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.

Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC

The article examines whether the norms laid down in the Directive in relation to the exceptions and limitations on copyright and related rights can be conducive to a sensible degree of harmonisation across the European Union. Before discussing the degree of harmonisation achieved so far by the Directive, the first part gives a short overview of the main characteristics of the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of the Directive. A comprehensive review of the implementation of each limitation by the Member States is beyond the scope of this article. The following section takes a closer look at three examples of limitations that have led to legislative changes at the Member State level as express measures towards the implementation of the Information Society Directive, that is, the limitations for the benefit of libraries, for teaching and research, and for persons with a disability. These exceptions and limitations were later on also identified by the European Commission as key elements in the deployment of a digital knowledge economy. The analysis will show that the implementation of the provisions on limitations in the Information Society Directive did not, and probably cannot, yield the expected level of harmonisation across the European Union and that, as a consequence, there still exists a significant degree of uncertainty for the stakeholders regarding the extent of permissible acts with respect to copyright protected works.

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.