Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T19:01:03.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Before and After the Cable Television Decisions of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Herman Cohen Jehoram
Get access

Extract

The present author will argue that the cable TV decisions of the Dutch Supreme Court of 30 October 1981, while creating quite a stir, have in fact stated nothing new, since it had already been decided in 1938 that secondary communication to the public of a primary radio broadcast of works is subject to the prohibition right of copyright. Moreover the Dutch Supreme Court reiterated this decision in its Cable Radio Decision of 1958 which dealt with a case identical to that of the decisions of 30 October 1981. The whole commotion before and after these last decisions arose only as a result of two successive attempts by the government to undo this Cable Radio decision. The first attempt, via the introduction of the word “organism” in Article 12 last paragraph of the Copyright Law of 1912, was undermined in the years 1968–1969; the second attempt, namely the launching of the “individual reception theory”, was undertaken immediately thereafter and only came to an end with the decisions of 30 October. The time has come to breath life back into Dutch media and copyright policies which have been stagnating for the last 13 years.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , December 1982 , pp. 337 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Supreme Court 30 October 1981, RvdW, 141: Columbia Pictures and 7 other large foreign film producers against the Stichting tot Exploitatie Centrale Antenne-Inrichting Amstelveen together with the impressive (in terms of content and scope) conclusion of the Advocate General Franx published in the extra cable TV issue (also available separately) of Auteursrecht: Auteursrecht 1981/5, p. 100 ff and NJ 1982, 435, note Van Nieuwenhoven Helbach. Then there is also the nearly identical (but for a few factual points) decision of the Supreme Court 30 October 1981, case 11 740, Federation of Movie Theater Operators against the same cable TV owner/operator Amstelveen, Ars Aequi 1982, p. 89 ff. note Cohen Jehoram.

2. Amsterdam High Court, 19 July 1978, Auteursrecht 1979/1, p. 10 ff and Court of Appeal Amsterdam, 12 June 1980, Auteursrecht 1980/4, p. 77 ff.

3. Supreme Court 6 May 1938, NJ 1938, 635, note Meijers.

4. Supreme Court 27 June 1958, NJ 1958, 405 and AA 1959, p. 217 ff. (= Ars Aequi Collection of decisions on Intellectual Property, p. 6 ff), note Hirsch Ballin.

5. With these failures I have in mind the regulation of retransmitting via cable TV in art. 12 and the regulation of reprography in art. 16b and 17; see my recent article “Vallen en opstaan met reprorecht”, Auteursrecht 1981/1983, p. 59 ffGoogle Scholar.

6. Important private TV companies still in existence are Radiante B.V. which owns and operates (among others) the Amstelveen cable system which is the subject of the recent Supreme Court cases, and Deltakabel B.V. (merged with V&D and Elsevier) which operates the notorious Sluis cable system. Cf. Jelgersma-Titulaer Kabeltelevisie: verleden, heden en toekomst, Helmond (1981), p. 51–52.

7. Jehoram, Cohen. De Auteurswet gewijzigd, NJB 1973, p. 525 ffGoogle Scholar.

8. Via a report of the Commission for Copyright of the Boekman Foundation. NJB 1968, p. 800 ff.

9. Bijl. Hand. II 1968–1969, 7877, 7889 (R446), 8, p. 3.

10. In a report of 9 November 1971, Bijl. Hand. II 1971–1972. 11 602, p. 12.

11. Bijl. Hand. II 1970–1971, 7877, 7889 (R446), 11. p. 3.

12. When Minister of Justice Van Agt was confronted once again with the Casema quotation during the full parliamentary debate of the revised law in the Second Chamber, he said lightly, “It is not a question of Casema's view on the matter but of what the legislature thinks of the matter.” Hand. II 1971–1972. p. 3437.

13. Hand. II 1971–1972. p. 3437.

14. Bijl. Hand. II 1968–1969, 7877, 7889 (R446), 6, p. 3.

15. Cf. Jehoram, Cohen, Vrijdom van auteursrecht voor draadomroep, CAS en straks Casema? NJB 1971, p. 737ffGoogle Scholar. and the ensuing discussion Belinfante/Cohen Jehoram NJB 1971, p. 854–859.

16. Cf. also the legal adviser of the PTT at that time, M.B. van Meerten, a little later in NJB 1971, p. 1093 ff. In greater detail on this matter, Cohen Jehoram, Vrijdom van Auteursrecht voor kabel-TV? Het einde van een interdepartementaal sprookje, Auteursrecht 1981/5, p. 99.

17. NJB 1973, p. 532.

18. See also the passages relevant to the formulation of this convention article in the “Documents”, as cited by Jehoram, Cohen, NJB 1971, p. 856 ffGoogle Scholar.

19. Media Info ‘Special’, De Kabel, 1981, p. 8.

20. Shown to be fallacious by Adv.-Gen. Warner in his conclusion for the Goditel-Ciné Vog Films Decision of the European Court of Justice of 18 March 1980, already quoted in my note to this decision in AA 1981, p. 77 ff. Compare also my article: “Copyright and Cableretiansmission of broadcasts, a problem of double payment of loyalties?”, European Intellectual Property Review 1982.

21. In this connection there is still a lot to be exposed about the methods which the municipalities have used in order to force their residents into the arms of the municipal cable systems. They did not stop short of void – because in conflict with the freedom of information – prohibitions of individual roof antennas in city ordinances and in deeds of sales of houses. Cf. Antenneverbod Leerdam. Afd. Rechtspr. Raad van State, 10 Oct. 1978, note Crijns, in AA '79, p. 477 ff. and especially also Antenneverbod Ridderkerk, Voorzitter Afd. Rechtspr. Raad van State 31 May 1978, note Vcrkade, Auteursrecht 1979/1, p. 13 ff.

22. p. 66 of this report by a PTT committee whose secretary later became secretary of the Co-operative Planning Committee for Cable Television, “a forum for the PTT and the various sectors involved in setting up and operating cable systems,” Kabeltelevisie 1977, p. 255. According to Kabeltelevisie 1976 the following (among others) take part in this Planning Committee: The Association of Antenna Installers (VICAS), the Dutch Association of Manufacturers and Importers of Components for Antenna Installations (VEFICA), the Dutch Association of Businesses for the Operation of Central Antenna Installations(VECAI), the Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG) and the PTT.

23. Jelgersma-Titulaer, , op. cit., p. 58Google Scholar.

24. Cf. the radio and tv-guide monopoly decision of the European Human Rights Commission of 6 July 1976, NJ 1978, 237 and AA 1979 p. 145 ff. (= Ars Aequi collection of Decisions on Intellectual Property p. 34 ff.) with note Cohen Jehoram.

25. Cf. Jehoram, Cohen, The Unique Dutch Broadcasting System on the Eve of the Revolution in Teletechnics and Freedom of Information, Journal of Media Law and Practice Vol. 2, no. 312 1981), p. 253–269Google Scholar, and Overheid en omroep, Auteursrecht 1980/3, p. 47 ff.

26. For members and assignment see Auteursrecht 1978/4, p. 60.

27. Auteursrecht 1979/4, p. 83 ff. and in English: Document MM-PJ (80)7 of the Council of Europe. The CIBRA maintained its stand in its final report, The Hague, May 1982.

28. Cf. Veltman Fruin, Reacties op de CIBRA-nota, Auteursrecht 1980/2, p. 37 ff.

29. The parliamentary question is printed in its totality in Autcursrecht 1981/5, p. 117.