Document type
Court Decision
Country
The Court of Appeal reversed an earlier decision (see below). The appelate decision clarified that RTI had the obligation to indicate in a "detailed, precise and specific manner" the videos that Yahoo! had to remove. Additionally, in view of the Court of Appeal, the court of first instance did not have the power to "impose to a hosting provider general orders or, even worse, general monitoring obligations, which are forbidden by Directive 2000/31/EC." Intermediary liability may arise only if the hosting provider does not act promptly upon a "detailed, precise and specific" notice. Actually, RTI never sent this notice to Yahoo!, therefore the appelate court found in favor of Yahoo! and rejected RTI's claims. See also CIS Blog
Country
Year
2015
Topic, claim, or defense
Copyright
Document type
Court Decision
Issuing entity
Appellate Domestic Court
Type of service provider
Host (Including Social Networks)
OSP obligation considered
Monitor or Filter
Type of law
Civil
General effect on immunity
Weakens Immunity