Liability Of Internet Intermediaries Research Articles

Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Liability of Internet Intermediaries for Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights

Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Liability of Internet Intermediaries for Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights

Shooting the Messenger? The Criminal Liability of Internet Intermediaries for the Incitement to Commit Genocide

Shooting the Messenger? The Criminal Liability of Internet Intermediaries for the Incitement to Commit Genocide

Characteristics of Legal Reasoning in Cases Regarding Liability of Internet Intermediaries

The paper is focused on identifying criteria for legal reasoning used by courts in disputes regarding internet intermediary‘s liability for offences committed by someone else. There are cases with this atypical phenomenon when a person, who did not infringe someone else‘s individual rights, is held liable, e. g. liability of an internet platform‘s operator for unlawful comments posted by the visitors. The paper presents an analysis of criteria for legal reasoning which carry potential to be used in the future when new disputes related to technological innovation reach courts.

The Criminal Liability of Internet Intermediaries in India: A Theoretical Analysis

The Criminal Liability of Internet Intermediaries in India: A Theoretical Analysis

From gatekeepers to publishers: Liability of internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content

This article aims to analyse the liability of Internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content. In the absence of any statutory law relating to online defamation, the courts in India have had to rely upon comparable developments in the United Kingdom to define the contours of liability of the intermediaries for facilitating the publication of defamatory content on the Internet. However, affixing liability on intermediaries in the absence of similar statutory immunities provided to them under the UK law may prove prejudicial to the intermediaries. Therefore, this article argues that India should enact a comprehensive law to statutorily limit the grounds on which liability may be imposed on Internet intermediaries for hosting online defamatory content. This article further argues that India should adopt and codify the ‘notice and notice plus’ approach to intermediary liability as it ensures that intermediaries are not held liable as publishers for hosting the defamatory content, but in the meantime are also encouraged to take active steps to ensure effective justice to the victims of online defamation.

Submission to Review of the Model Defamation Provisions (Stage 2)

This submission was made in response to the Discussion Paper (March 2021) in Stage 2 of the Review of the Australian Model Defamation Provisions. This Review is conducted by the Defamation Working Party, on behalf of the Attorneys-General, and led by the NSW Department of Communities and Justice. The submission addresses both parts of the Discussion Paper: internet intermediary liability in defamation for the publication of third-party content; and the extension of the absolute privilege defence to reports of alleged criminal conduct to police and statutory investigative bodies, and reports of misconduct to employers and professional disciplinary bodies. The submission argues that internet platforms should be subject to interim take-down orders issued according to a threshold that is lower than that currently applied, because of the unique nature and impact of online communications, and the because of the need to preserve claims that have yet to be put to trial. Courts should also be empowered to make orders blocking content worldwide. On the matter of absolute privilege, the submission argues that this defence should not be extended to reports to police, statutory investigative bodies, employers, and professional disciplinary bodies. The qualified privilege defence adequately protects such complainants from any 'chilling effects' of defamation law, and clear evidence is needed of a causal link between the tort's operation in practice and the preparedness of individuals to make such complaints. Further, the nature and purpose of the absolute privilege defence, as an exceptional mechanism that prevents courts from trying otherwise justiciable causes of action, should remain limited to occasions of parliamentary, or judicial or quasi-judicial, proceedings.

Is it time for Europe to reassess internet intermediary liability in light of coronavirus misinformation?

Is it time for Europe to reassess internet intermediary liability in light of coronavirus misinformation?

Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation

Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation

Payments Providers and Intermediaries as Defined in the Law of the Internet

To consider look at the effects of legal liability as it pertains to Internet Intermediaries. Such examples would include defamation and copyright violations on ISP's where a subscriber has breached their legal obligations as well as the hosting of illicit materials (such as child porn). In carrying out my project my aim is to: 1. Analyse English law as it relates to Internet Intermediary liability. 2. Review the current cases. 3. Consider the opinions of practitioners, academics, the Law Commission and the press/public. 4. Analyse reforms/proposals for reform in other jurisdictions and the changes to the EU and the consequential effects that this will have on Internet Intermediaries. 5. Suggest how, if reform is needed, this should be effected. 6. Detail the Impact of Internet Intermediary Liability across different groups and the economy.

A Court’s Gotta Do, What a Court’s Gotta Do. An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Liability of Internet Intermediaries Through Systems Theory

This paper explores recent developments in the liability of internet intermediaries for user-generated content at the European Court of Human Rights in the cases Delfi v Estonia (2015) and MTE v Hungary (2016). Regulatory approaches towards the liability of internet intermediaries raise the complex question of the kind of Internet that law should contribute to designing. For example, should law create a more regulated but less free environment? Moreover, should internet intermediaries decide on human rights standards, such as freedom of expression? Drawing on the systems theory concept of autopoiesis, this paper demonstrates how the answer to these questions might be inherently connected to the performativity of law. In this analysis, particular attention is then paid to the question of anonymity and how it might challenge the role of law in granting remedies.

Problematically proactive: a summary of recent legal developments in the field of internet intermediary liability

N/A

Rethinking the notion of hosting in the aftermath of Delfi: Shifting from liability to responsibility?

Liability of Internet intermediaries for a third-party content is a complex topic, especially with regards to the storage of illegal or harmful postings offered by portals. The E-Commerce Directive offered a liberal framework for handling such cases, provided that a hosting service provider has not played an active role in content management. Being passive turned out to be the key precondition for immunity under safe harbour provisions. Yet, after the Delfi ruling the legal landscape has changed radically. Although the judgment of the Strasbourg tribunal has been dismissed in some jurisdictions as an error or one-off case, the truth is that it took into account acquis communautaire and imposed liability on the news portal, which followed the guidelines of Google France and eBay rulings. Given the lack of predictability of the current legal framework, the aim of this contribution is to offer a deep-dive into the notion of hosting from a technical perspective in order to better understand why Articles 14–15 of the E-Commerce Directive may require a re-examination. It is also submitted that portals and other online service providers relying on a broad construction of safe harbours should be entitled to Good Samaritan protection akin to section 230 of the American Communications Decency Act in order not to hold them liable for being active in fighting hate speech and other forms of illegal and harmful conduct.

Novine u konceptu odgovornosti posrednika za povredu autorskog i srodnih prava na internetu

In the era of domination of digital technology and modern communication networks, the Internet is the most common place for sharing and using content protected by copyright and related rights. Consequently, copyright infringements are most common in the digital environment, for which reason it is necessary to adjust the concept of protection of copyright and related rights to new circumstances. Access to content and its sharing are possible thanks to third parties, intermediaries, whose role can be essential in detecting and sanctioning copyright and related rights infringements on the Internet. The questions of contribution to the infringement and responsibility of internet intermediaries for the infringement may also be raised. Within the framework of the forthcoming reform of copyright in the European Union, a new regime has been proposed on the liability of Internet intermediaries for copyright infringement. The recent case law of the European Court of Justice is in favor of the proposed amendments, specifying the conditions and criteria under which Internet intermediaries infringe the copyright or, to be more specific, infringe the authorization of communication to the public. The paper analyzes the novelties in the regime of liability of Internet intermediaries for copyright and related rights infringements.

Website Blocking Injunctions to Prevent Copyright Infringements Proportionality and Effectiveness

The liability of internet intermediaries, particularly Internet Service Providers ('ISPs'), for the unlawful online actions of third party users is a persistent theme and problem of cyberlaw. The creation of an intermediary liability regime involves balancing the benefits intermediaries provide in facilitating access to internet content on the one hand, with the advantages of leveraging intermediary control over access on the other. Intermediaries are targets for attempts to control unlawful end-user activities as bringing actions against individual users is expensive, while regulating access via intermediaries is more cost-effective. Imposing liability on intermediaries can, however, have significant unwelcome effects, or 'collateral damage', especially on the rights to freedom of expression and privacy of end-users.

Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation: Proposals for Statutory Reform

The law of defamation has long been recognized as out of step with modern tort principles. For example, the publication element requires intentionally conveying defamatory content but no authorship or even knowledge of the content is required. Thus, some have referred to defamation as strict liability. The paper re-examines the Canadian law of publication in defamation in the context of internet intermediary liability. Search engines and website hosts have been sued in defamation for content created by users. Courts have struggled with whether such intermediaries are publishers and if so, whether they have an innocent dissemination defence. The defence applies to those whose role in publication is secondary, and who have no knowledge of, and are not careless regarding the dissemination of, the defamatory contents. Instead of internet-intermediary-specific defences, which make a complicated area of the law more so, the paper proposes to modify the publication element of defamation so that it only ever applies to “primary publishers”. “Primary publishers” include authors, editors and commercial publishers. They are more immediately involved in dissemination and have or should have knowledge of the contents. Some courts have suggested that the publication element should evolve to require knowledge of specific words. However, while knowledge is necessary, it is insufficient. If a newsagent were told a newspaper contained a libel and he continued to sell it, at common law he’d be liable. If Google were told that a search result is defamatory, it might be a defamer if it failed to remove it. We argue that this should not be the case. While there should be legal mechanisms for removing certain content from the internet, and penalizing a failure to remove it, a secondary publisher’s failure to remove content should not make it liable in defamation. The proposed change will resolve many of the internet intermediary liability problems while making defamation law fairer and reflecting modern tort law’s emphasis on fault-based liability. This project is being done in conjunction with the Law Commission of Ontario’s defamation reform project.

The Liability of Internet Intermediaries

The Liability of Internet Intermediaries

The Impact of Internet Intermediary Liability

To consider look at the effects of legal liability as it pertains to Internet Intermediaries. Such examples would include defamation and copyright violations on ISP's where a subscriber has breached their legal obligations as well as the hosting of illicit materials (such as child porn). In carrying out my project my aim is to: 1. Analyse English law as it relates to Internet Intermediary liability 2. Review the current cases 3. Consider the opinions of practitioners, academics, the Law Commission and the press/public 4. Analyse reforms/proposals for reform in other jurisdictions and the changes to the EU and the consequential effects that this will have on Internet Intermediaries. 5. Suggest how, if reform is needed, this should be effected 6. Detail the Impact of Internet Intermediary Liability across different groups and the economy

The troubled waters of copyright safe harbours in India

The proliferation of the internet has raised novel concerns regarding the enforcement of copyright. Increasingly, online intermediaries are being targeted for their role in copyright infringement. Therefore, intermediary liability is arguably the single largest legal structure that may affect how our markets react to these technological changes. Against this background, this paper undertakes an analysis of the liability of internet intermediaries for copyright infringement, focusing primarily on the scope of ‘safe-harbour’ provisions. The author seeks conceptually to anchor the notion of intermediary liability in common law doctrines of secondary liability. Subsequently, the author throws light on the three most important elements of a safe harbour provision for internet intermediaries: (i) scope, in terms of kinds of activities and intermediaries it covers; (ii) fault or knowledge standard; and (iii) notice and takedown mechanism. To understand this triangular metric of gauging the effectiveness of a safe harbour, the experience of the Indian framework lies at the heart of this article. The author undertakes an analysis of Indian law—both prior to and subsequent to—the introduction of the ‘fair use exception’ by the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012. Where relevant, the article also draws lessons from other jurisdictions. Through an analysis of the Indian framework, this article hopes to inform the larger legal debate on the scope of intermediary liability for copyright infringement.

(Non-)regulation of online platforms and internet intermediaries – the facts: Context and overview of the state of play

The question whether the regulation of online platforms and internet intermediaries is sufficient is a dominant issue in today’s copyright debate. In the light of the vivid and rather persistent discussion about the liability of internet intermediaries,1 the numerous judgments handed down at the national and European levels as well as some (quite restrained) legislative endeavours over the past few years, it is legitimate to call the legal classification of intermediaries and online platforms one of the biggest challenges IP law faces regarding the internet.2 Given the most recent CJEU judgments McFadden, UPC Telekabel and GS Media, as well as the newly released Commission proposals, it seems an appropriate time to assess whether the current legal framework offers satisfactory solutions or to what extent and where precisely the call for a dedicated legislative regulation is still justified. This article aims to give a short survey sketching the broad framework that shapes the current legal landscape of internet intermediaries and platforms in the IP context, taking short glimpses at the underlying legislative framework, the current day-to-day situation, case law and the recent Commission proposals.3

Internet Intermediary Liability: WILMap, Theory and Trends

To better understand the heterogeneity of the international online intermediary liability regime—with the collaboration of an amazing team of contributors across five continents—I have developed and launched the World Intermediary Liability Map (WILMap), a detailed Englishlanguage resource, hosted at Stanford CIS and comprising of case law, statutes, and proposed laws related to intermediary liability worldwide. Since its launch in July 2014, the WILMap has been steadily and rapidly growing. Today, the WILMap covers almost one hundred jurisdictions across Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Europe, Latin America, North America and Oceania. This article begins with an introduction of the WILMap and the surrounding landscape of recent projects related to intermediary liability. The aim is to discuss the advancement in intermediary liability theory and describing the emerging regulatory trends.