the translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other modification of a computer program and the reproduction of its results, without prejudice to the rights of the person modifying the program; 2. The protection provided for in this Directive shall apply to the indication of a computer program in any form. The ideas and principles underlying an element of a computer program, including those underlying its interfaces, shall not be protected by copyright under this Directive. Furthermore, the Court held that, in the case of the resale of a user licence resulting in the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder`s website, that licence was initially granted by that rightholder to the first purchaser for an indefinite period against payment of a royalty intended to enable the rightholder to receive remuneration: The second purchaser of the licence and any subsequent purchaser of the licence may avail themselves of the exhaustion of the distribution right and are therefore considered to be legitimate purchasers of a copy of a computer program and benefit from the reproduction right provided for in that provision. The owner of the rights to a computer program may do the following or authorize others to do so: The term “computer program” includes programs in any form, including those embedded in the hardware. This term also includes preparatory design work leading to the development of a computer program, provided that the nature of the preparatory work is such that it can later become a computer program. The authorisation of the rightholder shall not be required where the reproduction of the code and the translation of its form within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) are essential to obtain the information necessary for the interoperability of an independently produced computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met: For example, out of 3. June 2010 decided that the transfer of economic rights to the employer in respect of the computer program developed by its employees constitutes an exception to the normal regime and must therefore be interpreted restrictively. The protection provided for in this Directive shall apply to: any form of distribution to the public, including rental, of the original computer program or copies thereof. Article 1 of the Directive therefore provides that `Member States shall protect computer programs by copyright as literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works`. In Europe, the need to promote the computer software industry has drawn attention to the lack of adequate harmonisation between the copyright laws of different EU countries with regard to such software. [2] Economic pressure led to the drafting of the first Directive, which had two objectives: (1) to harmonise legislation and (2) to solve the problems caused by the need for interoperability. [3] 3.
The person authorized to use a copy of a computer program has the right to observe, study or test the operation of the program without the authorization of the Rightholder in order to determine the ideas and principles underlying each element of the program if he does so during the execution of one of the loading operations; view, run, transfer or save the program to which he is entitled. Computer programs play an increasingly important role in a wide range of industries and computer program technology can therefore be considered fundamental to the industrial development of the Community. 4. The provisions of this Directive shall also apply to programmes drawn up before 1 January 1993, without prejudice to acquired acts and rights concluded before that date. Council Directive 91/250/EEC was officially replaced on 25 May 2009 by Directive 2009/24/EC[7], which consolidated “the various minor amendments that the original Directive had received over the years”. [8] A person authorized to use a computer program should not be prevented from taking the necessary steps to observe, investigate or test the operation of the program, provided that such actions do not infringe the copyright in the program. (3) A computer program shall be protected if it is original in the sense that it is a separate intellectual creation of the author. No other criteria are used to determine its protection. (2) The making of a backup copy by a person authorized to use the computer program may not be contractually prevented insofar as this is necessary for such use. One of the purposes of this exception is to allow all the components of a computer system, including those of different manufacturers, to be connected so that they can work together.
Such an exception to the exclusive rights of the author must not be used in a manner that prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or is contrary to the normal exploitation of the program. The software is regularly protected against illegal use by technical protection measures built into the software itself or in a separate device. It has become necessary to give these measures a specific legal status, but without going so far as to call into question the exceptions granted to the legitimate user. be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program whose expression is substantially similar or for any other act that infringes copyright. For the purposes of this policy, “rental” means the temporary and cost-effective use of a computer program or a copy thereof. This concept does not cover public loans, which therefore do not fall within the scope of this Directive. It was therefore decided that the Community legal framework for the protection of computer programs could be limited mainly to specifying that Member States must grant protection to programs protected by copyright to programs protected by copyright as literary works, as well as to specifying who and what should be protected, what exclusive rights protected persons may invoke to authorize or prohibit certain acts, and how long the protection should apply. In addition, the making of a backup copy by a person authorized to use the computer program cannot be contractually prevented, insofar as this is necessary for such use. Finally, the person authorized to use a copy of a computer program has the right to observe, study or test the operation of the program without the authorization of the right holder in order to determine the ideas and principles underlying each element of the program if he does so when performing one of the loading operations. view, run, transfer or save the program to which he is entitled. In SAS, supra, this was interpreted as meaning that a person who has acquired a copy of a computer program under a license has the right to observe, study or test the operation of that program without the permission of the copyright owner in order to determine the ideas and principles underlying each element of the program. in the event that such person performs actions covered by this License and acts of loading and exploitation necessary for the use of the computer program, and provided that such person does not violate the exclusive rights of the copyright owner in this Program. For more information, see the Nintendo Case.
Although the present case was based on Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, a video game is largely a kind of computer program (as the Advocate General pointed out). In that case, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the concept of `effective technological measure` within the meaning of Directive 2001/29 may include technological measures consisting mainly in equipping not only the residential system containing the protected work, such as the video game, with a means of identification in order to protect it against acts not authorised by the copyright holder. but also portable devices or consoles designed to ensure access to and use of these games.