Secondary Liability of Internet Intermediaries and Safe Harbours Under Croatian Law

2017 ◽  
pp. 229-253
Author(s):  
Ivana Kunda ◽  
Jasmina Mutabžija
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Liability ◽  
Safe Harbours

Safe Harbours

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaani Riordan
Keyword(s):  
Information Society ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Law ◽  
Neutral Information ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
Secondary Liability ◽  
Safe Harbours

European law recognises various limits on the primary and secondary liability which may be imposed upon internet intermediaries for the acts of third parties. These limits fall into four categories: first, ‘safe harbours’ which insulate passive and neutral information society service providers from monetary liability for transmitting, caching, and storing third parties’ information; second, protection from general duties to monitor third parties’ information and activity; third, limits necessary to protect the fundamental rights of intermediaries and their users; and fourth, miscellaneous general limits on injunctive relief.

scholarly journals Reforming Intermediary Liability in the Platform Economy: A European Digital Single Market Strategy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giancarlo Frosio
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Visual Media ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Market Strategy ◽  
A Value ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
Harmful Content ◽  
Intermediary Liability ◽  
Secondary Liability ◽  
Safe Harbours

Since the enactment of the first safe harbours and liability exemptions for online intermediaries, market conditions have radically changed. Originally, intermediary liability exemptions were introduced to promote an emerging Internet market. Do safe harbours for online intermediaries still serve innovation? Should they be limited or expanded? These critical questions—often tainted by protectionist concerns—define the present intermediary liability conundrum. Apparently, safe harbours still hold, although secondary liability is on the rise. As part of its Digital Single Market Strategy, the European Commission would like to introduce sectorial legislation that would de facto erode liability exemptions for online intermediaries, especially platforms. Under the assumption of closing a “value gap” between rightholders and online platforms allegedly exploiting protected content, the proposal would implement filtering obligations for intermediaries and introduce neighbouring rights for online uses of press publications. Meanwhile, an upcoming revision of the Audio-visual Media Services Directive would ask platforms to put in place measures to protect minors from harmful content and to protect everyone from incitement to hatred. Finally, the EU Digital Single Market Strategy has endorsed voluntary measures as a privileged tool to curb illicit and infringing activities online. This paper would like to contextualize the recent EU reform proposal within a broader move towards turning online intermediaries into Internet police. This narrative builds exclusively upon governmental or content industry assumptions, rather than empirical evidence. Also, the intermediary liability discourse is shifting towards an intermediary responsibility discourse. Apparently, the European Commission aligns its strategy for online platforms to a globalized, ongoing move towards privatization of enforcement online through algorithmic tools. This process might be pushing an amorphous notion of responsibility that incentivizes intermediaries’ self-intervention to police allegedly infringing activities in the Internet.

scholarly journals Copyright's Digital Deputies: DMCA-Plus Enforcement by Internet Intermediaries

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie Bridy
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
College Of Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Secondary Liability ◽  
University Of Idaho ◽  
Due Process Rights ◽  
Voluntary Basis

In the years since passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), the copyright industries have demanded that online intermediaries - both those covered by the DMCA and those falling outside the statute's ambit - do more than the law requires to protect their intellectual property rights. In particular, they have sought new ways to reach and shutter "pirate sites" beyond the reach of United States law. Their demands have been answered through an expanding regime of nominally voluntary "DMCA-plus" enforcement.This chapter surveys the current landscape of DMCA-plus enforcement by dividing such enforcement into two categories: Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 DMCA-plus enforcement is cooperation by DMCA-covered intermediaries over and above what is required for safe harbor. Type 2 DMCA-plus enforcement is cooperation by intermediaries whose activities fall outside the scope of the DMCA's safe harbors and who are not liable for their customers' copyright infringements under secondary liability rules.As the gap widens between what the law requires and what intermediaries are agreeing to do on a voluntary basis, there is reason to be concerned about the expressive and due process rights of users and website operators, who have no seat at the table when intermediaries and copyright owners negotiate "best practices" for mitigating online infringement, including which sanctions to impose, which content to remove, and which websites to block without judicial intervention.Annemarie BridyProfessor<http://www.uidaho.edu/law/faculty/annemariebridy>|University of Idaho College of Law|PO Box 83720-0051|Boise, ID 83720|Ph. 208.364.4583Affiliate Scholar<https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/annemarie-bridy>|Stanford Center for Internet and SocietyAffiliate Fellow<http://isp.yale.edu/people-directory?type=19>|Yale Information Society ProjectSSRN<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=630766>|HeinOnline<http://heinonline.org/HOL/AuthorProfile?collection=journals&search_name=Bridy,%20Annemarie&base=js>|LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/annemariebridy>|Twitter<https://twitter.com/AnnemarieBridy>

Civil litigation and court decisions on trademark counterfeiting in China: an empirical assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 418-440
Author(s):  
Chuanzi Cai ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Empirical Assessment ◽  
Civil Remedies ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Secondary Liability ◽  
Case Characteristics

China has long been the World's Walmart of counterfeits, and the remedies in counterfeiting cases have always been criticized as too small to compensate trademark owners. In the year 2013, China revised its trademark law, which increased the cap of statutory damages and incorporated secondary liability clauses into the law. Does the change of law bring any changes to the remedies granted in counterfeiting civil cases? What are the factors affecting court decisions? Relying on more than 800 civil cases in trademark counterfeiting, this article empirically studies the case characteristics and court decisions to understand the case outcomes and litigation scenario. It reveals the characteristics of civil litigation and factors affecting court decisions on trademark counterfeiting in China. Though there is some literature on remedies in trademark cases, very few analyses focus on courts' legal reasonings or the changes in civil remedies after the law revision. This article tries to fill in this gap, looking through the lens of the law on the books – the law revisions – and the law in practice – the court decisions.

Spain

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
State Agency ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings ◽  
Rules Set ◽  
Safe Harbours

There are a set of rules set forth in the Insolvency Act (‘Ley 22/2003, of 9 July, Concursal’ or ‘LC’) which purpose is to avoid that debtors file for formal insolvency proceedings. These rules aim to: (i) establish safe harbours for Refinancing Agreements (‘Acuerdos de refinanciación’); (ii) stay enforcement actions in the pre-insolvency stage; and (iii) allow cramming down secured and unsecured creditors in the pre-insolvency phase. Further there are some tax rules aimed to facilitate out-of-court and in-court workouts. However, there is no state agency, judge, court or tribunal that offers assistance in the negotiation of an out-of-court workout.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document