Evaluation of the Role of Access Providers Discussion of Dutch Pirate Bay Case Law and Introducing Principles on Directness, Effectiveness, Costs, Relevance, and Time

Internet service providers (ISPs) play a pivotal role in contemporary society because they provide access to the Internet. The primary task of ISPs – to blindly transfer information across the network – has recently come under pressure, as has their status as neutral third parties. Both the public and the private sector have started to require ISPs to interfere with the content placed and transferred on the Internet as well as access to it for a variety of purposes, including the fight against cybercrime, digital piracy, child pornography, etc. This expanding list necessitates a critical assessment of the role of ISPs. This paper analyses the role of the access provider. Particular attention is paid to Dutch case law, in which access providers were forced to block The Pirate Bay. After analysing the position of ISPs, we will define principles that can guide the decisions of ISPs whether to take action after a request to block access based on directness, effectiveness, costs, relevance and time.

‘Abuse of Rights’ in Belgian and French Patent Law – A Case Law Analysis

This paper examines what types of actions undertaken by patent holders have been considered as abusive in the framework of French and Belgian patent litigation. Particular attention is given to the principle of the prohibition of “abuse of rights” (AoR). In the jurisdictions under scrutiny, the principle of AoR is essentially a jurisprudential construction in cases where judges faced a particular set of circumstances for which no codified rules were available. To investigate how judges deal with the prohibition of AoR in patent litigation and taking into account the jurisprudential nature of the principle, an in-depth and comparative case law analysis has been conducted. Although the number of cases in which patent holders have been sanctioned for such abuses is not overabundant, they do provide sufficient leads on what is understood by Belgian and French courts to constitute an abuse of patent rights. From this comparative analysis, useful lessons can be learned for the interpretation of the ambiguous notion of ‘abuse’ from a broader perspective.

Internet Service Providers Liability in Spain

The article focuses on the current situation of Spanish case law on ISP liability. It starts by presenting the more salient peculiarities of the Spanish transposition of the safe harbours laid down in the E-Commerce Directive. These peculiarities relate to the knowledge requirement of the hosting safe harbour, and to the safe harbour for information location tools. The article then provides an overview of the cases decided so far with regard to each of the safe harbours. Very few cases have dealt with the mere conduit and the caching safe harbours, though the latter was discussed in an interesting case involving Google’s cache. Most cases relate to hosting and linking safe harbours. With regard to hosting, the article focuses particularly on the two judgments handed down by the Supreme Court that hold an open interpretation of actual knowledge, an issue where courts had so far been split. Cases involving the linking safe harbour have mainly dealt with websites offering P2P download links. Accordingly, the article explores the legal actions brought against these sites, which for the moment have been unsuccessful. The new legislative initiative to fight against digital piracy – the Sustainable Economy Bill – is also analyzed. After the conclusion, the article provides an Annex listing the cases that have dealt with ISP liability in Spain since the safe harbours scheme was transposed into Spanish law.

Liability for Copyright Infringements on the Internet: Host Providers (Content Providers) - The Geman Approach

Copyright infringements on the Internet affect all types of media which can be used online: films, computer games, audio books, music, software, etc. For example, according to German studies, 90% of all copyright violations affecting film works take place on the Internet. This storage space is made available to such infringers, as well as to others whose intentions are legal, by hosting providers. To what extent do hosting providers have a duty of care for their contribution to the copyright infringements of third parties, i.e. their users? What duties of care can be reasonably expected of hosting providers to prevent such infringements? These questions have been heavily debated in Germany, and German courts have developed extensive case law. This article seeks to examine these questions by assessing German jurisprudence against its EU law background.

Google face à la justice française et belge Nouvelles décisions en matière de droit d’auteur

Internet Service Providers’ liability for copyright infringement is a debated issue in France and Belgium, particularly with respect to intermediaries such as providers of hyperlinks and location tool services for which the e-commerce directive does not set explicitly any exemption from liability. Thus, the question arises among other things whether the safe harbour provisions provided for in respect of caching and hosting also could apply to search engines. French and Belgian Courts had recently to decide on this issue in several cases concerning Google’s complementary tools such as Google Videos, Google Images, Google Suggest and Google News. This article seeks to give a summary of and to assess this recent case law.

Diverse Readings of the Court of Justice Judgments on Copyright Work

EU law’s impact on the meaning of the copyright work for a long time seemed limited to software and databases. But recent judgments of the CJEU (Infopaq, BSA, FootballAssociation [Murphy], Painer) suggest we have entered an era of harmonization of copyright subject-matter, after decades of focus on the scope of exclusive rights and their duration. Unlike before however, it is the Court and not the legislator that takes centre stage in shaping pivotal concepts. This article reviews the different readings and criticisms the recent case law on copyright works evokes in legal doctrine across the EU. It puts them in the wider perspective of the on-goingdevelopment towards uniform law and the role of the preliminary reference procedure in that process.

Domain Name Transfer before Slovak and Czech Courts

In Europe, a disagreement persists in the courts about the possibility of plaintiffs to request a domain name transfer in domain name disputes. In the last ten years, Slovak and Czech courts also produced some jurisprudence on this issue. Interestingly, the BGH’s influential opinion in the shell.de decision, which denied domain name transfer as an available remedy under German law back in 2002, wasn’t initially followed. To the contrary, several Slovak and Czech decisions of lower courts allowed a domain name transfer using two different legal bases. This seemingly settled case law was rejected a few months ago by the globtour.cz decision of the Czech Supreme Court, which refused domain name transfers for the time being

Spanish Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Google Search Engine... and a Flexible Reading of Copyright Statutes?

On 3 April 2012, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a major ruling in favour of the Google search engine, including its ‘cache copy’ service: Sentencia n.172/2012, of 3 April 2012, Supreme Court, Civil Chamber.* The importance of this ruling lies not so much in the circumstances of the case (the Supreme Court was clearly disgusted by the claimant’s ‘maximalist’ petitum to shut down the whole operation of the search engine), but rather on the court going beyond the text of the Copyright Act into the general principles of the law and case law, and especially on the reading of the three-step test (in Art. 40bis TRLPI) in a positive sense so as to include all these principles. After accepting that none of the limitations listed in the Spanish Copyright statute (TRLPI) exempted the unauthorized use of fragments of the contents of a personal website through the Google search engine and cache copy service, the Supreme Court concluded against infringement, based on the grounds that the three-step test (in Art. 40bis TRLPI) is to be read not only in a negative manner but also in a positive sense so as to take into account that intellectual property – as any other kind of property – is limited in nature and must endure any ius usus inocui (harmless uses by third parties) and must abide to the general principles of the law, such as good faith and prohibition of an abusive exercise of rights (Art. 7 Spanish Civil Code).The ruling is a major success in favour of a flexible interpretation and application of the copyright statutes, especially in the scenarios raised by new technologies and market agents, and in favour of using the three-step test as a key tool to allow for it.

Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age

In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v Spanish Data Protection Agency),the “right to be forgotten” has once again gained worldwide media attention. Already in 2012, whenthe European Commission proposed aright to be forgotten,this proposal received broad public interest and was debated intensively. Under certain conditions, individuals should thereby be able todelete personal data concerning them. More recently – in light of the European Parliament’s approval of the LIBE Committee’samendments onMarch 14, 2014 – the concept seems tobe close to its final form.Although it remains, for the most part,unchanged from the previously circulated drafts, it has beenre-labelled as a“right of erasure”. This article argues that, despite its catchy terminology, the right to be forgotten can be understood as a generic term, bringing together existing legal provisions: the substantial right of oblivion and the rather procedural right to erasure derived from data protection. Hereinafter, the article presents an analysis of selected national legal frameworks and corresponding case law, accounting for data protection, privacy, and general tort law as well as defamation law. This comparative analysis grasps the practical challenges which the attempt to strengthen individual control and informational self-determination faces. Consequently, it is argued that narrowing the focus on the data protection law amendments neglects the elaborate balancing of conflicting interests in European legal tradition. It is shown thatthe attemptto implement oblivion, erasure and forgetting in the digital age is a complex undertaking.

Proportionality of Website Blocking: Internet Connectivity Providers as Copyright Enforcers

Internet connectivity providers have been ordered to block access to websites facilitating copyright infringement in various EU countries.In this paper, the proportionality of these enforcement measures is analysed. After addressing preliminary questions, the recent ECJ ruling UPC Telekabel Wien (C-314/12) and then case law from all Member States are examined from the perspective of proportionality. Finally, five criteria are submitted for proportionality analysis, and a proportionality evaluation is provided. The major observation is that the underlying goal of copyright enforcement has implications on how the scale tilts. In particular, ineffective enforcement mechanisms can be more easily accepted if the goal of symbolic, educational or politically motivated enforcement is considered legitimate. On the other hand, if the goal is to decrease the impact of infringement, higher efficiency and economically quantifiable results may be required

Permissibility of Non-Voluntary Collective Management of Copyright under EU Law – The Case of the French Law on Out-of-Commerce Books

The possibility of the EU member states to adapt copyright legislation to new circumstances and to address unforeseen issues is limited by the list of exceptions and restrictions of the InfoSoc Directive. In spite of this constraint, the EU copyright framework provides for a possibility of introduction of non-voluntary forms of collective rights management that can help to tackle some of the contemporary problems with remuneration and access. This article is an attempt to deepen the understanding of non-voluntary collective management and its possible use. First, it provides a detailed description of the French mechanism adopted for facilitating mass digitization and making out-of-commerce books available, which was implemented through a new form of collective management of copyright. Then, it examines the mechanism’s compatibility with the InfoSoc Directive through comparison with the extended collective licensing.