The Right to Be Forgotten More Than a Pandora’s Box?

Recently, political voices have stressed the need to introduce a right to be forgotten as new human right. Individuals should have the right to make potentially damaging information disappear after a certain time has elapsed. Such new right, however, can come in conflict with the principle of free speech. Therefore, its scope needs to be evaluated in the light of appropriate data protection rules. Insofar, a more user-centered approach is to be realized. “Delete” can not be a value as such, but must be balanced within a new legal framework.

The Netherlands: Darfurnica, Miffy and the right to parody!

VAR

On the Search for an Adequate Scope of the Right to Be Forgotten

During the last decades, the virtual world increasingly gained importance and in this context the enforcement of privacy rights became more and more difficult. An important emanation of this trend is the right to be forgotten enshrining the protection of the data subject’s rights over his/her “own” data. Even though the right to be forgotten has been made part of the proposal for a completely revised Data Protection Regulation and has recently been acknowledged by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“Google/Spain” decision), to date, the discussions about the right and especially its implementation with regard to the fundamental right to freedom of expression have remained rather vague and need to be examined in more depth.

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.

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

Under One Umbrella: Problems of Internet Retransmissions of Broadcasts and Implications for New Audiovisual Content Services

The development of broadband Internet connections has fostered new audiovisual media services and opened new possibilities for accessing broadcasts. The Internet retransmission case of TVCatchup before the CJEU was the first case concerning new technologies in the light of Art. 3.1. of the Information Society Directive. On the other side of the Atlantic the Aereo case reached the U.S. Supreme Court and challenged the interpretation of public performance rights. In both cases the recipients of the services could receive broadcast programs in a way alternative to traditional broadcasting channels including terrestrial broadcasting or cable transmission. The Aereo case raised the debate on the possible impact of the interpretation of copyright law in the context of the development of new technologies, particularly cloud based services. It is interesting to see whether any similar problems occur in the EU. The „umbrella” in the title refers to Art. 8 WCT, which covers digital and Internet transmission and constitutes the backrgound for the EU and the U.S. legal solutions. The article argues that no international standard for qualification of the discussed services exists.

Under One Umbrella: Problems of Internet Retransmissions of Broadcasts and Implications for New Audiovisual Content Services

The development of broadband Internet connections has fostered new audiovisual media services and opened new possibilities for accessing broadcasts. The Internet retransmission case of TVCatchup before the CJEU was the first case concerning new technologies in the light of Art. 3.1. of the Information Society Directive. On the other side of the Atlantic the Aereo case reached the U.S. Supreme Court and challenged the interpretation of public performance rights. In both cases the recipients of the services could receive broadcast programs in a way alternative to traditional broadcasting channels including terrestrial broadcasting or cable transmission. The Aereo case raised the debate on the possible impact of the interpretation of copyright law in the context of the development of new technologies, particularly cloud based services. It is interesting to see whether any similar problems occur in the EU. The „umbrella” in the title refers to Art. 8 WCT, which covers digital and Internet transmission and constitutes the backrgound for the EU and the U.S. legal solutions. The article argues that no international standard for qualification of the discussed services exists.

Access for All? The promise and problems of universalism.

In what follows, I explore why the question of ‘access for all’ is both important and difficult. Beginning by treating it as a contested claim, I will consider some of its political, institutional and professional implications. What do I mean by saying that access for all is a contested claim? First of all, it is a claim – a demand that access for all needs to be created. It is a claim about change. To demand ‘access for all’ is to speak about, and speak against, social conditions that are unjust, unequal or excluding. At its simplest, then, to claim ‘access for all’ is to address social arrangements in which all people do not have access. Secondly, it is a claim made by – or on behalf of – specific social groups against their experience of exclusion, marginalization or subordination. I have added these other terms because I think that ‘exclusion’ is too simple, and too problematic, a term to capture all the aspects of unjust social arrangements that produce claims for ‘access’.1 Access is a demand to be treated equitably in relation to a range of valued social resources, conditions and relationships. It is a claim to be a member: of the society, the polity or the nation. It is a claim to be a citizen: to possess rights and the capacity to make legitimate demands on the state. It is a claim on the apparatuses and agencies that sustain social citizenship: citizenship brings with it access to benefits, services and rights of ‘fair dealing’ or ‘fair treatment’. As this last point suggests, it is a claim about equality: the expectation that all citizens will be dealt with by public agencies in ways that are not discriminatory or oppressive.

Creative Commons licences and design Are the two compatible?

This article analyses whether Creative Commons licences are applicable to and compatible with design. The first part focuses on the peculiar and complex nature of a design, which can benefit from a copyright and a design protection. This shows how it can affect the use of Creative Commons licences. The second and third parts deal with a specific case study. Some Internet platforms have recently emerged that offer users the possibility to download blueprints of design products in order to build them. Designers and creative users are invited to share their blueprints and creations under Creative Commons licences. The second part of the article assesses whether digital blueprints can be copyrightable and serve as the subject matter of Creative Commons licences, while the last part assesses whether the right to reproduce the digital blueprint, as provided by Creative Commons licences, extends to the right to build the product.

Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden?

On October 10, 2013, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a judgment (Delfi v. Estonia) condoning Estonia for a law which, as interpreted, held a news portal liable for the defamatory comments of its users. Amongst the considerations that led the Court to find no violation of freedom of expression in this particular case were, above all, the inadequacy of the automatic screening system adopted by the website and the users’ option to post their comments anonymously (i.e. without need for prior registration via email), which in the Court’s view rendered the protection conferred to the injured party via direct legal action against the authors of the comments ineffective. Drawing on the implications of this (not yet final) ruling, this paper discusses a few questions that the tension between the risk of wrongful use of information and the right to anonymity generates for the development of Internet communication, and examines the role that intermediary liability legislation can play to manage this tension.

A manifesto for an e-lending limitation in copyright

In the European Union, lending is an exclusive right for copyright and related rights, but Member States can transform public lending to a right of remuneration and even exempt some establishments from any payment. The making available of works online is not covered by the public lending right regime of the Rental and Lending Directive but is considered as an act of making available governed by the InfoSoc Directive. As a consequence, libraries are currently not allowed to digitally transmit works to their patrons as lending, but have entered into licenses with publishers to develop an offer of lending of e-books, also called e-lending, with the intermediation of dedicated platforms operated by commercial actors. Compared to physical lending, e-lending is not based on ownership of the book by libraries but on its provision by this intermediary. This paper discusses how the objective of enabling libraries to engage in e-lending should be achieved, and what is the proper dividing line between a market-based solution, as developing today, and a limitation to exclusive rights. The impact of an extension of the public lending right to e-lending should be assessed, but not based on a criterion of direct substitution of a book on loan at the library to a book bought at a retailer. By definition, libraries are substitutes to normal trade. Instead, the overall effect of lending to the commercialisation of books and other works should be verified. Particular conditions for a limitation in favour of lending are also addressed, and notably the modalities of lending (a limited duration, one simultaneous user per title, …), not to make e-lending through libraries easier and preferable to the normal acquisition of an e-book. This paper argues in favour of some and controlled extension of the public lending right to cover the lending of e-books and other digital content. For the role of libraries is essential in providing access to works and culture to readers who would or could not rely only on normal acquisition of books or other items on the market, to works that are not provided by the market, and to material for research. Libraries are a third sector providing access to works, aside the market and non-market exchanges between individuals. This role should not lose its relevance in the digital context, or it would culturally impoverish future generations of readers.