Internet service provider liability and new duties:robo-takedown, policy of termination, notice and take stepsThe essay — after clarifying the outlines of the two main “safeharbor” provisions which limit the liability of online service providersas regards copyright infringement in the Western Legal Tradition,namely the U.S. section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Actand articles 12 through 15 of the EU Directive on e-commerce —enquires the way in which the most recent case-law, respectively thatof the U.S. Federal Courts and of the European Court of Justice, isenhancing the standard of protection and the enforcement of intellectualproperty rights. Indeed, both the Digital Millennium CopyrightAct and the EU e-commerce Directive provide little guidance on the meaning of the no-liability rule’s various requirements. But in thecourse of time, Courts have looked at certain recurring features todetermine whether or not a service provider satisfies the conditions tobe eligible for any of the “safe harbors”. The Author then looks at thesignificant changes in the use of the Internet over the past decade andfocuses attention on the new techniques employed by copyright ownersto protect their own rights, such as relying on robo-takedownnotifications, seeking the assistance of third-party rights enforcementorganizations or asking Courts for broad and flexible injunctionsagainst conduit internet service providers. It is worth noting that eachof these practices, individually taken, might jeopardize the free flow ofinformation and cause a severe backlash on the individual’s access tothe Internet, which would be unduly restricted as a consequence of abroad enforcement of copyrights. Altogether, robo-takedown, pooreraccuracy requirements for notices, the policy of termination andbroad and flexible permanent injunctions cast serious doubts over theactual implementation of the due process principle.
|Numero di pagine||60|
|Rivista||EUROPA E DIRITTO PRIVATO|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Published - 2017|