio34,coin-cidedwiththeinstitutionofthemoderninternationalsystemofintellectualproperty.Letusbrieflyrevisitthecurrentinternationallegalframeworkregar-dingthestatusandprotectionofcomputerprogramsbeforeproceedingtothepreviouslymentionedquestions.

3. COMPUTER PROGRAMS IN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND TREATIES

The Berne Convention does not contain specific provisions concerningcomputerprogramsor, for thatmatter,digital rightsmanagement.Focusedonprovidinguniversallyacceptedgroundrules forcopyright, thenumerousadoptedamendmentsdonotspecificallyrefertocomputerprograms,softwa-re, digital rightsmanagement or technical protectionmeasures.While thiscanbeeasilyexplainedbytherelativelyrecentdevelopmentof informationtechnology,thelastamendmentof1979isrecentenoughtoincludeatleastareferencetothestatusofcomputerprograms.Whythiswasnotdoneatthetimeislefttointerpretationoflegalscholarsandbearslittlepracticalconcern.However,itdoesreflectaconsiderationwewillrevisitlateron.

Ontheotherhand,theTRIPS35Agreementexplicitlyregulatesthestatusof computerprograms, calling for the applicationof theBerneConvention

33 Amongthose,especiallywiththeintentiontostopwidespreaddigitalpiracy,alothasbeenwrittenaboutFrenchmeasuressuchasDADVSI,HADOPIiHADOPI2,aswellasaboutsimilarUSlegislation(PRO-IP,COICA,PIPAandSOPA)andinternationalmeasuressuchasthestalledACTAproposal.

34 D. Dragičević:Kompjutorski kriminalitet i informacijski sustavi, Informator, Zagreb,2006,p.14.

35 TheAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRightsisanin-ternationalagreementadministeredbytheWorldTradeOrganizationduringtheUruguayroundoftradenegotiationsin1994.

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 245

provisions,with the effectof granting computerprograms rights equivalenttothoseof literaryworks, includingtheprovisionontheminimumtermofprotectionoffiftyyears.36 Unless changed by a special provision considering specificallycomputerprograms,thistermwillusually(inmostlegalsystems)runsignificantlylonger.

WhenTRIPS introduced new rental rights regulating that rightsholdersmayacceptordenycommercialrentingoftheirworks,theAgreementstipu-latedthatsignatoriesallowrightsholderstoreachthatdecisionbythemselves,exceptwhen the computer program itself is not the fundamental object ofrent.37Accordingly,Croatiahaschosen the latter solution for itsCopyrightandRelated Rights Act (CRRA)38, so the provisions regarding rent do notapply to computer programs, unless the rightsholder stipulates otherwise.39 Thissolutionistheonlylogicalsolutionifthenatureofcomputerprogramsisconsidered.Thedistributionandsalesofcomputerprogramlicences,distribu-tionofprogramsthemselvesandtheprocessofinstallationofcomputerpro-gramsontoaninformationsystemrendertherentingofprotectedcommercialsoftwarehazardousintermsoftheusualcommercialmodel–freeaccesstoinstallableprogramarchiveswouldnaturallyleadtoawidespreadunlicensedusecontrarytoconceivableinterestsoftherightsholder.

Theonlyforeseeablecontextinwhichthealternativesolutionhaspracticalvalueisasituationwheresoftwareisprotectedbyadigitalrightsmanagementtechnology thatpreventsusewithout thedistributionmediaor ahardwaredevice.Solutions liketheseusedtobewidespread inthesoftware industry;however, thedevelopmentofmore convenientdistributionmethods (cloudservices, distribution of software through vertically integrated distributionmodelslikeiTunesorGooglePlayservice)hasmadethisformofprotectionincreasingly rare.

TRIPSalsoregulatesprotectionofdatabasesregardlessofthecharacteroftheir content40,whetherprotectedbycopyrightornot,underthecondition

36 TRIPS,Article10.37 Forexample,whenamultimediaworkconsistsofanaudiovisualworkandanad-

ditionalcomputerprogram,avideoplayeroraDRMsolutioninordertopreventunauthorizedreproductionanddistribution.

38 Zakonoautorskompravuisrodnimpravima[CopyrightandRelatedRightsAct(CRRA)],NarodneNovine[OfficialGazzette(OG)]167/03,79/07,80/11,125/11,141/13,127/14.

39 Article109oftheCRRA.40 TRIPS,Article10.


that the selectionor layoutof thecontent, itsorganizationandsearchabi-lity represent a creative element.41Europeandirectivesgrantsomewhatbroa-der protection to databases. The Database Directive42outlinestwomethods.Wherethecontentsororganizationofthecontentsofadatabaserepresenttheauthor’soriginalintellectualcreation,copyrightrulesapply.However,ifthereisnooriginalwork,someprotectionisstillgrantedprovidedthatasignificanteffortwasemployedintheobtaining,verifyingorpresentingofdatathrougha sui generis rightlimitedtoaspanoffifteenyears.43

Since the foundation of the World Intellectual Property Organization(WIPO), one of its main goals has been to foster a globally accepted fra-meworkofcopyrightandintellectualpropertyrightsingeneral.Inthisregard,developing and adapting the provisions of theBerneConvention has beenoneofitsforemostactivities.However,politicalandeconomiccircumstancesanddiverginginterestshaveobstructedtheachievementofthisgoal44,sothefocusofthe institutionaldevelopmentofan international frameworkofco-pyrightandneighbouringrightsshiftedintheearly1990stotheWorldTradeOrganizationand,in1994,toitsTRIPSAgreement.ThisfinallyledtonewinitiativesinWIPOwheretwotreaties,theWIPOCopyrightTreaty(WCT)and its sibling, theWIPOPerformances and PhonogramsTreaty (WPPT),finallycameintobeingin1996.Theirprovisions,endingalmostthirtyyearsofobstruction45,especiallyregardingtechnicalprotectionmeasuresanddigitalrights management46,representwidelyacceptedlegalstandardsincomparativecopyrightlaw.

41 C.Seville:EU Intellectual Property Law and Policy,EdwardElgarPublishing,Chelten-ham, 2009,p.19.

42 Directive96/9/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilonthelegalpro-tectionofdatabases,OfficialJournaloftheEU,L77,27March1996.

43 Article10oftheDatabaseDirective.44 Forexample,theactionsoftheNon-alignedmovement,representingasignificant

numberofUNmemberstates(andWIPOmembers).TheMovementhassystemat-icallyobstructedthemodernizationandglobalapplicationofintellectualpropertyrightsactingoutofshorttermeconomicinterestsofitsmembers,mostlydevelop-ingcountries.SeeC.May:The World Intellectual Property Organization: Resurgence and Development Agenda,Routledge,NewYork,2007,p.90.

45 A.Bogsch:The First Twenty-Five Years of the World Intellectual Property Organization from 1967 to 1992,InternationalBureauofIntellectualProperty,WIPOPublica-tionNo.881(E),1992,pp.71–72.

46 Articles11and12oftheWCT.

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 247

WhiletherehasbeenanumberofcriticismsoftheseTreatiesfromvarioussourcespertainingto,amongotherthings,theperceivedexpansionofcertainrights,unclearandbroadprovisionsregardingDRM47,andthefactthattheyapplythesamestandardtoallsignatorycountriesdespitetheirvaryingstagesof economicand information societydevelopment48, theseTreaties actuallyrepresentthefoundationofthegloballyacceptedcopyrightframeworkforthedigitalage.Europeandirectivesandnationallawsofthememberandcandi-datestateshaveconsideredthepositionofcomputerprograms,digitalrightsmanagementtechnologiesandrelateddataonthebasisofthisframework.

3.1 Computer programs in WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)

Bothoftheso-calledWIPOInternetTreaties,theWCT49andtheWPPThave been developed in order to respond to challenges to the international systemofintellectualpropertyraisedbytheproliferationofinformationtech-nology.50 The matter contained therein warrants comparison with TRIPS.WhereTRIPSomitsreferencestomoralrightscompletelyandonlyreferstotheBerneConventionwithregardtosubstantiverights,theWCTexplicitlyconfirmstheprovisionsoftheBerneConvention,moralrightsincluded.51 The WCTgoesontogiveamorepreciseandencompassingdefinitionsofdistribu-tionrightandrentalright,andinstitutestherighttocommunicatethework

47 J.J.Perritt:Rejecting WIPO Treaties,GovernmentInformationQuarterly,Vol.14,No.2,2006,pp.201–205;T.A.Lipinski:The Myth of Technological Neutrality in Copyright and the Rights of Institutional Users: Recent Legal Challenges to the Information Organization as Mediator and the Impact of the DMCA, WIPO, and TEACH,JournalofTheAmericanSociety for InformationScienceandTechnology,Vol.54,No.9,2003,pp.824–835;A.Ottolia:Preserving Users’ Rights in DRM: Dealing with “Juridical Particularism” in the Information Society,InternationalReviewofIntellectualPropertyandCompetitionLaw,Vol.35,No.5,2004,pp.491–602;P.Akester:The Impact of Digital Rights Management on Freedom of Expression – the First Empiri-cal Assessment,InternationalReviewofIntellectualPropertyandCompetitionLaw,Vol.41,No.2,2010,pp.31–58.

48 TheseagreementscametobeknownasWIPOInternetAgreements,beingpreparedthroughtheWIPODigitalAgendaprogram.

49 WIPOCopyrightTreaty,signedonDecember20th1996inGeneva,Switzerland.Original text of theAgreement is available at: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html#P87_12240,lastaccessedonNovember1,2014.

50 J.S.Sheinblatt:The WIPO Copyright Treaty,BerkeleyTechnologyLawJournal,Vol.13,No.1,1998,p.535–550.

51 Article1oftheWCT.


tothepublic.52WhencomparedtothecorrespondingprovisionsoftheBerneConvention53andTRIPS54,itisapparentthatthedistributionright,withregardtothejointstatementfollowingtheadoptionoftheWCT,nowreferstoallca-tegoriesofliteraryandartisticworks(computerprogramsincluded,sinceArticle4oftheWCTfinallydefinescomputerprogramsasprotectedliteraryworks).

Regardingtherentalright,firstinstitutedinTRIPS,theWCTfurtherbroa-densitsscopetoincludeauthorsofphonograms55,aswellascomputerpro-gramsandcinematographicworksasstipulatedinTRIPS.56 Probably the most significantcontributionbytheWCTtotheinternationalsystemofcopyrighthasbeentheintroductionofthenewrighttocommunicatetheworktothepublic,regulatedinArticle8oftheWCT.57SincetheWCTexplicitlynum-berscomputerprogramsasliteraryworks,authorsofcomputerprogramshavetheexclusiverighttoauthorizeanycommunicationoftheworktothepublic,includingthemakingavailabletothepublicoftheirworksinsuchawaythatmembersofthepublicmayaccesstheseworksfromaplaceandatatimeindi-viduallychosenbythem–inotherwords,topublishandallowdownloadsoftheirprogramtointernetusersoverahostingservice.Theseprovisionswerefundamentalforsubsequentdevelopmentofnationalcopyrightlawsregardingcomputerprograms,andservedasthebasisforEuropeanDirectivesconcer-ningcopyright,informationsocietyandrelatedservices.Itistheseprovisionsthathave spurred theadventof alternative rightsmanagementapproaches,mostnotablythevariousfreesoftware,opensourceandsimilarlicenceagree-mentsandthemorerefinedandambitiousCreativeCommonssystemofli-cence agreements.58

52 Article8oftheWCT.53 Article14.1oftheWCT.54 TRIPSArticle9.1indicatesapplicationoftheBerneConventionprovisions,with

anoptional reservation regardingArticle6bis onmoral rightsof theauthorasaconcession to common lawlegalsystemsamongtheTRIPSsignatories.

55 Seville,op. cit. (fn.41),p.20.56 TRIPSArticle11.57 Article8oftheWCT.58 The termsCommonsandCreativeCommons represent certain ideasandvalues

regardingtheextentofcopyrightprotectionandenforcementofcopyrightandre-latedrightsbytherightsholders.CreativeCommonslicensingagreementsdonotdisplacetheclassiclegalframeworkofcopyrightlawinforceregardingthemanage-mentofrightsonaprotectedwork.Instead,theseagreementsmanagetherightsinawaythatallowsusersmoreaccessandmoreliberaltermsofuse.ThegoalofCClicensesistoallowfasterandeasierlicensingofprotectedworksinthedigital

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 249

AlsosignificantaretheprovisionsofArticle11prohibitingcircumventionoftechnicalprotectionmeasuresordigitalrightsmanagementtechnologies.59 Oneofthecriticismsraisedduringthediscussionsthatprecededtheadoptionofthisprovisionwasthatadoptingawiderscopeofliabilityagainstthosewhocircumventtechnicalprotectionmeasuresmightinsomecasesincludethelia-bilityofthosewhomanufacturedevicesthatcanbeusedtocircumventtech-nicalprotectionmeasures(contributory liability)–forexample,compactdiscordigitalversatiledisccopiers(“burners”)whichmightinturnslowdownthede-velopmentofopticalstoragesystemsandrelatedtechnologies.60Fromtoday’sperspective,itisobviousthatthesefearsweregroundedinbusinessrealityandpracticesof theperiod,butultimatelyunfounded in termsof technologicaldevelopment.Provisionsagainstimports,manufactureanduseoftechnologythatmightbeusedtocircumventtechnologicalprotectionmeasuresexistedinnational lawsas farbackas the1980s.61Theseprovisions failed to curbtheproliferationofdigitalpiracyor,forthatmatter,actagainsttechnologicalprogress and development.62

Article12oftheWCTcontainsadefinitionofdataimportantfordigitalrightsmanagement,aswellassanctionsfordisablingorcircumventingDRMtechnology63, which are the first sanctions regardingDRMmanagement incontemporary copyright treaties. Naturally, the provisions regarding DRMtechnologyandsanctionsforitsdisablingorcircumventionshavebecomeoneofthemoreinterestingtopicsincontemporarycopyrightlaw.Alsocontrover-sialistheireffectonthedevelopmentandprotectionofmarketcompetition.64

domainwithoutjeopardizingtheauthororhamperingtheuser–withinthescopeofcurrentcopyrightlaws.See http://creativecommons.org/about, lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

59 Article11oftheWCT.60 Sheinblatt,op. cit.(fn.50),p.535.61 Ibid.62 Ibid.63 Contrary to the relatively straightforward provisions of theWCT regarding the

dutyofthesignatoriestoimplementpenalandcivilmeasuresagainstperpetratorsofactionsprohibitedinArticles11and12oftheWCT,thereareopinionsthatthelegalframeworkoftheconventiononlyimpliesaverygeneraldutytoimplementsaidprovisionswithoutprovidingaconcretemechanismtoverifythatsignatorieshaveactuallydoneso. SeeSeville,op. cit. (fn.41),p.21.

64 P.MagnaniandM.L.Montagnani:Digital Rights Management Systems and Competi-tion – What Developments Within the Much Debated Interface Between Intellectual Prop-


Basedontheprovisionsoftheaforementionedtreaties,wecanfinallypro-videafirmdefinitionofwhatDRMtechnologiesareinthelegalandtechni-calsense.DRMtechnologiesrepresentacomplexofmeasuresandresourcesinstalledonorimbuedintoatechnicalmedium–computers,gameconsoles,mobilephones,DVDplayers,smarttelevisionsetsandallotherkindsofdi-gital content reproducingmachines – used by rightsholders tomanage andregulatethewaytheirworksareusedbytheusers.ThetermDRMimpliesnotonlytechnicalprotectionmeasureslikeencryptionorusingproprietarydevi-cestoauthorizeaccess,butalsodataonrightsmanagementusedtoidentifytherightsholder,theauthor,thework,therulesandconditionsofaccessanduseetc.UseofDRMbythepublishingindustryanditslegalregulationinthetwentyyears followingtheadoptionof theWCThaveproducedsignificantlegal,economicandsocialeffects.

Thelegaleffectsare,primarily,thedevelopmentofEuropeanandnationalregulationsregardingsanctionsagainsttheunlawfuldisablingorcircumventi-onofDRMtechnology.

Theeconomiceffectsarethedevelopmentofnoveldistributionmethods,especiallyovertheInternet.LegalregulationofDRMhasallowedandfosteredthedevelopment of delivery services such as iTunes, a vertically integrateddeliverymodelprotected (at least initially)byDRMbothon thehardwareaswellasthesoftwarelevel.Whenworkingproperly,DRMtechnologypre-ventsunlawfuldistributionandreproductionwhileallowingrightsholderstoeffortlesslydistributeworkstomillionsofuserswithoutadditionalinvestmentorexpensespercopy.Thishashadasignificantimpactonthedevelopmentandpositionofcreativeindustries.65

Finally,theregulationofDRMhashadprofoundpracticalsocialandpoli-ticaleffects.OppositiontolegalregulationofDRMhasbeenpresentdecadesbeforetheWIPOInternettreaties.66However,incidentsliketheSonyDRM

erty and Competition Law?,InternationalReviewofIntellectualPropertyandCom-petitionLaw,Vol.39,2008,p.83.

65 AccordingtotheFrenchconsultancyTERAConsultants,thetotaleconomiccontri-butionofvariouscreativeindustriestotheEuropeanGDPin2013was6.8%,i.e.a little over €850billion.Atthesametime,theindustryemployed6.5%oftheworkforce,orover14millionpeople.Seehttp://www.teraconsultants.fr/en/issues/The-Economic-Contribution-of-the-Creative-Industries-to-EU-in-GDP-and-Em-ployment,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

66 Stallman,op. cit.(fn.4).

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 251

incident67, the Johansen case68 or theAppleDRMcase69 have both incited andcatalyzedthecreationofnovelrightsmanagementschemeslikeCreativeCommons,dedicatedtocreatingsimplelicenceagreementtemplatesregardingtheuseofworksinthedigitaldomainwithinthecurrentcopyrightlegalfra-mework,aswellaspoliticalandactivistmovements likeThePirateParty70,campaigningtoabolishintellectualpropertylawsongeneralprinciple.

TheWIPOInternettreatiesareimportantforanotherreason–thesolutionadoptedregardingthetermofprotectionforneighbouringrights.Theprotec-tiontermextensiontofiftyyearsisasolutionsymptomaticoftheresponsetoissuespresentedinthepreambleoftheTreatyandisinlinewiththeprovisi-onsofTRIPS.However,theexpectedpositiveeffectsofthissolution,fromtheperspectiveoftherightsholder,havebeenquestionable.71

Digitalpiracyisnotmerelyawidespreadactivity.ItisthesecondleadingactivityusersundertakewhenusingbroadbandInternet.72Interestinglyenou-

67 Asapartofitsdigitalrightsmanagement,in2005Sonyusedarootkit,aself-con-cealingprogramtopreventusersfromcopyingdigitalmusicdistributedonCDandDVDmedia.ThissoftwareinturnmadepossibletocreatemalwaretospecificallytargetusersusingSony’sproductsandgainunauthorizedaccesstotheirsystems.Sonywastargetedbyclass-actionlawsuitsandeventuallysettledoutofcourt.

68 NorwayvJohansen,OsloCourtofthefirstinstance,Caseno.02-507M/94.69 G.Mazzioti:Did Apple’s Refusal to Licence Proprietary Information enabling Interoper-

ability with its iPod Music Player Constitute an Abuse under Article 82 of the EC Treaty?,WorldCompetition,Vol.28,No.2,2005,pp.253–275.

70 MostPirateParties insistonabolishmentof intellectualpropertyingeneral,notjustcopyrightorsoftwarecopyrightinparticular,ignoringtheimportantroleintel-lectualpropertyrightshaveasthebasisofthepostindustrialeconomy.Currently,PiratePartyInternationalisanumbrellaorganizationrepresenting42nationalpo-liticalpartiesofvaryingpolitical,socialandeconomicviewsandinfluence,mostlysharingapoliticalplatformbasedaroundfreedomofspeech,otherbasichumanandconsumerrightsinthedigitalageand,forthepurposeofthispaper,theiroutlookoncopyrightreform.Theoriginalpirateparty,theSwedishPiratpartietwasfound-edin2006andstemsfromanorganizationcalledPiratbryan,aSwedishthinktankopposedtointellectualpropertyingeneralandactingasanadvocacygroup.See http://www.pp-international.net/,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

71 Thenotionthatcopyrighttermextensionwillsomehowsubstantiallyimprovethepositionofrightsholdersinrelationtowidespreaddigitalpiracyismoreastatementofethicalormoralstandardsthanapracticalsolution.Withregardtoorphanedworks,itwasclearlytothedetrimentofusers.Almosttwentyyearslater,itisclearithasnothadadesiredeffectonpiracy.

72 Ciscoresearch,op. cit.(fn.9), tableno.12ondataregardingthetypeofInternetdatatraffic.


gh,researchshowsthatthisactivityis,insheervolume,themostwidespreadinhighlydevelopedandconnectedcountries,allsignatoriesoftheWIPOIn-ternet treaties.73Thevolumeoftransferreddatawhosecharacterisconsistentwiththepatternofunlawfuldistribution issignificantlyhigher incountrieswithhigherpenetrationofbroadbandInternet.Eventhoughthesecountrieshavesignedandaremembersofallrelevantinternationaltreatiesandagree-ments,andwhilesomeofthemhaveevenintroducedpenallawprovisionsinanefforttocurbdigitalpiracy,thishasnotforestalledhundredsofmillionsofinternetuserstodistributeandreproduceprotectedcontentonanunprece-dented scale.74

4. COMPUTER PROGRAMS IN THE EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Asstatedabove,contentindustry(music,movies,software)isoneoftheleadingaspectsoftheEuropeaneconomy.TheEuropeanCommissionandtheCouncilofEuropehave intensively studied theeffectsof information tech-nologyrevolutiononthesystemofintellectualpropertyforthebetterpartofthelastfiftyyears.Theinterfacebetweenthelegalframeworkofintellectualpropertyingeneral,andcopyrightinparticular,withotherlegaldisciplines,mostnotablycompetitionlawandconsumerprotection,hasoftenbeencha-racterizedasanevergreenofEuropeanprivatelaw,mostlyduetothefactthatprogressintheformationofthecommonEuropeandigitalcontentmarketispracticallynegligible(ECJcasessuchasFAPremierLeaguevQCLeisureandothers(C-403/08)andKarenMurphyvMediaProtectionServices(C-429/08)notwithstanding).

ProblemstheEUfacedinthefieldofcopyrightprotectionstemmedfromanunevenlevelofcopyrightharmonizationbetweenthemembercountries.Diverselegaltraditions,differentviewsregardingtheroleofcopyright,diffe-rentlegalpractices(onesuchpracticewasthecommon law requirementoffor-malregistrationofworkbeforegrantingprotection)anddiverginginterestsarestillsignificantobstaclestoEU-widecopyrightharmonizationandthecreationofthecommonmarket.OneoftheearliestdocumentsdraftedbytheCommi-

73 Ibid.,tableno.10ongeographicallocationofusersusingfilesharingservices,withinformationregardingthetotalvolumeoftrafficandrelativeshareofpeer-to-peertrafficintotaltraffic.

74 In concretenumbers – the annual volumeof unauthorizeddistribution throughpeer-to-peernetworkshasgrownintothetrillionterabyterange(longscalesyntax).Ibid.

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 253

ssionregardingthestatusofcomputerprogramsincopyrightlawwasa1988GreenPaper Copyright and the Challenge of Technology.Eventhisearlydocumentobserved how different national provisions concerning copyright affect thecommonmarket.75

Furthermore,thedocumentrevealedthattheCommissionhadunderstoodtheneedforexplicitprotectionofthenewcategoriesofworks(computerpro-gramsanddatabases)anditsimportanceforthedevelopingindustriesasearlyasinthe1980s.However,thisdocumentcompletelyignoredthedevelopmentoftheInternet,althoughitwasalreadywidespreadintheacademiaandeducationinstitutions,focusinginsteadontheunauthorizedreproductionanddistributi-onofclassicalmagneticmediaastheprevailingmodelofdigitalpiracyatthetime.Theinitialreceptionofthepaperwasunderstandablycriticalandhostile,mostlyduetotheperceivedaccentoncompetitionissuesinsteadofcopyrightharmonization.76However, thepaperservedasa foundationforanextensiveharmonizationundertakinginthenexttwodecades,beginningwithDirective91/250/EEConlegalprotectionofcomputerprogramsandfollowedbyseveralotherDirectiveswhich,alongwiththeBerneConvention,TRIPSandWIPOInternettreaties,representtheEuropeanlegalframeworkofcopyright.

4.1 The Computer Programs Directive, 91/250/EEC

TheComputerProgramsDirectiveintroducedsoftwareasacopyrightableworkintotheEuropeanlegalsystem.Atthetimeofitsoriginalinception,thequestionofharmonizingtheprotectionofcomputerprogramsandfosteringthegrowthofthenascentEuropeansoftware industrywasanobviousprio-rity.In1991,onlyfiveofthemembercountrieshadregulatedsoftwareasacopyrightablework.Software industry inEuropewas justapale shadowofSiliconValleygiants,andunfavourabletradeindicatorsincitedtheCommi-ssiontoreflectonthepositionofthesoftwareindustrycomparedtoUS.ThemaingoalsoftheDirectiveweretoofferasoundlegalframeworkforcopyrightprotectionofcomputerprogramstobeappliedinnationallawsinlinewiththeprovisionsoftheBerneConvention.77Thelegaldefinitionofacomputerpro-

75 EuropeanCommissionreport: Copyright and the Challenge of Technology,p.10,availableat: http://ec.europa.eu/green-papers/pdf/green_paper_copyright_and_chanllenge_of_thecnology_com_%2888%29_172_final.pdf,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

76 Seville,op. cit. (fn.41),p.27.77 Ibid.,p.28,andArticle2oftheBerneConvention.


gramasacopyrightableworkwastoincludeallcomputerprogramsregardlessoftheirform,includingthoseindustriallybuiltintohardware,alongwithanypreparatorydocumentsandothermaterialsthatprecededthedevelopmentoftheprogramprovidedthatthenatureofthepreparatoryworkcouldresultinaprogram at a later stage.78TheseprovisionshaveestablishedthelegalstatusofcomputerprogramsinEuropeanlaw,whichwasthemaingoaloftheDirective.Indirectly,thisreaffirmedthepositionstatedintheEuropeanPatentConven-tionregardingthepossibilityofsoftwarepatentprotection.79

TheDirectivehas, for the first timeon theEuropean level,harmonizedtheholder’srightsconcerningcomputerprograms,includingtheexclusivedis-tributionright80, translationandadaptationrightandtheexclusive right toauthorizereproduction.81

WhiletheDirectivedoesnotexplicitlydefinethestatusofdecompiling82,theprovisionsofArticle6andthegeneralprovisionsoftheDirectiveandoftheBer-neConventionimplythattheauthorhasanexclusiverighttopreventdecompi-lationofacomputerprogram,exceptincertaincases.ThecriteriaforallowingdecompilationarelaiddowninArticle6oftheDirective,whichstatesthattheauthorizationof the rightholder shall notbe requiredwhere reproductionofthecodeandtranslationofitsformareindispensabletoobtaintheinformationnecessarytoachievetheinteroperabilityofanindependentlycreatedcomputerprogramwithotherprograms,providedthatcertainconditionsaremet–thattheseactsareperformedbythelicenseeorbyanotherpersonhavingarighttouseacopyofaprogram,orontheirbehalfbyapersonauthorizedtodoso,thattheinformationnecessarytoachieveinteroperabilityhasnotpreviouslybeenre-adilyavailabletothepersonsreferredaboveandthatdecompilationisconfinedtothepartsoftheoriginalprogramwhicharenecessarytoachieveinteroperabi-

78 SeeArticle1oftheDirective.79 Article52.2.coftheEuropeanPatentConvention.Meanwhile,thepatentsystems

of theUnited States, Japan and other countries have, in certain cases, allowedsoftwarepatents creating an efficient legal barrier foroutside competitionwhenenteringtheirrespectivemarkets.

80 LimitedbytheprovisionsofArticle4concerningexhaustionofdistributionright.81 Article4.1oftheDirective.82 Decompiling is a procedure of translating the executable version of a computerprogrambackintothesourcecodeitwascompiledfrom.Decompilingisusuallydonewhenaccesstothesourcecodeisneededtoclarifyaprogramfunction,dis-coverthetruepurposeoftheprogramordevelopawaytointerfacetheprogram.Decompilingisnotapreciseandexactprocedure–thesourcecodeisextrapolatedanddiffersfromtheoriginal.

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 255

lity.83Furthermore,paragraph2ofArticle6forbidsdecompilationmethodstobeusedforgoalsotherthantoachievetheinteroperabilityoftheindependentlycreatedcomputerprogram,forbidsthedecompiledcodetobegiventoothers,except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently createdcomputerprogramandprohibitsittobeusedforthedevelopment,productionormarketingofacomputerprogramsubstantiallysimilarinitsexpression,orforanyotheractwhichinfringescopyright.84

Finally,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheBerneConventionfortheprotectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks,theprovisionsofthisArticlemaynotbe interpreted insuchawayastoallowitsapplicationtobeused inamannerwhichunreasonablyprejudices the rightholder’s legitimate interestsorconflictswithanormalexploitationofthecomputerprogram.Thequestionthisprovisionposesishowtodefineanormalexploitationofthecomputerprogram.Docriteriaestablished forother categoriesofworksapply?Whataboutthethree-steptest?

As regardsestablishingauthorshipofacomputerprogram, theDirectiveregulatesthatthepersonorpersonswhohavewrittentheprogram(itssourcecode,notmerelycompiledtheexecutablecode)shouldbeconsideredauthors,unlesstheprogramwasdevelopedbyemployeesinwhichcasetheeconomicrights85 belong to the employer.86TheDirectivealsointroducescertainlimi-tationstotheexclusiverightconcerningthereproductionofacomputerpro-grambythelicenseeallowinghimtocreateabackup copyforreasonsofdatasecurity.87

AlongsidetheComputerProgramsDirective,additionalDirectivesthathar-monizedandregulatedaspectsofcopyrightwereDirective2006/115onrentalrightandlendingrightandoncertainrightsrelatedtocopyrightinthefieldof intellectualproperty(RentalDirective),Directive2000/31/EConcertainlegalaspectsofinformationsocietyservices,inparticularelectroniccommerce,in the internalMarket (ElectronicCommerceDirective),Directive2001/29onCopyrightandrelatedrightsintheInformationSociety(InformationSo-cietyDirective),Directive2006/116/ECof theEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof12December2006onthetermofprotectionofcopyrightand

83 Article6oftheDirective.84 Article6.1oftheDirective.85 Articles18-31oftheCRRA.86 Article2.3oftheDirective.87 Article5oftheDirective.


certainrelatedrights(CopyrightTermDirective),Directive2004/48/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilontheenforcementof intellectualpropertyright(TheEnforcementDirective),andthenewDirective2012/28/EUoncertainpermittedusesoforphanworks(TheOrphanWorksDirective).TheobjectiveoftheRentalDirectivewithregardtocomputerprogramsis

summedupbytheprovisionwhichleavestheMemberStatesfreetodecidehowtodealwiththeissue.88Thisisapointtoberemembered–wheremostMemberStates89have,formostcategoriesofworks,developedarentalscheme,inthecaseofcomputerprograms,mosthavechosentoexcludethispossibility.Whenoneconsiderstheutilitariannatureofthecomputerprogram,themannerandthereasonwhycomputerprogramsaredevelopedincontrasttoothercategoriesofcopyrighterworks,thebusinessmodelofpublishersanddevelopers,andthefastpaceofdevelopment,thisis,ofcourse,theonlylogicalsolution.TheComputerProgramsDirectiveitselfwasamendedin1993(Directive

93/98/EConharmonisingthetermofprotectionofcopyrightandcertainre-latedrights),onlytoberepealedandreplacedin2009(Directive2009/24/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof23April2009onthelegalprotectionofcomputerprograms).

4.2 Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs and Directive 2012/28/EU on certain permitted uses of orphan works

Withrespecttothequestionsraisedearlier,the2009Directivelaysouttheprovisionsregardingbeneficiariesofprotection,exclusiverightsoftherights-holderspecificallyinthecaseofcomputerprograms,exceptionstotherestric-tedrights,andthecasesandconditionswhereusersareallowedtodecompilethe protected program.90TheseprovisionshavebeendutifullyintegratedintotheCroatianlaw.

The2012Directive, on the other hand, regulates certain aspects of useoforphanworksbypubliclyaccessible libraries,educationalestablishments,museums,aswellasarchives,filmoraudioheritageinstitutionsandpublicser-vicebroadcastingorganizationsintheEUMemberStatesinordertoachieveaimsrelatedtotheirpublic-interestmissions.91 The Directive applies to three

88 Article6.3oftheDirective.89 Article109.2oftheCroatianCRRA.90 Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 ofDirective 2009/24/EC, implemented asArticles of the

CRRA.91 Article1ofDirective2012/28/EU.

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 257

distinctcategoriesofwork:workspublished in the formofbooks, journals,newspapers,magazinesorotherwritings,cinematographicoraudiovisualwor-ks and phonograms and cinematographic or audiovisualworks and phono-gramsproducedbypublic-servicebroadcastingorganizations,underthecon-ditionthattheyareprotectedbycopyrightorrelatedrightsandfirstpublishedor, in the absenceof publication, first broadcast in aMemberState.92 The Directivedoesnotmentioncomputerprogramsasacategoryofworkeligibletobeconsideredanorphanwork.

5. COMPUTER PROGRAMS IN CROATIAN LAW

ThereviewsofarhasshownhowcomputerprogramregulationinEuropehasfollowedinternationalandgeneralcopyrightdevelopmenttrends.ThestatusofcomputerprogramsinCroatiancopyright lawisdefinedbytheprovisionsoftheCroatianCopyrightandRelatedRightsAct.93Firstadopted in2003, theActhasbeenrevisedinaccordancewithrecentdevelopmentsintheEuropeancopyrightframework,especiallyduringthephaseoftheCroatianaccessiontotheEuropeanUnionandthetranspositionoftheEuropeanUnionacquis commu-nautaire.94 TheActlaysouttheframeworkofcomputerprogramcopyrightinCroatianlawinacomprehensivemannerandinlinewiththeprovisionsoftheEuropeandirectives.Article5regulatesthestatusofcomputerprogramsaswor-ksprotectedbycopyright.Chapter8oftheCRRAregulatesspecialprovisionsforcomputerprograms,includingprovisionsoncomputerprogramscreatedinthecourseofemployment(Article108),additionallimitationsontherighthol-ders’rightscomparedtoothercategoriesofworks(Article110),decompilation(Article111),andspecialmeasuresofprotection(Article112).

Additionally,computerprogramsareregulated inthearticlesconcerningtherightofrevocation(Article17,doesnotapplytocomputerprograms),obli-gationsoftherightholderregardingcontentlimitationsoncopyright(Article98,doesnotapplytocomputerprograms),protectionoftechnicalmeasures(Article175),andprovisionsregardingmisdemeanoursandpenalprovisions.ThenewestadditiontothisregulationistheimplementationoftheEuropean

92 Ibid.93 Seesuprafn.38.UnnoficialconsolidatedversioninEnglishavailableat:http://www.

dziv.hr/files/File/eng/zakon_autor_ENG.pdf,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.94 See Article1aoftheActonAmendmentstotheCopyrightandRelatedRightsAct,

OG141/13.


OrphanWorksDirective,implementedintoCRRAin2014.95LiketheDirec-tive,theCRRAdoesnotregulatecomputerprogramsasworkseligibletobeconsideredorphanworks.Asmentionedearlier,thereisagreatdealofcompu-tersoftware,developedoverthelastthirtyyears,stillwellwithinthetermofcopyrightprotectionasdefinedbyalmostuniversallyacceptedinternationalcopyrightconventionsandagreements.Asinformationtechnologyprogresses,and new systems of hardware and software develop, rightsholders, usuallysoftwarepublishingcompanieslargeandsmall,havenoincentivetomainta-in,fixanddistributeolderproductswhennewsoftwarecomesalong.Wholeoperating systems, office programs, games and utility software, tomentionbutafewgeneralsoftwarecategories,areabandonedbysoftwarepublishersinordertodevelopandmaintainnewerversions,andinciteuserstolicencenewsoftwareandfinancethenextcycleofdevelopment.96Thisisanunderstanda-blebusinessmodelthathassustainedthesoftwareindustrybasicallyfromthetimeof its inception. Itdiffers significantly fromthemodelsofcommercialexploitationofothercategoriesofprotectedwork.Withregardtothosetradi-tionalcategoriesofworks,thecurrentparadigmofcopyright(issuesregardingthe creationof the commonEuropeandigitalmarket, and the territorialityprinciplewithregardtocollectivemanagementofrightsnotwithstanding)isstillsuperiortoanyforeseeablealternative.

6. CONCLUSION

Thequestionremainswhathappenstouserswhentherightsholdersstopoffering support andmaintenance for their programs. Naturally, rightshol-dersuseend-userlicenceagreementstolimitanyliabilityregardingthepro-per function of software.Usersmay have invested a significant amount oftimeandmoneytodevelopaninfrastructurebasedaroundacriticalsoftwarecomponent,onlytodiscoveritisnolongersupportedandhasbecomeopentoattacksexploitingsecurityvulnerabilitiestherightsholderhasnoincentivetofix.Recentexamplesofrightsholdersendingsupportafter,asperindustry

95 ActonAmendmentstotheCopyrightandRelatedRightsAct,OG127/14.96 Such software is still protectedby copyright.However, it is readily availableonpeer-to-peernetworksandsoftwarerepositorypagesusuallywithouttherightshold-er’sconsent.Fortheirpart,rightsholdersoftenignoretheirabandonware,sometimesbecausetheymoveontodevelopnewsoftware,haveceasedoperation,orcannotbeidentifiedorcontactedetc.

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 259

unofficialstandards,lengthy97 or very short98periodsoftimemayrekindletheolddebate–shouldsoftwareenjoycopyrightprotectionatallorshoulditbechanged to a sui generis right. Afurtherargumentinthisregardisbasedaroundprivacy.Withoutaccess

tothesoftwaresourcecode,thereisnopracticalwayofestablishingthetruefunctionandpurposeof software.Users are expected to trust rightsholdersthatlicencedsoftwaredoesnotcontainspywareorenableunauthorizedaccesstotheirinformationsystemsanddata.99Softwaredevelopmenttrendslikein-tegrationandconvergenceallowmoderninformationsystemstointegrateandreplacefunctionsofpreviouslyunconnectedandindependentdevicesandser-vices.100Thisiswhy,nowmorethanever,accesstothesourcecodeofsoftwareandanindependentreviewareneededtoestablishitssafetyforprivacyandotherpersonalrightsoftheuser.Inordertofacilitatethis,anadditiontocu-rrentdecompilationregulationisrequired.Thereareseveralmodelsforhowthiscouldbearranged.Themostradical(andcontroversialoption)istheoneforwardedbythefreesoftwaremovementandtheopensourcecommunity,whichrequiresdistributionofthesourcecodealongsidetheexecutablecode.Theadvantagesofthissolution,alreadyimplementedintheprovisionsoftheGNUGeneralPublicLicence,ApacheLicenceandseveralotheropensourcelicenceagreements,isthatthesourcecodeoftheprogramisavailabletothepublic, and free to analyse and uncover vulnerabilities and other potentialsecurityholesanddevelopthecodetocorrectthem.Thisoptionisunaccepta-bletorightsholderswhodevelopcommercialsoftwareandbasetheirbusinessmodelonsoftwarelicencingincome.

97 Microsofthasofficialyendedsupportof itsvenerableoperatingsystem,WindowsXP,twelveyearsafteritsinitialpublication,in2014.Seehttp://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/enterprise/end-of-support.aspx,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

98 Likewise,Googleno longer supports 2.x versionof itsmobile operating system,Android,lessthanthreeyearsafteritspublication,andhasabandonedthepartsofitsAndroid4.1and4.2systemlessthantwoyearsaftertheirpublication.Seehttp://www.zdnet.com/article/google-stops-providing-patches-for-pre-kitkat-web-view-abandons-930m-users/,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

99 Recentfindings,especiallycasesinvolvingmalwaresuchasStuxnet,Duqu and Flame, ordiscoveryofintentionallyinsertedweaknessesintoprogramsandservicesthatallowgovernmentagenciesaccesstouserdataandsystemsgraphicallydescribetheneedfortransparency.See J.Ball,J.BorgerandG.Greenwald:How US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security,Guardian,September2013,availableat:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-securi-ty,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

100 Dragičević,op. cit. (fn.34),p.11.


The other possibility for obtaining copyright protection for a computerprogramistoregulateanobligationfortherightsholdertodepositthesourcecodewiththeintellectualpropertyoffice.Thecodewouldbesafelydepositedandunavailabletothegeneralpublic,butavailableforinspectionandanalysis.This solution resembles theoldcommon lawcopyright registration require-ment, as well as the process of patent approval, especially considering theutilitariannatureofsoftware,aswellastheexistenceofsoftwarepatentsintheUS,Japanandothernations,andthepracticeoftheEuropeanPatentOfficedisregarding the provisions of theEuropeanPatentConvention.101Compu-terprograms,withtheexceptionofonlytwocategories,computergamesandaudiovisualentertainmentsoftware,areutilitarianinnatureand,besidesthefactthattheirsourcecodecanbeprintedoutonpaperandresembleatext,have very little in commonwith literaryworks as perceived and protectedbytheBerneConvention.Theyarenotworksofart,theirpurposeinandofthemselvesisnottoconveyanoriginalcommunicationbytheauthor.Insteadtheyarehighly sophisticated tools thatalloweverydayuseof computers inthedigitalenvironment,suchasnavigatingtheInternet,communicatingwithotherusers,creatinganddistributingdigitalcontentetc.Theyareincreasinglydevelopedbyagreatnumberofco-authors(softwaredevelopers),bothasem-ployeesofacompanyandasindependentdeveloperscooperatingoncommonprojects.102Thishaslegalimplicationsandconsequencesapparentinthedi-verging regulation,where laws that regulate copyright suchas theCroatianCRRA, increasinglyadoptmeasures that setcomputerprogramsapart fromothercategoriesofprotectedworks.

101 R.Schestowitz:The European Patent Office is Breaking the Law Regarding Software Pat-ents, German Parliament Finally Complains, available at: http://techrights.org/2013/05/04/benoit-battistelli-et-al-under-fire/, last accessed on January 12,2015. See alsoGerman Parliament Sends Message: Stop Granting Software Patents,available at: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/22/german-parliament-sends-mes-sage-stop-granting-software-patents/, original motion available at: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/130/1713086.pdf,lastaccessedonJanuary12,2015.

102 Incontrasttothemoretraditionalcategoriesofprotectedworksauthoredbyoneorahandfulofauthors,computerprogramscanhaveseveralhundredorevensev-eralthousandco-authors.ResearchersfromtheMassachussettsInstituteofTech-nologyhavedescribedOpenSourceprojectsexceedingoverthreethousandactivedevelopers.J.Lerner,P.A.PathakandJ.Tirole:The Dynamics of Open-Source Con-tributors,AmericanEconomicReivew,Vol.96,No.2,2006,pp.253–275.

Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 237-262 (2015) 261

Inperspective, regarding the futureof software copyright, several thingsmayoccur.Thelooseningofdecompilationregulations,shorteningthetermofprotectionofsoftwaretobemoreinlinewithrapidobsolescenceandtheshortmaintenance and support lifespan, and eligibility for application of orphanworkprovisionsseemveryprobable.Thus,theprocessoflegallyrecognizingthiscategoryofprotectedworkassomethingdifferentincomparisontoother,traditionalcategoriesofworks,willcontinuetomoveforward.


Sažetak

Tihomir Katulić *

AKTUALNA PITANJA I BUDUĆI RAZVOJ AUTORSKOPRAVNE ZAŠTITE RAČUNALNIH PROGRAMA U EUROPSKOM I

HRVATSKOM PRAVU

Zaštita računalnih programa autorskim pravom obilježena je posebnim ograničenjima nositeljevih prava u odnosu na ostale kategorije autorskih djela. Priroda i upotreba računalnih programa kao zaštićenih djela razlikuje se od ostalih kategorija djela zaštićenih autorskim pravom. Poseban karakter računalnih programa i uloga koju računalni programi imaju u okviru informacijske revolucije pruža uvid u odnos prava intelektualnog vlasništva prema tržišnom natjecanju u suvremenom regulatornom okviru. Osvrt na razvoj autorskopravne zaštite računalnih programa podsjeća na ranije predloženu, alternativnu regulaciju, a recentni porast zloupotreba osobnih podataka i općenito privatnosti u digitalnom okruženju zahtijeva transparentniji pristup izvornom kodu i regulaciju dekompilacije kao specifičnog ograničenja prava na računalnom programu.

Ključne riječi: računalni program, autorsko pravo, digitalno upravljanje pravima, dekompilacija, zaštita osobnih podataka

* Dr.sc.TihomirKatulić,višiasistentPravnogfakultetaSveučilištauZagrebu,TrgmaršalaTita14,Zagreb;[email protected]

Documents

PROTECTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS IN EUROPEAN AND …