CURIA: the address is one thing, the email is another

A ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CURIA) gave Google reason: if a user uploads a video to YouTube without having the consent of the copyright holders, the applicant has no right to access his email. , nor to his IP address, but only to his postal address. Although apparently absurd, this is a completely logical sentence that the CURIA has explained in detail starting from the reference directive and explaining what the legislators' intentions were when the text was approved.

it is related to the copyright infringement itself, as to the possibility of tracing the perpetrator of the infringement to pursue targeted causes that go beyond the request to remove the content itself. The case is the one that sees Constantin Film Verleich against Google and YouTube due to two films uploaded without authorization on YouTube: "Parker" and "Scary Movie 5":

These films have shown several tens of thousands of times. Constantin Film Verleih then ordered YouTube and Google - the parent company of the former, where users must first register with a user account - to provide it with a set of information relating to each of the users who had loaded it. The two companies refused to provide Constantin Film Verleih with information about these users, in particular their email addresses and telephone numbers as well as the IP addresses they used both when uploading the files concerned and when last access to their Google / YouTube account.

Only the address, no-IP and email

The judgment clearly explains how the directive requires Google to provide the email address of the user who uploaded the video, but the controversy focuses on the meaning of the word “address”. Google, in fact, hardly has the address of the registered user, which know instead email and IP address of the connection. Recent data, however, would not be covered in the scope of what is meant by “address”, and then, in fact, Google is not required to provide information that are not those of which it has not.

" The Court found, first, that, as regards the usual meaning of the term "address", it refers only to the postal address, i.e. the place of domicile or residence of a particular person "; moreover, the preparatory work of the directive, they never contemplated a different meaning for the concept of "address", so any modern interpretation would be a stretch. Finally, “l available in word aims to reconcile the respect of several rights, in particular the right of information of the holders and the right to protection of personal data of users “.

Although the part of the complainant can legitimately argue the fact that such an interpretation is restrictive, and to defend anyone who has committed a violation, the Court underlines how the text was composed to balance all the rights and that, therefore, today it is not possible to force their hand without incurring a dangerous deviation with respect to the directive 2004/48.

The Court has nevertheless pointed out that member States have the possibility to grant to holders of intellectual property rights, the right to receive information that is more extensive, provided, however, that to ensure a fair balance between the different fundamental rights involved and are adhered to the other general principles of Union law, such as the principle of proportionality.

In these last words there is a sort of a veiled invitation to the legislator: they rewrite the rule, and at that point Google will be forced to provide all the information. To date, however, both Google and who incurs violations are protected by the same regulations that would punish the violations, therefore, is simply to the CURIA to demand the respect of the directive itself.

Source: European Court of Justice