This paper, after having brought attention to the main sourcethat inspired the Internet intermediaries’ exemption in the ElectronicCommerce Directive, namely section 512 of the U.S. DigitalMillennium Copyright Act, focuses on the growing tendency inEurope to limit the benefit of protection under the hosting exemptionfrom liability. This trend, at the EU level, includes both holding intermediaries liable for content circulated by their userson their platforms and seeking injunctions (especially in the fieldsof Intellectual Property protection) requiring ISPs to block (orattempt to block) access to infringing websites. These developmentsare also confirmed by the case law of the ECHR on article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The articlethen presents an analysis of two sets of judgments of the ECHRrelating to the issue of liability of intermediaries for third-partycontent and to the feasibility of blanket bans of entire websites. Inthe first group of cases the main question put before the Courtwas the possibility for a website operator to be held liable for thedelayed removal of illegal comments of internet users even in theabsence of a proper notice that the material was illegal. In thesecond group of cases, the main question put before the Courtwas whether the blocking of popular platforms such as GoogleSites, YouTube and Myspace constituted a violation of the Conventionrights of users. The essay specifically aims to investigatethe extent to which this case law could be considered to be inharmony with the Electronic Commerce Directive or if it shouldbe seen as a departure from the principles laid down in thatdirective.
|Number of pages||48|
|Journal||IL DIRITTO DELL'INFORMAZIONE E DELL'INFORMATICA|
|Publication status||Published - 2018|