ISP Liability

Hate speech is designed to threaten certain groups publicly and act as propaganda for offline organizations. Hate groups use websites to share ideology and propaganda, to link to similar sites and to recruit new converts, advocate violence and to threat others. The aim of this paper is to analyse the ways hate mongers are utilizing the Internet, and
to ask what can be done to counter their activities. The paper discusses the targets of hate on the Internet and offers practical proposals to address this increasing problem and fight against it.

Computer networks are a system of interconnected computers for the impetus of sharing the digital information among various networks. The concept of a networking began in 1962 when a server at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was connected to a server in Santa Monica, California for the purpose of communication between the two nodes. Since that time the proliferation of computers and computer networks has increased rapidly. One of the most significant challenges to networks is to prevent the attacks on their resources caused by inadequate network security which causes the malfunctioning of the system. The purpose of the project is establish a connection between the sectors of the networking domain. The project deals with the association of network in the enterprise and MNCs. Imagine a world with less interruption in the network functioning with the higher bandwidth usage. To support the better performance, resilience, security, maintainability and efficiency. Networking deals with the four layer of the OSI model. The purpose of the topology is to establish a seamless connection between the different routers and switches across the various geographical region.

Despite the apparent advantages of the internet, there is little debate that it facilitates intellectual property infringements, including infringements of trade mark rights. Infringers not only remain hidden by the anonymity the internet provides but also take advantage of its increasing reach and the associated challenges with regard to cross-border enforcement of rights. These factors, among others, have rendered the internet a growing source of counterfeit and other infringing products. It has, therefore, become necessary for right holders to shift their focus from individual infringers to internet intermediaries, such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), hosts and navigation providers, which are responsible in numerous ways for making content promoting infringements available to internet users. In light of these developments, this book conducts a comprehensive analysis of the liability of such intermediaries for trade mark infringements and considers the associated issues and challenges in the diverging approaches under which liability may be imposed. At present, however, neither UK trade mark law nor English common-law principles relating to accessorial liability provide a basis to hold internet intermediaries liable for trade mark infringements. As such, this book considers approaches adopted in some of the Continental European countries and the US in order to propose reforms aimed at addressing gaps in the existing legal framework. This book also examines alternative remedies, such as notice and takedown and injunctions, and discusses the associated shortcomings of each of these remedies.

El fallo bajo comentario se inserta en el amplio problema de la responsabilidad de proveedores de servicios de Internet (ISP o “Internet Service Providers”) por conductas de terceros que implican infracciones a la propiedad intelectual y otros derechos. Aquí se discutió acerca de la responsabilidad que cabe al operador de un sitio donde terceros ofrecen mercaderías, muchas de ellas protegidas por marcas, algunas de las cuales son apócrifas o falsas.
En particular, este caso se refiere a infracciones marcarias y en concreto a la publicidad y venta de mercaderías falsificadas que afectan los derechos de un titular de marca notoria. El reclamo, en breve síntesis, solicita el cese de uso de las marcas notorias y la reparación por el uso indebido. Adicionalmente, el demandante solicitó la destrucción de todos los elementos en infracción y la publicación de la sentencia condenatoria. En primera instancia se concedió la indemnización y se ordenó la publicación de la sentencia. En el fallo de la Cámara se dieron mayores fundamentos en cuanto a la responsabilidad del demandado y se amplió la decisión en relación con el cese de uso, ordenando a las partes conductas definidas hacia el futuro.
Las cuestiones debatidas en el caso son, entre otras: ¿es responsable el operador de un sitio de ofertas por las infracciones de terceros?; ¿qué diligencia es requerida al operador cuando un titular marcario reclama por infracciones?; ¿en qué medida los “términos generales de utilización” propuestos por el titular del sitio pueden ser eximentes de responsabilidad?; ¿qué nivel de control sobre las actividades de los terceros es considerada suficiente para involucrar responsabilidad del operador?; ¿todos los usos de una marca de terceros son ilícitos?, o en otros términos, ¿puede un titular marcario impedir todo tipo de uso o mención de su marca?; ¿qué responsabilidad cabe al operador del sitio por la información brindada a los consumidores?; ¿qué indemnización corresponde en caso de que el operador resulte responsable? No todos estos asuntos podrán ser abordados en el presente comentario.

This paper represents the results of a research project on Notice and Take Down attempting to shed light on the "reality" of content self-regulation by Internet Service Providers in general and in particular on differences between the US and the EC legal framework in this area. Under Notice and Takedown (NTD) regimes Internet Service Providers have the duty to remove illegal and harmful content from the internet once they are made aware that their servers host it. The quantity of complains and websites removed under NTD is unknown, and the process by which ISPs determine whether or not a website contains illegal or harmful content remains obscure, raising questions of accountability, transparency and the overall appropriateness of delegating content regulation to private actors under a self-regulatory framework; as in principle this could be seen as a privatization of censorship. However, the consequences are much clearer: once an ISP disables access to a website the content disappears from the internet, which is effectively a form of censorship. The question we then posed was quite simply: How does NTD actually work?

Dailymotion, a French video-sharing website, recently received bad news on the judicial front. This summer, it was sentenced by a Paris court to pay €23,001 ($33,400) in damages for the copyright infringement of the movie “Joyeux Noël”, an unauthorized copy of which had been made available on the website by an internet user. The court asserted that the hosting provider, because it had enabled and thrived on mass piracy, was under a general obligation to implement technical means to prevent unlawful activities. This controversial decision is worrying as it greatly expands the duties of Dailymotion with regards to piracy. Dailymotion has appealed the decision but face more judicial woes. It has also been sued for copyright infringement by a French comedian and could face another lawsuit from a French television broadcaster. Dailymotion would find little comfort in the fact that other video-sharing websites have not fared better in France. Internet giants Google, YouTube and MySpace also face copyright lawsuits. The “Joyeux Noël” case is symptomatic of the resolve of content producers in holding websites accountable for internet piracy. It also illustrates the challenges faced by the courts in defining the obligations of websites with regards to copyright infringement. In all, Dailymotion can expect protracted legal battles with users of the media industry over copyright issues.

Yet, things might not be as grim as they appear. Every cloud has a silver lining. Looking through the prism of judicial activity gives an incomplete and distorted picture of Dailymotion’s relationship with the media industry. Dailymotion has been taking a series of measures to accommodate rightholders, both before and since the “Joyeux Noël” decision. It has been implementing filtering technology to prevent piracy and has actively been seeking partnerships with content producers. This strategy has shown promising results. Dailymotion has entered revenue-sharing deals with many media companies to broadcast their content. It has also managed to position itself as a global champion for copyright.

These proactive measures towards copyright compliance and the links built with many content producers should help Dailymotion maintain the number of future copyright lawsuits at a level that would not jeopardize its survival. Such optimistic outlook might partly explain why, despite ongoing litigations, the financial backers of Dailymotion have been willing to invest a further €25 million to help the Paris-based start-up grow and compete on the global stage.

In the information society, the role of private sector entities in gathering information for and about users has long been a most critical issue. Therefore, intermediaries have become a main focus of privacy regulations, especially in jurisdictions with a strong tradition of privacy protection such as Europe. In a landmark case, the ECJ ruled that an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties. The recognition by the European Union of a so called “right to be forgotten” (RTBF) has ignited disgruntled reactions from civil society and legal scholars, especially in the United States. Meanwhile, proposals for the adoption of a similar right have appeared in several jurisdictions, including Brazil, Japan, Korea, and Russia. Supposedly, the right to be forgotten would endanger freedom of expression (FoE) and access to information. Apparently, factoids — defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact” — dominated the recent debate surrounding the right to be forgotten. This paper will discuss and debunk these factoids, review data protection legislation in Europe, and explore the legal and policy implications of the newly emerging right to be forgotten. Finally, the idea that extra-territorial application of the RTBF might unleash a kraken that can break down the Internet will be contextualized within the present political scenario. The extra-territorial application of the RTBF follows in the footsteps of a global move towards data protectionism against the de facto market dominance of US Internet conglomerates. Global blocking governed by a nationality principle — as suggested by CNiL and other EU institutions — would put to rest these protectionist concerns.

The decision of the European Court of Justice on the right to be
forgotten should dramatically change the internet environment.
Google, as well as all the other search engine operators, has implemented a search removal request aimed at facilitating users’ requests of cancellation of personal data. However the ECJ has not specified what are the criteria to be followed by search engine operators in order to comply with the data protection regulation. Is this uncertainness jeopardizing the neutrality principle of the e-commerce directive? Starting from the provision held by the DMCA and the e-commerce directive on ISPs liability, the article offers a comprehensive overview of notice and take-down procedures for copyright infringements, discussing how such procedures could influence the search removal request implemented by the main search engines and its criteria of selection.

This paper addresses the much debated issue of copyright enforcement online. It starts by illustrating the Internet intermediaries’ liability regime for copyright infringement to show how the many remedies so far adopted have not achieved effective results in diminishing the unauthorized circulation of protected content. It then introduces the different perspective of modernization of copyright law, a phenomenon that already occurred in Canada and is still on-going in UK, to show how this could benefit the distribution of content in the digital realm.

First, the article describes how the right to be forgotten has changed in the digital era: the increase of information storage, data analysis, and online activities, has determined a shift of paradigm. In the conflict between memory and forgetfulness the rule has become memory.
In this new informational context the right to be forgotten is a fundamental right of the individual and her conflict against the freedom of speech is now crucial. The article turns to this conflict in the second part.
In the third part, the article focuses on search engines and it underlines that the right to be forgotten is not just a binary decision between delete or not delete. There are, in fact, intermediate solutions and delisting can be used for reducing the visibility of an information without deleting it and it could be modulated. For  example, it is fundamentally different if we were to delete an article from the results when the search is made with the data subject name or if we delete it from any possible query.

**This is a working version of a paper subsequently revised and published in Journal of Cyber Policy 3(2) https://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23738871.2018.1519030 **

Like all markets, online platforms need rules. Their rules are both explicit, in the form of community standards, moderator guidelines, terms of use, commercial contracts and policies, and implicit, in the code that shapes their interfaces and the algorithms that bring market participants together. When platforms govern the exchange of news, content and speech, their rules raise profound issues of human rights and public welfare. Online platforms are not publishers, but neither are they neutral conduits; their role in governing online content markets has inevitable ethical connotations.

This paper argues that making intermediaries liable for content they host is not an appropriate solution to the harms arising from the free flow of information online. Policymakers must use new techniques to evaluate and engage with intermediaries’ rule-making activities. Since the nature and effects of intermediaries’ rules are often hard to assess, policymakers increasingly seek their ‘procedural accountability’.

The present study is focused on article 11 and article 13 of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market.
The study underlines the inefficiency, from both a legal and economic perspective, of the measures held by the EU Commission, considering the purposes of these interventions:
• in the press sector, introducing a new right to facilitate online licensing for publications, investment recovery and respect for rights;
• as for online platforms, encouraging greater transparency on the revenues generated from the use of content protected by copyright in the digital environment, with measures aimed at establishing more balanced contractual relationships between, on the one side, authors and, on the other side, users and subjects who exploit the copyrighted works.

Article 11
The main purpose of article 11 is to require Member States to grant to press publishers the same rights as those set out in article 2 and Article 3, par. 2, of the InfoSoc directive, in case of digital use of their journalistic publications (so-called ancillary copyright). The duration of these rights is twenty years, allowing publishers to check the availability of their works to the public.
In other words, whenever a subject uses parts of a journalistic article (including the so-called snippets) he is expected to pay the above ancillary rights to publishers.
a) Poor effectiveness of the measure
There is no evidence that shows that the investments supported by publishers could be remunerated by the introduction of a new related right. Similar measures were already introduced in Germany, in 2013, and in Spain, in 2014, leading to the closure of news aggregation services (Google News, in Spain) or to the deindexation of copyrighted contents (determining the decrease of the web traffic on the related web pages). The Staff Working Document Impact Assessment also confirms that “None of these two recent ‘ancillary rights’ solutions at national level have proven effective to address publishers' problems so far, in particular as they have not resulted in increased revenues for publishers from the major online service providers”.
b) Access and pluralism of information
The Commission's proposal could have the effect of restricting access to certain contents, which would be de-indexed. Likewise, the introduction of a new related right might shrink the number of information aggregators, used not only by users, but also by researchers and journalists.
It should be also took into account that search engines could legitimately choose to take up exclusively the news from newspapers with which they have contractual relationships, with the detriment of other newspapers, negatively affecting information pluralism. An indirect, but also unfavourable, effect would also be seen in the activities of extraction and combination of large amounts of data and information (so-called big data journalism).
c) Excessive scope and circumvention of new rights
The duration of the rights (20 years) is excessive if compared to the commercial exploitation of journalistic publications, negatively affecting the use of these sources for historical purposes and scientific research.
Furthermore, these rights are due irrespective of a request by the rights holders. During the consultation, many journalistic companies have expressed their opposition to the introduction of an ancillary copyright. Likewise, the new rights would also apply to content issued with open licenses (such as, for instance, creative commons).
Finally, online news services could limit themselves to aggregating content created by operators established in third countries (for example, South Americans for news already
Lastly, online news services could aggregate exclusively content created by operators established in third countries (for example, South American operators for journalistic news relating to Spain), who are out of the material scope of the directive, with a clear competitive harm to European companies.

Article 13
According to the purposes of the EU Commission, the introduction of article 13 meets the need to fairly the value generated by sharing works by online platforms. According to the sources mentioned by the EU Commission, in fact, these platforms would generate revenues amounting to US$634 million (one dollar per user), compared to US$2 billion ($ 18 for each user) earned by the managers of the platforms themselves, through advertising investments or subscription fees.
In addition to the above mentioned license agreements, article 13 holds the adoption of effective content recognition technologies.
Even this measure seems disproportionate and ineffective and does not provide an adequate solution to the issues raised by the Commission.
a) Application of article 13
Article. 13 should apply to “Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users”.
The reference to “large amounts of works or other subject-matter” is absolutely generic and does not specify the subjects to whom article 13 concretely would be applied. This  causes a situation of great uncertainty, especially for new operators and innovative service providers.
b) Calculation of the value gap
The data reported by the Commission are contradicted by other independent researches. These researches show that, even if right holders complain about a “value gap”, there is a noticeable increase in revenues generated by the entertainment industry (music, film industry, etc.) and by copyright collecting societies.
c) Filtering and general surveillance
The measure that the Commission would introduce is clearly in contrast with both article15 of the e-commerce directive, which prohibits a general monitoring obligation on ISPs, and the recent decisions of the Court of Justice, which stated that the use of systems “for filtering and blocking electronic communications is inconsistent with EU law”, and namely with data protection law and freedom of enterprise.
On the contrary, the mechanism envisaged by the proposal directive calls for a preventive action of the platform operators, who are driven to monitor and remove potentially (but not necessarily) illegal contents uploaded by users, with a limitation of the freedom of expression.
d) Anti-competitive effects
Article 13 would apply exclusively to platform operators who make available to the public wide repertoires (or “large amounts of works”), with the exclusion of the other operators. The latest version of the proposal dismissed by the Commission provides for an exemption of liability for big players, provided that the conditions set by the article 13 are met. However, this exemption does not apply to the other operators, although they still an act of communication or making available to the public, even if distributing more limited repertoires.
This choice triggers a competitive distortion between big and small operators, since the big players could benefit from the exemption from liability, while the latters would not be covered by the protection held by article 13.
Ultimately, the above mentioned measures seem to be ineffective and do not comply with the needs expressed by the Commission and by the copyright holders. Therefore, a radical rethinking of article 11 and article 13 is necessary, taking into account the EU legislative framework and the impact that these measures might have on the reference markets.

The topic of this paper regards the uncertainty of the legal framework and the analysis of the majority orientation of the courts with reference to the Internet Service Provider liability on the Web.
A comparative analysis, which focuses on intermediary liability for third party copyright infringement, of Europe and United States, is treated. It is highlighted how important a uniform interpretation of the courts in this field could be.
First a “bird’s eye view” on Intermediary liability in the U.S., in comparison with EU legal framework, is outlined.
Secondly, the scope of the “safe harbor” and the “intermediary involvement” through procedures including “notice and take down" are explained.
It is clear how the interpretation of the courts can be considered the “Achilles’ heel” of the harmonization with regards to ISPs’ liability.
In conclusion the paper tries to identify some possible solutions in order to achieve the harmonization and to make more transparent the legal framework in this field.

L'argomento del presente contributo riguarda l'incertezza del quadro legale e
l’ analisi del maggiore orientamento delle corti con riferimento alla responsabilità dell'Internet Service Provider sul Web.
Viene effettuata un’analisi, con l’ utilizzo dello strumento comparatistico, che si focalizza sulle violazioni del diritto d'autore da parte di terzi, in ambito sia europeo che statunitense. Si evidenzia l'importanza dell'interpretazione fornita dalle corti in tale ambito.
Prima di tutto viene delineata una panoramica sul regime di responsabilità degli intermediari negli Stati Uniti, in comparazione con il quadro normativo europeo.
In secondo luogo vengono illustrati l' esenzione da responsabilità e il coinvolgimento dell' ISP tramite procedure, inclusa quella di “notice and take down”.
E’ chiaro come l'interpretazione delle corti possa essere considerata il “tallone d' Achille” dell' armonizzazione per quanto concerne la responsabilità dell'ISP.
In conclusione il contributo cerca di individuare alcune soluzioni possibili per raggiungere l' armonizzazione e per rendere più chiaro il quadro legale in materia di responsabilità dell' ISP.

This article critically evaluates the manner in which the blocking injunction has been implemented in the United Kingdom (‘UK’), the legal basis for which is derived from the European Union (‘EU’) legal framework. Unlike the extrajudicial and privatised Notice and Takedown (‘N&T‘) process, the blocking injunction is a court-supervised mechanism, and hence, avoids the key criticism levelled against N&T. Yet, there are problems with the blocking injunction, in particular in the manner in which it is implemented. The article first demonstrates that, unlike in the context of copyright enforcement, the legal basis for the blocking injunction in the field of trademark protection is suspect. Secondly, the article posits that the procedure pertaining to the grant of a blocking injunction runs counter to the principles of natural justice – in that, neither the relevant EU directives, nor their domestic implementations, provide for the target website operators (i.e. the authors of online content), whose content is sought to be blocked, to be notified of, or joined in, the proceedings where injunctions are sought. As such, it is argued, that an important safeguard that has been incorporated into blocking orders, which allows affected parties to apply for a variation or vacation of a blocking order, is r rendered meaningless. Lastly, the article identifies four areas – i.e. circumvention, multiplicity of proceedings, barriers to legitimate trade and costs of implementation – where there might be problems in the future that may question the efficacy of this remedy.

Il volume affronta la tematica del diritto all'oblio nell'era digitale e il difficile bilanciamento tra le esigenze di memoria e conservazione dei dati e la tutela dell'individuo, della sua intimità e riservatezza. Muovendo da alcune considerazioni introduttive sui rapporti tra memoria, oblio e diritti della personalità e sul loro esplicarsi in Internet, si illustra l'origine del diritto all'oblio e la sua evoluzione giurisprudenziale. I motori di ricerca, per il ruolo che svolgono nel reperimento delle informazioni online, nonché a seguito della pronuncia della Corte di Giustizia nota come "Google Spain", sono intervenuti in tale equilibrio aumentando l'esposizione pubblica delle persone a cui i dati si riferiscono e, divenendo decisori sulla cancellazione di un'informazione dai risultati della ricerca, influendo sulle possibilità di reperire i contenuti e, dunque, anche sul diritto ad informarsi e ad essere informati. La seconda parte del volume è dedicata a tali aspetti, analizzati anche alla luce della giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia, del Regolamento europeo per la protezione dei dati personali, della giurisprudenza italiana e dei provvedimenti del Garante per la protezione dei dati personali.

This paper provides the reader with the practices of ISPs that undermine net neutrality and also critically assesses allegations found in the open letter in regards to the Open Internet Regulation signed by Sir Tim Berners Lee, Lawrence Lessig and Barbara van Schewick.

Contratto e mercato ai tempi dell'algoritmo: reputational feedback system e ranking nella platform economy. 1. Platform economy, servizi di ricerca e comparazione, piattaforme di intermediazione: un'introduzione.-2. I reputational feedback system e il ranking.-3. Interventi e ipotesi di regolamentazione. 1. Platform economy, servizi di ricerca e comparazione, piattaforme di intermediazione: un'introduzione Con l'espressione "platform economy" ci si riferisce alla diffusione di infrastrutture tecnologiche connesse che, mediante utilizzo di dati e algoritmi, pongono in essere e organizzano relazioni tra utenti, appartenenti a differenti gruppi o categorie (ad esempio, venditori e acquirenti, prestatori di servizi e destinatari di questi ultimi), per lo scambio di beni e servizi e la conclusione ed esecuzione dei relativi contratti 1. 1 Al fine di definire il fenomeno nel suo complesso, all'espressione "sharing economy", più conosciuta e inflazionata, si preferisce l'espressione "platform economy", in quanto comprensiva sia di piattaforme sviluppatesi per la vendita di beni, come Ebay e Amazon, sia piattaforme che offrono servizi, quali Uber e Airbnb, sviluppatesi successivamente alla diffusione dei marketplaces per la vendita. Si ritiene, inoltre, l'espressione più neutrale, in quanto non richiamante Sebbene ciò realizzi una diversa e migliore allocazione delle risorse e una maggior flessibilità e dinamicità nel rapporto tra individui e beni, ad avviso di chi scrive, il termine condivisione non è il più indicato, proprio perché richiamante quella sfera di comunità e unione, che generalmente, nonostante l'inflazionato uso del termine "comunità", non si rinviene nelle grandi piattaforme online. Si ritiene preferibile è, invece, il termine "platform economy", che maggiormente evidenzia la presenza della piattaforma e il ruolo centrale che essa svolge. Cfr. GEOFFREY G. PARKER, MARSHALL W. VAN ALSTYNE, SANGEET PAUL CHOUDARY, Platform Revolution. How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you,

La función social ha tenido múltiples usos en el derecho de propiedad privada. La expropiación, servidumbres o extinción de dominio son solo algunas de las formas concretas en que se hace operativa. Podemos inferir entonces, que más que una definición específica es una idea fuerza que al no tener un contenido único sirve y ha servido como herramienta para la concreción de valores humanos como la igualdad y la solidaridad. En el derecho de autor existen lecturas y usos de la función social que, sin embargo, no han conocido las formas concretas de la propiedad sobre tangibles; a pesar de esto, ha estado implícita —y en algunos casos explícita— en el centro de la crítica moderna a la institución. Mediante un enfoque crítico, este texto presenta esas lecturas de la función social en el derecho de autor y propone, dada la posibilidad interpretativa de esta idea fuerza, una lectura posible.

Popularizacija onlajn platformi za direktnu razmenu sadržaja između korisnika interneta i njihovo masovno korišćenje za neovlašćenu razmenu zaštićenih sadržaja stavili su na test postojeće mehanizme autorskopravne i srodnopravne zaštite. U vezi sa tim, pojavila su se brojna pitanja koja traže odgovor. Predmet rada jeste upravo analiza jednog takvog pitanja – pitanja određivanja radnji povreda autorskog i srodnih prava do kojih može doći prilikom korišćenja onlajn platformi za direktnu razmenu sadržaja. Analiza pokazuje koje tačno povrede mogu učiniti korisnici platformi, a koje posrednici koji omogućavaju funkcionisanje tih platformi. Pri tome, ukazuje se na određene nedorečenosti koje se mogu javiti prilikom utvrđivanja postojanja radnje povrede prava kod korišćenja onlajn platformi za direktnu razmenu sadržaja.

La nota affronta la complessa questione della responsabilità indiretta dell’Internet Service Provider per le
violazioni del diritto d’autore perpetrate in via diretta dagli utenti finali. Viacom è uno tra i più grandi creatori
e distributori al mondo di programmi televisivi, film ed altre forme di intrattenimento. YouTube è un sito internet
dove ciascuno può visualizzare in streaming video caricati dagli utenti stessi o da società di intrattenimento.
Viacom ritiene che YouTube sia responsabile in via vicaria, in via concorrente e per l’induzione alla
violazione del copyright effettuata dagli users del sito web. YouTube, grazie alle proprie politiche riesce ad
attraccare ad uno dei “safe harbors” previsti dalla normativa americana. Lo stesso non è accaduto nello
scontro fra il medesimo portale e il gruppo italiano RTI, ma in entrambi i casi si tratta solo del primo grado di
giudizio.

La publicación de contenidos en Internet está a la orden del día. Con mayor frecuencia de la esperada, muchos de los comentarios efectuados en la red son peyorativos, ofensivos o falsos. Basta con ojear la prensa para ver como usuarios envían tweets ofensivos, crean perfiles falsos en redes sociales, promueven rumores en la red o difaman por cualquier blog,
generalmente, bajo el anonimato. Por ello, el legislador previó un terreno de inmunidad para que los intermediarios, cumpliendo ciertos requisitos, pudieran ver exonerada su responsabilidad por los contenidos ilícitos generados por terceros y alojados o difundidos por sus sistemas. La sección 230 de la Comunications Decency Act protege a estos sujetos, siendo objeto de interpretación amplia por considerarse para el fomento de la libertad de expresión en Internet, si bien, en los últimos años, los
tribunales están evolucionando hacia una interpretación restrictiva.
___
Publishing content on the Internet is the order of the day. More often than expected, many comments made on the net are pejorative, offensive or false. Through the simple reading of the daily press one can see how users send offensive tweets, create fake profiles on social networks, promote rumours or defame on any blog, generally under anonymity conditions.
Therefore, the lawmaker provided for an immunity area so that intermediaries, fulfilling certain requirements, could be
exonerated from liability for the illegal content generated by third parties and hosted or disseminated by their systems. Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act shields these subjects. A broad interpretation of this section has been considered compatible with the defence of the right to freedom of expression on the Internet, although in recent years, Courts are restricting its interpretation.

Intermediaries are in the middle of an every single act of online communication. The term is not homogenous. It is used to describe a wide range of entities who provide services necessary for an act of electronic communication to be successful including telecommunication service providers, online connectivity providers and entities which provide their services by electronic means. Although, the e-commerce directive refers only to certain categories of intermediaries such as providers of the following services: mere conduit, caching or hosting, the role of every intermediary is becoming more and more significant. The significance is particularly visible in relation to injunctive orders following a decision on the merits of the case (also referred to as: permanent injunctions) such as website blocking orders the aim of which is to prevent future online infringements. The injunctions however as protective measures are governed by proportionality evaluation and cannot lead to the effect that would be contrary to provisions of the article 15 of the e-commerce directive. The paper discusses the phenomenon of website blocking orders against intermediaries, including so-called innocent providers from the tort law perspective and the boundaries of the orders. The particular type of an injunction serves as a trigger point for the analysis of the injunctions paradigm and engage in a debate concerning rights of the users. The injunctions are currently holding a prominent position in the European Union as a consequence of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Telekabel v. UPC case and the judgment handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in Delfi v. Estonia case. Thus the author of this paper concentrates on the analysis of the abovementioned decisions and their implications for the sphere of users' rights (such as freedom of expression) and the freedom of business activity.

El presente documento tiene por objeto examinar el proceso de reformas a la ley chilena de derechos de autor, analizando sus características esenciales, describiendo sus antecedentes y fundamentos y comentando sobre los principales hitos de la discusión legislativa y sus resultados concretos, a poco más de un año de haber entrado en vigencia la nueva ley.

Internet intermediaries, broadly understood, participate in various activities that expand their ability to use coding or designing, which transcend their classic role of neutrality regarding the online content. This change has enabled governments globally to solve the problem of the lack of control of the network by using the normative capabilities of intermediaries. The increase of normative power in recent times has leaded to an expansion of criminal liability of intermediaries. These criminal policies have strengthened public control of network users in situations considered as social danger, for example, on violations of privacy, child pornography and offences to honour

Wireless Community Networks (WCNs) are an emerging phenomenon in which people gather in networked communities, based on a bottom-up approach. These networks allow users interaction and/or can bring Internet connectivity where it would otherwise be unavailable. Computer scientists have studied these networks in depth, whilst legal scholars have paid only marginal attention to the phenomenon. This paper attempts to remedy the deficiency by analysing different potential liability issues arising from the diffusion of WNCs from the perspective of European law and advancing possible solutions to address these issues.

SummaryThis paper emphasises the key role played by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the current developments in Internet content regulation. At present, no common international standards govern free speech limits on the Internet. Racist speech constitutes the most controversial issue between Europe and the US. The enforcement of domestic law online has recently led to surprising court rulings in several European countries, putting transatlantic ISPs under pressure. The paper provides a detailed account of three of these cases: the early German Compuserve case, the famous French Yahoo! case and most recently the French J’accuse! case. Both European and American legislators have endeavoured to provide ISPs with “safe havens” (limitations of liability) and tentative procedural solutions like “notice and take down”. These new regimes and their likely effects on ISPs are presented and discussed. It is suggested that, despite the lack of common standards, the combination of the Ameri...

SummaryThis paper emphasises the key role played by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the current developments in Internet content regulation. At present, no common international standards govern free speech limits on the Internet. Racist speech constitutes the most controversial issue between Europe and the US. The enforcement of domestic law online has recently led to surprising court rulings in several European countries, putting transatlantic ISPs under pressure. The paper provides a detailed account of three of these cases: the early German Compuserve case, the famous French Yahoo! case and most recently the French J’accuse! case. Both European and American legislators have endeavoured to provide ISPs with “safe havens” (limitations of liability) and tentative procedural solutions like “notice and take down”. These new regimes and their likely effects on ISPs are presented and discussed. It is suggested that, despite the lack of common standards, the combination of the Ameri...

The present thesis examines the thorny issue of copyright enforcement for online service providers and the balancing of intellectual property with fundamental human rights in light of the recent Digital Single Market directive coming into force and the fierce debate it generated before its text was finalized. I attempted to examine the measures taken by online content-sharing service providers, including automated content recognition and decision-making systems, discuss their issues and ideate on feasible solutions with a view towards a fair and balanced copyright system.

From my point of view, the current situation is not as dire as is often presented. By using a combination of automated systems and human review in a transparent way that includes the empowerment of users and small rightholders in its implementation, the regime proposed by the DSM directive can be a blueprint for a fair solution for all parties. The limitations of current measures and market-based solutions and the practices of OCSSPs and large rightholders and relevant CJEU rulings illuminate the safeguards and considerations that need to be respected to that end.

For the sake of completeness and clarity I have performed a literature review of the research on ISP liability in a global scale, the measures of restricting access to online content and the effects of algorithmic enforcement on fundamental rights and the competition. The danger of a de facto imposition of general monitoring and overenforcement have been identified as the greatest issues among others, pointed out by several researchers recently. The CJEU has clarified several concepts and respondent on problematic issues with regard to copyright and fundamental rights. Finally, and have also studied the cases of relevant market-based solutions and found a very limited range of alternative solutions for OCSSPs.

Technological developments and novel ways of media consumption evolve in an unprecedented pace which indicates that the conclusions of this study are by no means final, nor are the current legal provisions. However, I attempted to perform a comprehensive review and ideation taking all the conflicting interests into account in pragmatic terms in order for it to be relevant as member-states have yet to implement the directive into their national legislation.

This paper aims to shed light on a transversal phenomenon, as it affects both the scope of the law and the technology, ethics and certain legally recognized rights. This is the impact that the deep packet inspection technology has in the current internet. Through this technological innovation, effectively used nowadays, the ISPs (Internet service providers) can analyze the content of what passes through their networks, treating it differentially if necessary. Thus, the proposed equal network may be truncated as these companies can monitor traffic on the network (determining a speed limit, prioritizing some connections or just banning them because of the data they are transmitting). In this paper, we analyze the impact that this technology can have in a very specific area, the copyright legislation, revealing the intense battle being waged between technology companies and the owners of intellectual property rights. We also discuss how this technology can subvert what the internet is becoming and, finally, how the role of the state is important in the regulation of the technology, for it will determine the interrelationship between technology and society.

L’Internet Service Provider è un soggetto che, nel linguaggio della
Direttiva europea in materia, fornisce servizi della società
dell’informazione nel mondo del Web. La disciplina normativa è datata al
livello europeo al 2000 e al livello italiano al 2003. Si tratta perciò di un
quadro legale che potrebbe dirsi ormai obsoleto, tenendo in
considerazione il continuo sviluppo e l’evolversi del Web e delle
problematiche ad esso connesse. L’inadeguatezza della normativa in
questione è pacificamente dimostrabile attraverso un’analisi della figura
di hosting provider tramite alcune importanti decisioni giurisprudenziali
sul punto. La giurisprudenza è infatti arrivata, specialmente negli ultimi
anni, ad effettuare una differenziazione all’interno della figura stessa di
hosting, suddividendo questa tipologia di ISP in hosting “attivo” e
“passivo”. In questo modo è stata creata una figura di provider del tutto
peculiare, non prevista né dalla Direttiva, né dal Decreto legislativo. Ciò,
a dimostrazione del fatto che l’incessante evoluzione di Internet ha fatto sì
che le attività svolte dall’ISP mutassero. Tali attività non sono, forse, più
individuabili limitatamente alla triade contenuta nella Direttiva 2000/31/CE, né a quella del Decreto legislativo n. 70 del 2003.