ISP Secondary Liability: A Portuguese Perspective on Omissions as the Basis for Secondary Liability

2017 ◽  
pp. 109-124
Author(s):  
João Fachana
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Liability

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.

18. Secondary liability

2020 ◽  
pp. 491-547
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Mens Rea ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Joint Enterprise ◽  
Secondary Liability

This chapter considers the liability of someone who aids, abets, counsels or procures someone else to commit a criminal offence. The chapter examines the actus reus and the mens rea that must be present before someone will be guilty as a secondary party. The chapter examines the now discredited doctrine of joint enterprise and considers the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jogee. The chapter evaluates the merits of the Supreme Court’s judgment and also considers past efforts at statutory reform of secondary liability.

20. Vicarious liability

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Employee Relationship ◽  
The Common ◽  
Secondary Liability

This chapter examines the principle of vicarious liability, a form of secondary liability through which employers may, in certain circumstances, be liable for the torts of their employees, even though the employer themselves may be entirely blameless. The imposition of vicarious liability is one of the most important exceptions to the general approach of the common law whereby liability for any wrongdoing is imposed on, and only on, the wrongdoer(s). A defendant will not be vicariously liable unless the following conditions are met: (a) there is an employer–employee relationship between the defendant and the person for whose actions they are being held liable; (b) the employee committed the tortious act while acting in the course of their employment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document