The 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, commonly known as the EU Copyright Directive (EUCD) or the Information Society Directive (Infosoc), is a European Union directive in the field of copyright law, made under the internal market provisions of the Treaty of Rome. It is intended to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty, to which the European Union is a party.
This highly controversial Directive was, at the time, the most heavily lobbied measure to pass the European Parliament. In its final form, it includes only very narrow exceptions to anti-circumvention measures and exclusive rights. As a result, it is often regarded as a victory for copyright-owning interests (publishing, film, music and major software companies) over copyright users' interests.
Many important details are not specified in the Directive, and as a result, Member States have significant freedom in certain aspects of implementation. Due to escalating public awareness of the importance of copyright legislation, the process of implementation has not been entirely predictable. The European Commission has taken proceedings in the European Court of Justice against six Member States for failure to implement the Directive within the required period (before 2002-12-22).
The right of communication to the public or making available to the public is also distinguished from the "distribution right" (Art. 4) by the fact that it is not subject to the first-sale doctrine.
One limitation is obligatory: transient or incidental copying as part of a network transmission or legal use. Hence internet service providers are not liable for the data they transmit, even if it infringes copyright. The other limitations are optional, with Member States choosing which they apply. All limitations must be applied in accordance with the Berne three-step test, that is in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and which do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder [Art. 5(5)].
Unlike Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which only prohibits circumvention of access control measures, InfoSoc Directive also prohibits circumvention of copy protection measures, making it potentially more restrictive. In both DMCA and InfoSoc Directive, production, distribution etc. of equipment used to circumvent both access and copy-protection is prohibited. Under DMCA, a potential user who wants to avail herself of an alleged fair use privilege to crack copy protection (which is not prohibited) would have to do it herself since no equipment would lawfully be marketed for that purpose. Under InfoSoc Directive, this possibility would not be available since circumvention of copy protection is illegal.