Explore

This case in Peru is about reports associating the plaintiff to criminal procedures from which he has been acquitted. After an initial ruling of the Peruvian DPA (Dirección General de Protección de Datos Personales) determining Google Peru must generally delist all content associating the plaintiff to the news related to the criminal matters mentioned in the complaint. Google appealed within the DPA’s administrative procedure. The Peruvian DPA upheld its initial ruling, but indicated precisely the 16 URLs that should be removed by the search engine. In the decision, the DPA asserted that: Google Peru was under jurisdiction of the Peruvian Law, and therefore, the Peruvian DPA; By indexing search results based on a name query, Google Peru was processing data and should thus be considered a data controller in the terms of...

This administrative resolution ordered a host provider to remove the incriminated website from the network. The decision also required all network content aggregation providers (permitting a direct or indirect access to the incriminated website, and thus associated with illicit content) to disable access to the website. This ruling seems to cover, at least indirectly, hyperlink providers. This resolution, which is very brief, does not offer further details.

In this administrative proceeding within the Spanish DPA (AEPD - Agencia Española de Protección de Datos), Google was fined in 150,000 Euros for communicating webmasters about the delisting of content based on data protection requests (Right to be Forgotten requests, based on the European and Spanish rights to cancellation and opposition). Building upon the guidelines issued by the Article 29 Working Party, the agency decided that a search engine does not have the legal obligation to inform webmasters and that the communication could render the request to be delisted inefficient, by allowing, among other things, the publisher to change the URL delisted or to create lists of URLs subject to de-indexed. When considering that Google would only inform that a URL was delisted based on the European data protection...

After the enactment of inducement liability of copyright infringement, one important cases of peer-to-peer file sharing services was decided on the ground of inducement liability. This case involved a program called Foxy, which was very popular in Taiwan for few years. The defendant was found guilty in co-perpetration of joint copyright infringement of article 92 and the inducement of copyright infringement of paragraph 4, article 93 of Taiwan’s Copyright Act.

Prior to the enactment of inducement liability of copyright infringement in 2007, a peer-to-peer file sharing service called Kuro was found guilty in joint criminal enterprise liability by Taiwan Taipei District Court in 2005, which was the first criminal ruling against peer-to-peer file sharing services in the world. The case was appealed to the Taiwan Superior Court. It was later remanded to the Intellectual Property Court by the Supreme Court. The Intellectual Property Court found the defendant was guilty in joint criminal enterprise liability. See Taiwan Taipei District Court, Year 2003, Su-Zi No. 2146, Criminal Case (臺灣臺北地方法院 92 年度訴字第 2146 號刑事判決); Taiwan Superior Court, Year 2005, Zhu-Shang-Su-Zi No.5, Criminal Case (臺灣高等法院 94 年度矚上訴字第 5 號刑事判決); Supreme Court, Year 2009, Tai-Shang-Zi No.6117, Criminal Case (最高法院 98...