{"id":197,"date":"2022-02-25T09:33:16","date_gmt":"2022-02-25T09:33:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawcounsel.radiantthemes.com\/\/?p=197"},"modified":"2022-02-25T20:37:30","modified_gmt":"2022-02-25T20:37:30","slug":"direktiva-e-be-se-mbi-copyright-2019-790-ne-lidhje-me-platformat-digjitale-problematika-dhe-prespektiva","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/direktiva-e-be-se-mbi-copyright-2019-790-ne-lidhje-me-platformat-digjitale-problematika-dhe-prespektiva\/","title":{"rendered":"Direktiva e Be-s\u00eb mbi Copyright (2019\/790) n\u00eb lidhje me platformat digjitale. Problematika dhe prespektiva."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Vendimi i Gjykat\u00ebs Europiane t\u00eb Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb C-682\/18 – YouTube e Cyando n\u00eb lidhje me p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsin\u00eb e platformave online p\u00ebr p\u00ebrdorimin e paligjsh\u00ebm nga ana e p\u00ebrdoruesve t\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajtjeve t\u00eb mbrojtura nga e drejta e autorit, \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb triumf p\u00ebr gjigant\u00ebt e Webit, n\u00eb momentin q\u00eb e shum\u00eb diskutuara Direktiv\u00eb e Be-s\u00eb (2019\/790) si\u00e7 duket do t\u00eb ndryshoj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithmon\u00eb pozicionin e tyre.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb fakt gjith\u00e7ka nisi nga vendimi i nj\u00eb gjykate gjermane p\u00ebr t\u00eb paraqitur dy \u00e7\u00ebshtje n\u00eb gjykat\u00ebn Europiane t\u00eb Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. E para kishte t\u00eb b\u00ebnte me padin\u00eb e ngritur nga producenti muzikor gjerman Frank Peterson kund\u00ebr Google dhe Youtube p\u00ebr ngarkimin n\u00eb 2008 nga ana e p\u00ebrdoruesve t\u00eb Youtube t\u00eb disa pjes\u00ebve muzikore p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilat g\u00ebzonte t\u00eb drejtat e autorit. Nd\u00ebrsa tjetra kishte t\u00eb b\u00ebnte me padin\u00eb e botuesit Elsevier kund\u00ebr ofruesit t\u00eb internetit Cyando p\u00ebr shp\u00ebrndarjen n\u00eb platform\u00eb t\u00eb disa manualeve t\u00eb anatomis\u00eb dhe mjek\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2013 pa konsensusin e tij. N\u00eb\u00a0 22 qershor t\u00eb vitit t\u00eb kaluar Gjykata Europiane e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket \u00e7\u00ebshtjes C-682\/18 – YouTube e Cyando n\u00eb nj\u00eb nga p\u00ebrfundimet e saj p\u00ebrcaktoi se Neni 3(1) i Direktiv\u00ebs (2001\/29\/BE) t\u00eb Parlamentit Evropian dhe K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb 22 majit 2001 mbi harmonizimin e disa aspekteve t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb autorit dhe t\u00eb drejtave t\u00eb lidhura me shoq\u00ebrin\u00eb e informacionit, duhet t\u00eb interpretohet n\u00eb kuptimin q\u00eb operatori i nj\u00eb platforme digjitale, n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn p\u00ebrdoruesit mund t\u00eb v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb paligjshme p\u00ebrmbajtjen e mbrojtur t\u00eb disponueshme p\u00ebr publikun, nuk b\u00ebn nj\u00eb \u201ckomunikim me publikun\u201d t\u00eb asaj p\u00ebrmbajtjeje, p\u00ebrve\u00e7 n\u00ebse ai kontribuon, p\u00ebrtej b\u00ebrjes s\u00eb disponueshme t\u00eb asaj platforme, n\u00eb dh\u00ebnien akses publikut n\u00eb nj\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajtje t\u00eb till\u00eb n\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb autorit. Ky \u00ebsht\u00eb rasti, inter alia, kur ai operator ka njohuri specifike se p\u00ebrmbajtja e mbrojtur \u00ebsht\u00eb e disponueshme n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb paligjshme n\u00eb platform\u00ebn e tij dhe nuk merr masa p\u00ebr\u00a0 fshirjen e shpejt\u00eb t\u00eb saj ose bllokimin e aksesit n\u00eb t\u00eb, ose kur ai operator, pavar\u00ebsisht nga fakti q\u00eb e di ose duhet ta dij\u00eb, q\u00eb p\u00ebrdoruesit e platform\u00ebs s\u00eb saj po b\u00ebjn\u00eb t\u00eb disponueshme p\u00ebr publikun nj\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajtje t\u00eb mbrojtur n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb paligjshme n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet platform\u00ebs s\u00eb saj, nuk merr masat e duhura teknologjike, n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb q\u00eb t\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtoj\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb efektive shkeljet e t\u00eb drejtave t\u00eb autorit n\u00eb at\u00eb platform\u00eb, ose kur ai operator merr pjes\u00eb n\u00eb zgjedhjen e p\u00ebrmbajtjes s\u00eb mbrojtur t\u00eb komunikuar n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb paligjshme p\u00ebr publikun, ofron mjete n\u00eb platform\u00ebn e tij t\u00eb destinuara posa\u00e7\u00ebrisht p\u00ebr shp\u00ebrndarjen e paligjshme t\u00eb nj\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajtjeje t\u00eb till\u00eb ose me vet\u00ebdije promovon nj\u00eb shp\u00ebndarje t\u00eb till\u00eb, e cila mund t\u00eb v\u00ebrtetohet nga fakti se ai operator ka miratuar nj\u00eb model financiar q\u00eb inkurajon p\u00ebrdoruesit e platform\u00ebs s\u00eb tij p\u00ebr t\u2019i komunikuar publikut ilegalisht p\u00ebrmbajtje t\u00eb mbrojtura n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet asaj platforme.<\/p>\n

Po si do t\u00eb ndryshojn\u00eb gj\u00ebrat me Direktiv\u00ebn e re t\u00eb Be-s\u00eb (2019\/790) mbi Copyright?<\/p>\n

Aktualisht po p\u00ebrfundon implemetimi i Direktiv\u00ebs (2019\/790) mbi Copyright n\u00eb tregun e vet\u00ebm digjital. Nj\u00eb nga nenet m\u00eb t\u00eb diskutuar t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj direktive \u00ebsht\u00eb edhe neni 17 q\u00eb p\u00ebrcakton edhe p\u00ebrdorimin e p\u00ebrmbajtjeve t\u00eb mbrojtura nga copyright n\u00eb platformat online. \u00c7<\/strong>\u00ebshtjet e m\u00ebsip\u00ebrme i p\u00ebrkasin nj\u00eb periudhe para hyrjes n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb direktiv\u00ebs ndaj direktiva nuk mund t\u00eb aplikohej.<\/p>\n

Neni 17 i Direktiv\u00ebs s\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian p\u00ebr t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e autorit dhe t\u00eb drejtat e p\u00ebraf\u00ebrta n\u00eb Tregun Unik Digjital (2019\/790) p\u00ebrcakton disa detyrime shum\u00eb rigoroze p\u00ebr platformat online p\u00ebr t\u00eb parandaluar ngarkimin e veprave q\u00eb shkelin t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e autorit. Sipas k\u00ebsaj dispozite, nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit<\/p>\n

duhet t\u00eb marrin autorizim nga mbajt\u00ebsit e t\u00eb drejtave p\u00ebr v\u00ebnien n\u00eb dispozicion t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre p\u00ebrmbajtjeve publikut t\u00eb gjer\u00eb, ose duhet t\u00eb p\u00ebrdorin mekanizma p\u00ebr filtrimin e p\u00ebrmbajtjeve me shkelje.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebr nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb t\u00eb doktrin\u00ebs edhe pse mekanizmat e filtrimit do t\u00eb mbronin t\u00eb drejtat e autor\u00ebve t\u00eb cil\u00ebt shohin shpesh t\u00eb publikuara veprat e tyre online pa asnj\u00eb autorizim, p\u00ebrdorimi i teknologjive t\u00eb tilla, mund t\u00eb ket\u00eb efekte negative n\u00eb t\u00eb drejtat e njeriut. Sipas K\u00ebshillit, Komisionit t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb dhe autor\u00ebve q\u00eb publikojn\u00eb n\u00eb internet, reformimi i legjislacionit mbi t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e autorit do t\u00eb garantoj\u00eb m\u00eb shum\u00eb t\u00eb drejta dhe nj\u00eb shp\u00ebrblim m\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00eb p\u00ebr botuesit, artist\u00ebt, autor\u00ebt dhe gazetar\u00ebt n\u00eb platformat kryesore n\u00eb internet si Google, Facebook ose Youtube.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrsa p\u00ebr mbrojt\u00ebsit e liris\u00eb absolute t\u00eb internetit dhe gjigant\u00ebt e Web-it, Direktiva (2019\/790) do t\u00eb kufizoj\u00eb lirin\u00eb e shprehjes. N\u00eb rradh\u00eb t\u00eb par\u00eb, n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet p\u00ebrdorimit t\u00eb mekanizmave filtrues, q\u00eb do t\u00eb identifikonin p\u00ebrdoruesit mund t\u00eb kemi shkelje t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb mbrojtjes s\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave\u00a0 personale dhe t\u00eb respektimit t\u00eb jet\u00ebs private dhe familjare. Gjithashtu mund t\u00eb kemi nj\u00eb kusht\u00ebzim t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb informimit dhe t\u00eb shprehjes sepse mekanizmat filtrues nuk jan\u00eb t\u00eb pagabuesh\u00ebm dhe mund t\u00eb ndodh\u00eb q\u00eb t\u00eb bllokohen p\u00ebrmbajtje t\u00eb publikuara n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb ligjshme.<\/p>\n

N\u00ebse do t\u2019i referoheshim Direktiv\u00ebs s\u00eb m\u00ebparshme t\u00eb Be-s\u00eb (2001\/29), t\u00eb njohur si Direktiva Infosoc apo Direktiv\u00ebs (2000\/31) t\u00eb njohur si Direktiva E-Commerce, arrijm\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin, q\u00eb k\u00ebto Direktiva nuk arrit\u00ebn t\u00eb prezantojn\u00eb modele t\u00eb mjaftueshme harmonizimi p\u00ebr disa aspekte t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb autorit dhe t\u00eb drejtave t\u00eb p\u00ebraf\u00ebrta n\u00eb kontekstin e shoq\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb informacionit digjital. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye nj\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb e re ishte e nevojshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb zgjidhur problemet e interpretimit p\u00ebr Gjykat\u00ebn e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian n\u00eb lidhje me t\u00eb gjitha situatat e ve\u00e7anta t\u00eb paparashikuara nga ligjv\u00ebn\u00ebsi i BE-s\u00eb.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb praktik\u00ebn e m\u00ebparshme gjyq\u00ebsore C-610\/15 Stichting Brein kund\u00ebr Ziggo n\u00eb lidhje me \u201ckomunikimin me publikun\u201d n\u00eb kontekstin e platformave digjitale, GJED-ja ishte kufizuar kryesisht n\u00eb theksimin e r\u00ebnd\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb nj\u00eb niveli t\u00eb lart\u00eb mbrojtjeje p\u00ebr autor\u00ebt. N\u00eb vendimin aktual, ashtu si n\u00eb rastin e C-160\/15 t\u00eb GS Media, Gjykata v\u00eb n\u00eb plan t\u00eb par\u00eb t\u00eb drejtat themelore t\u00eb njeriut.<\/p>\n

Duke iu referuar analiz\u00ebs s\u00eb m\u00ebsip\u00ebrme, sipas mendimit ton\u00eb kjo Direktiv\u00eb do t\u00eb garantoj\u00eb nj\u00eb shp\u00ebrblim m\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00eb p\u00ebr autor\u00ebt, por mekanizmat filtrues q\u00eb parashikohen t\u00eb implementohen n\u00eb favor t\u00eb zbatimit t\u00eb saj mund t\u00eb prekin t\u00eb drejtat e njeriut. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye rekomandohet q\u00eb t\u00eb gjenden mekanizma t\u00eb till\u00eb q\u00eb t\u00eb mos c\u00ebnojn\u00eb privat\u00ebsin\u00eb apo t\u00eb dh\u00ebnat personale t\u00eb p\u00ebrdoruesve t\u00eb platformave digjitale si dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e shprehjes apo t\u00eb informimit.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Vendimi i Gjykat\u00ebs Europiane t\u00eb Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb C-682\/18 – YouTube e Cyando n\u00eb lidhje me p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsin\u00eb e platformave online p\u00ebr p\u00ebrdorimin e paligjsh\u00ebm nga ana e p\u00ebrdoruesve t\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajtjeve t\u00eb mbrojtura nga e drejta e autorit<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8825,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=197"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8826,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197\/revisions\/8826"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}