Liability Of Internet Service Providers Research Articles

Critical Analysis of Liability of Internet Service Providers for Indirect Patent Infringement

With the rapid evolution of e-commerce, existing Chinese laws have struggled to keep pace with complex issues arising from digital transactions involving intellectual property, especially when addressing indirect patent infringement on e-commerce platforms. By conducting a comparative analysis with international laws from Germany, Japan, and the United States, the paper identifies robust legal frameworks that explicitly address indirect infringements in the digital marketplace. The paper proposes several legislative improvements for China, including the clarification of what constitutes indirect infringement, the outlining of explicit duties for e-commerce platforms, and the creation of specialized mechanisms for dispute resolution. On the judicial front, recommendations include enhancing the specialization of courts and judges in intellectual property, developing detailed procedural guidelines, and promoting alternative dispute resolution methods to mitigate the burdens of litigation. By adopting and adapting these recommandations, China can enhance its protection of intellectual property rights and support the dynamic environment of innovation that e-commerce fosters. Strengthening the legal framework in this way is crucial for ensuring fair competition and encouraging technological advancements within China's digital economy.

Liability In The Cyber Space In Tanzania: A Focus On Internet Service Providers

Internet Service in Tanzania is provided by different vendors, both public and private. These providers are known as Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This paper examines ISPs as provided by The Electronic and Postal Communications Act, 2010, The Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority Act, 2003 and The Cybercrimes Act, 2015. The focus is on the nature of liability, extent of liability, and legal basis for such liability. Upon comparison of the nature of liability in Tanzania with selected jurisdictions, The study found that, unlike in the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US) and India, where the nature of liability is mainly civil, in Tanzania liability of ISPs leanest more towards criminal as opposed to civil liability.

The Liability of Internet Service Providers for Copyright Infringement in Sri Lanka: A Comparative Analysis

The Liability of Internet Service Providers for Copyright Infringement in Sri Lanka: A Comparative Analysis

The Liability of Internet Service Providers in the Proposed Digital Services Act

The intent of the essay is to verify if the Proposal on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act), in the part where it aims to define the provider’s liability for illegal activity or illegal content stored at the request of a recipient of the hosting service, ends up providing greater protection for the passive provider than the Electronic Commerce Directive. It is also the intent to examine to what extent the actual increased protection of the passive provider is compensated for by greater rigor in ruling out the possibility of the providers playing an active role in hosting.

TO REGULATE OR TO OVERREGULATE? INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER LIABILITY: THE INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE BODY IN TERMS OF THE ECT ACT AND REGULATIONS

The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 provides for the limitation of liability of Internet service providers against actions based on unlawful content placed on their websites. The legislature’s approach is to emphasize self-regulation of the Internet by providing in section 72 of the Act that only those service providers which belong to an Industry Representative Body (IRB), recognized by the Minister of Communications, will qualify for the protection accorded by the ECT Act. Such an IRB must then, through its Code of Conduct, regulate service providers belonging to it. This article evaluates the prerequisite of an IRB and investigates theguidelines for recognition of IRBs by the minister. The South African position is then compared with that in the European Union. The need for the existence of IRBs is questioned and the guidelines are criticized. It is argued that both the threshold requirements and IRB recognition requirements are unnecessary in the context of limited liability. It is submitted that these barriers to limited liability are needless and can possibly hamper the industry as a whole.

HATE SPEECH ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES: PERPETRATOR AND SERVICE PROVIDERS’ LIABILITY

The article investigates the phenomenon of hate speech on social network sites and gives an overview of the national and international legal instruments which are available to combat hate speech. After an overview of the nature of hate speech andthe early international attempts to curb it, hate speech in South Africa is investigated. The question is posed whether statements of hatred made on the Internet, especially if published from sites such as Facebook which is external to South Africa, can leadto liability for perpetrators in South Africa. International responses to hate speech in cyberspace are then investigated with specific reference to the possible liability of Internet service providers for hate speech posted by third parties on their websites. Itis shown that, although service providers in the United States enjoy more protection than those in European Union, Canada and South Africa, hate speech on social network sites can be legally curbed. It is concluded that the myth that the Internet as a godless, lawless zone can and must be dismissed.

Cambodia’s New Digital Signature, E-Commerce and Consumer Protection Laws: Key Components of a Bold Strategy for Dramatic Future Economic Growth

Cambodia has a bold new strategy to stimulate E-commerce and to grow the economy. The Digital Signature (DSL), Consumer Protection (CPL), and E-Commerce Laws (ECL) are important components of that strategy. The DSL provides for licensing of certifying authorities and does not prohibit other types of E-signatures. The CPL prohibits deceptive advertising and creates a consumer complaint procedure. The ECL recognizes the legal validity of secure E-documents and E-signatures, including as evidence in a court of law. The ECL states requirements of secure E-signatures and secure E-documents; E-contract rules; rules for liability of internet service providers and E-sellers; E-government provisions; E-payments services rules; and computer crimes. The ECL should be improved by: (a) recognizing electronic wills, powers of attorney, and real estate documents; (b) adding attribution rules and acknowledge receipt rules for E-contracts; (c) adding mandatory E-government; (d) adding a comprehensive computer crimes law; and (e) adding IT Courts.

Liability of Internet Service Providers for Online Copyright Infringement: International Experience and Recommendations for Vietnam

The advent of the Internet has posed unprecedented challenges on enforcing copyright. Online copyright infringements are pervasive, while it is not easy to impose liability on direct infringers, i.e., Internet users. This leads to a debate over whether online platforms or online intermediaries, which are often named “Internet Service Providers” (ISPs), should be held liable for these infringing activities or not, and if so, how to balance between Internet freedom, technological innovation and the need for effective copyright enforcement in the digital era. The aim of this paper is to provide answers to these questions by analyzing ISP’s liability from different international approaches such as the United States, the European Union, and China; hence, some experience for Vietnam could be drawn. Finally, the authors make recommendations to address the shortcomings in Vietnam’s intellectual property law with respect to ISP’s liability. This research is perfectly timing, given that Vietnam is amending its Intellectual Property Law to implement its commitments under the new generation free trade agreements and to meet the demand of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Social Media and the Liabilities of Internet Service Providers in Nigeria

Social media has been the vehicle for the dynamic progression of globalization. The purpose of social media encompasses many ends. Some of which allow for liabilities for third-party users, or in some circumstances, liabilities for Internet Service Providers. There are many complications in determining the liabilities of Internet Service Providers and third-party users. This paper examined the nature of Internet Service Providers (ISP), social media, and the activities of third-party users in Nigeria. It also interrogated the various instances where third party use of social media might affect ISP liability. This paper further explored the judicial and legal framework of some jurisdictions to see how they view the liabilities of internet service providers. The paper concluded that internet service providers should be held accountable for the content that is published on their platforms as it affects greatly the lives of concerned users offline.

Pushing Back on Stricter Copyright ISP Liability Rules

For more than two decades, internet service providers (ISPs) in the United States, the European Union (EU), and many other countries have been shielded from copyright liability under “safe harbor” rules. These rules apply to ISPs who did not know about or participate in user-uploaded infringements and who take infringing content down after receiving notice from rights holders. Major copyright industry groups were never satisfied with these safe harbors, and their dissatisfaction has become more strident over time as online infringements have grown to scale. Responding to copyright industry complaints, the EU in 2019 adopted its Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market. In particular, the Directive’s Article 17 places much stricter obligations on for-profit ISPs that host large amounts of user contents. Article 17 is internally contradictory, deeply ambiguous, and harmful to small and medium-sized companies as well as to user freedoms of expression. Moreover, Article 17 may well violate the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the United States, Congress commenced a series of hearings in 2020 on the safe harbor rules now codified as 17 U.S.C. § 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In May 2020, the U.S. Copyright Office issued its long-awaited study on Section 512, which recommended several significant changes to existing safe harbor rules. The Study’s almost exclusively pro–copyright industry stances on reform of virtually every aspect of the rules notably shortchanges other stakeholder interests. Congress should take a balanced approach in considering any changes to the DMCA safe harbor rules. Any meaningful reform of ISP liability rules should consider the interests of a wide range of stakeholders. This includes U.S.-based Internet platforms, smaller and medium-sized ISPs, startups, and the hundreds of millions of Internet users who create and enjoy user-generated content (UGC) uploaded to these platforms, as well as the interests of major copyright industries and individual creators who have been dissatisfied with the DMCA safe harbor rules.

디지털 인격권 침해와 인터넷서비스사업자의 책임에 대한 비교법 연구

디지털 인격권 침해와 인터넷서비스사업자의 책임에 대한 비교법 연구

Liability of Online Service Providers After the Latest Changes in EU Law: Paradigm Change of Liability?

Since the 5th of March 2019, the European Union is facing a new directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. The new Directive EU 2019/790 comes with significant changes in terms of European copyright law. Especially the new rules governing the liability of internet service providers (ISPs) are in the scope of the new directive. Article 17 of the directive, governing the newly created scheme of liability and licencing, could mean a paradigm change in copyright law. Rightsholders shall get a stronger position in terms of participation for the profits gained by ISPs using their copyrighted content. This new directive brings up many questions about the liability of ISPs, as many aspects are left unclear. Even though the new directive clearly forbids the use of any monitoring technology, ISPs have to take every effort to block copyright-infringing materials uploaded by the users. Still, ISPs did not get a hint of any possible alternatives to the so-called “upload-filters”. This new scheme of liability for ISPs means much stricter regulations, as now ISPs are liable for the deeds of their users as well. The new directive is strongly discussed and criticised by scholars, ISPs and especially by the public. It is feared that there is no alternative for the upload filter, which could lead to a deep cut into the freedom of speech.

Liability of Internet Service Providers under Nigerian Law

AbstractThis paper examines the role of Internet Service Providers as bridges and intermediaries between private persons, organizations even government arms and the Internet and the liabilities placed on them by the law with regard to wrongful acts of their subscribers or clients under the laws of Nigeria. It is common knowledge that actions againstISPs are commonest with defamation and infringement of copyright. The legal framework in theUSand the UKare examined to determine if there are lessons to learn for Nigeria. The Nigerian legal framework also places some responsibilities on ISPs with regard to crime prevention and prosecution. This is because private rights are not yet much of an issue in the Nigerian cyberspace. The paper points out that much of the regulation governingISPs liability in respect of civil matters do not have legislative power but are mere guidelines and suggests that theUSand UKpatterns have a lot to offer Nigeria.

Liability of Internet Service Providers Across Various Countries: An Overview

The role of I.S.P. or Intermediary is very important for effective utilization of information technology. The liability of Intermediary or I.S.P. has gain immense importance at international level. Various countries have defined the liability of I.S.P. either in the form of copyright infringement or for the infringement of information technology. Australia was the first country to enact the legislation relating to the liability aspect of I.S.P. in the form of Copyright Act, 1968 making I.S.P. liable to disable the access to online services hosted outside Australia. Some safe harbors were also provided for I.S.P. as part of the Australia - United States Free Trade Agreement. The US provides for the liability of ISP in the form of Communications Decency Act, 1996, Digital Millennium Copyright Act,1998. Title II of the D.M.C.A. specifically deals with the issue of I.S.P. liability and also provides for the penalties for unauthorized access to a copyright work. As regarding the legislations of Canada, it does not specifically defines the liability of I.S.P., instead it provides safe harbor for those ISP’s providing any means for Internet access. I.S.P.’s are also protected for copyright infringement in Canada. In Singapore the liability of I.S.P. is regulated by the Internet class license and Internet code of Practice which requires the I.S.P. to abide by the conditions of license. I.S.P.’s are also restricted to make public access of those websites which contain offensive content harmful to national interest. Japan’s Copyright Act, 1970, The Provider Liability Limitation Law 2002 protects the I.S.P. against any kind of liability for Copyright infringement. UK enacted two legislations in form of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Digital Economy Act 2010 which imposes the obligations on ISP to notify the infringement to its subscribers, also liable to take technical measures to terminate the Internet services after reporting of infringement. The countries also make the provisions for the penalties for offences relating to the infringement of copyright or unauthorized access of information by various I.S.P.’s or Intermediaries. The quantum of punishment is differed in every country according to the nature of offence.

Fundamental rights and private enforcement in the digital age

AbstractThis article addresses the shift inthe paradigm of fundamental rights protection on the Internet. More and morethe enforcement of such rights is being delegated to private Internet operators, and the urgent question is how the task of balancing conflicting rights affects the status of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The article examines the increasing privatisation of fundamental rights enforcementon the Internet, highlighting the impact of this trend. Following the analysisof recent developments, it argues that the pillars governing ISP liability should not be altered. In particular, the early determination that ISPs should not be presumptively saddled with content monitoring tasks should not be called into question. Therefore, the regulatory pressure on ISPs shouldbe lowered, as the spectre of liability, combined with ISPs' increasing role indeciding the proper balance between conflicting rights, unduly burdens the activity of ISPs and generates incentives to delete even lawful content.

The failure of the Russian global license proposal and the future of alternative remuneration systems

As rights holders, courts, and policy makers worldwide struggle with the question of copyright infringement and the potential liability of internet service providers (ISPs) worldwide, Russia developed – and subsequently abandoned – a proposal for the creation of a global license to be imposed on ISPs which would allow for rights holders to be compensated for copyright-infringing activities carried out through those ISPs.Russia is not the first jurisdiction to look at a global license as solution to the wide spread of copyright infringements online. By analysing the Russian proposal for a global license, this article addresses the sustainability of such a model on a wider scale by analysing the legal implications this may cause. In this context, this article will address the Russian proposal's legislative history before moving into a substantive discussion about the synergies between legal justifications and merits of a global license.

Online Copyright Infringement and the Liability of Internet Service Providers

The internet is arguably the largest single threat the copyright law has faced since it was first introduced. Governments are constantly creating new laws to keep up with this ever-changing digital landscape. The digital piracy, which involves the illegal obtaining and sharing of copyrighted work such as music, movies, software, E-books and other written work is becoming increasingly aggressive and growing as a severe global problem. The main reason for this is the difficulty to detect the piracy members since it is online. Although, the Internet Service Providers (ISP) can be indirectly liable for the online copyrights infringements, the measurements to minimize the same have proven to be challenging

Transplanting the United States' Style of Safe Harbour Provisions on Internet Service Providers Via Multilateral Agreements: Can One Size Fit All?

Ideally, internet service providers (ISP) should not be burdened with policing contents that pass through their services as they have no editorial control over them. The United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (DMCA) changes the ball game by making it mandatory on ISPs to take down infringing copyright materials if they received a notice and takedown request from a copyright holder. In exchange, the ISPs enjoy safe harbour from any liabilities that might arise from their user's action. Serious efforts are needed to transpose a similar system via negotiations and multilateral treaties and agreements involving a number of countries such as through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. Despite the withdrawal of the United States’ (US) from the TPP, and in view of the global initiatives of harmonization of intellectual property (IP) laws, this article aims to explore the different system of ISPs’ obligations and liabilities in the twelve TPP member countries. It also examines some of the strengths and weaknesses of each system. It concludes with an argument that whilst some form of safe harbour should be created to assist IP right owners in policing their right, the US private notice and takedown system is not without its flaws and hence, other existing systems which are adopted in some of the TPP member countries are equally feasible and serve a common purpose in tackling the issue of copyright infringement vis-à-vis ISP liability. Eventually, there is no compelling reason to impose one single system on all the TPP member countries to police the internet via ISP liability.

Liability and Exemptions of Internet Service Providers (ISPs): Assessing the EU Electronic Commerce Legal Regime

E-commerce has grown exponentially in recent years. For instance, the European e-commerce market broke the €500 billion mark in 2016, with the UK accounting for around €157 billion.1 These numbers reflect the increasing importance of e-commerce to the growth of the e-commerce regime and strengthening the harmonisation efforts within the EU ISP regulatory regime. In continuing the push towards harmonisation, it is important to consider the liability regime with respect to the activities of ISPs and available exemptions. Liability for online information can arise with respect to trade marks, privacy, copyright, trade secrets, defamation and unfair competition. This article examines the exemptions available to internet service providers (ISPs) under the EU electronic liability regime. The article will use the term “ISP” to capture service providers as described in Directive 2000/31. The article proceeds as follows. First, it provides a definition of an ISP and describes their activities. Secondly, it discusses the legal regime governing the activities of ISPs. Thirdly, it discusses the exemptions provided under arts 12 to 15 concerning the liability of ISPs as it relates to their activities. Lastly, the paper concludes by highlighting that it is necessary to balance the responsibilities and activities of ISPs against the intellectual property (IP) rights of owners of materials that is shared through the platform of ISPs.

Should Alibaba be liable for the counterfeiting activities of online stores? On the secondary liability of internet service providers in Chinese trade mark, copyright and tort law

According to Chinese copyright law, internet service providers (ISPs) are jointly liable for the piracy of internet service users (ISUs) if they are aware of or have reason to know the latter's illegal acts, while the Trade Mark Law imposes joint liability on ISPs only if it is aware of the infringing acts of ISUs. As for the tort law, which is of general applicability, it provides that ISPs are jointly liable if they know of an ISU's tortious behaviour, but what constitutes this knowledge is quite controversial. A transversal study between these three laws shows that the term ‘have reason to know’ or ‘know’ in related rules should be interpreted as encompassing constructive knowledge and negligence, in order to conform with Chinese judicial practice. The divergence between these laws, other legal texts and judicial practice has given rise to disorder in the interpretation and application of Chinese law, and has broadened the scope of applicability of liability exemption clauses. The fundamental conditions for the determination of an ISP's liability are twofold: the ISP must have actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of the infringing act, or be negligent regarding the facts or circumstances related to the ISU's tort; and the illegal nature of the ISU's behaviour must be obvious or easy to recognize by a reasonably diligent person. The negligence of an ISP should be identified by the lack of appropriate and effective measures taken to prevent an ISU's torts. A general duty of care for ISPs has been introduced and developed by Chinese courts despite the fact that ISPs are generally regarded as not being subject to a general obligation to monitor the activities of ISUs.