December 2017 WILMap Updates

First Amendment’s Outward Creep Makes It Harder to Hold Platforms Accountable

May 23, 2017

Today, the Stanford Law Review published my very first single-authored publication, “Expanding the Periphery and Threatening the Core: The Ascendant Libertarian Speech Tradition.” This article contributes to the legal scholarly See details

August 2017 updates report

August 2, 2017

Latest news First Amendment’s Outward Creep Makes It Harder to Hold Platforms Accountable Tue, 05/23/2017 - 12:00 Today, the Stanford Law Review published my very first single-authored publication, “Expanding the See details

Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection,

( 1 ) In June 2014, the Executive Council of the African Union adopted the Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (“the AU Convention”). The Convention will enter See details

Consumer Protection Act of 2012

Section 11(1) provides that “no person shall advertise an internet gaming site that is operated contrary to any written law” and Section 11(2) provides that “no person, other than an See details

Information Communication Act of 2009

Section 11(1) provides that “no person shall advertise an internet gaming site that is operated contrary to any written law” and Section 11(2) provides that “no person, other than an See details

Information and Communications (electronic Certification and Domain Name Administration) Regulations, 2010

( 1 ) Section 24-25 establishes the requirement of license to operate or provide telecommunication systems and services; under the Unified Licencing Framework (ULF) operated by the Communication Commission of See details

National Cohesion And Integration Act No. 12 of 2008

Section 13 creates the offence of Hate Speech. Section 62 makes an offense for any media enterprise to publish words intended to incite feelings of contempt, hatred, hostility, violence or See details

Sexual Offences Act of 2006

( 1 ) Section 12 makes it an offense for any person to distribute, supply or display any article that is intended to encourage or enable a child to be See details

Copyright Act of 2001

( 1 ) Section 26 describes the nature of copyright in literary, audio-visual and musical or artistic works. It provides for the exclusive right of copyright holder to control reproduction See details

Penal Code

Chapter XVIII defines and describes defamation as an offence. Section 194 makes any person who unlawfully publishes defamatory matter with intent to injure or defame another person liable for defamation. See details

Data Protection Bill 2013

This bill will be enacted to give effect to article 31(c) (d) of the Kenyan Constitution on regulation, collection, and disclosure of personal data and connected purposes. ( 1 ) See details

Electronic Transactions Bill of 2007 (withdrawn)

( 1 ) This Bill contained key provisions on intermediary liability which finally were not integrated into the Information and Communication Act of 2009 and was partially inspired by the See details

High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta v Muchemi Wachira and Nation Media Group

The defamatory material for which Nation Media Group (NMG) was found liable consisted partly of comments posted on the NMG’s website by members of the public in response to a See details

High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, John Boniface Maina v Safaricom Limited, [2013] eKLR, Civil Suit No. 808 fo 2012, May 14, 2013

The plaintiff, a musician, successfully sued the defendant, a mobile telecommunication company for breach of copyright. The defendant had introduced a caller back ring tone service where they distributed the See details

High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Duncan Muriuki V. Baobab Resort, Petition no. 223 of 2012, June 12, 2013

This is an ongoing case where the plaintiff complained that some words published on the hotel’s Facebook page were defamatory. Interlocutory order was obtained requiring the respondent to remove infringing See details

Law No. 09-08 on the protection of physical persons regarding the processing of personal data

According to the Law No. 09-08, the personal data must be processed lawfully and faithfully, collected for defined, explicit and legitimate purposes, adequate, accurate and kept for a period of See details

Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Morocco and the United Sates (MUSFTA)

This FTA contains provisions and side letters on intermediary liability, safe harbours and notice and taken down. Article 15.11.28 of the MUSFTA provides that: For the purpose of providing enforcement See details

Law No. 03-03 regarding anti-terrorism, May 28, 2003

( 1 ) The law provides authorities with legal powers to filter and delete content that is deemed to “disrupt public order by intimidation, force, violence, fear or terror.” (See details

Law No. 24-96 on Postal and Telecommunications

( 1 ) Article 92 punishes by a prison sentence and a fine every person, legal or natural, operating in the telecommunications sector that violated the secrecy of emitted, transmittedSee details

ANRT Decision No. 12-14 concerning the modalities of administrative, technical and commercial management of domain names (.ma), November 21, 2014

According too Article 14 of ANRT Decision No. 12-14, the registrar has the obligation to inform the registrant about the provisions of the present Decision, the alternative dispute resolution procedureSee details

Ministerial Order No. 977-08 fixing the modalities of promotion of telecommunication services, June 3, 2008

Articles 3 to 6 of the Ministerial Order No. 977-08 fix the conditions and modalities to launch promotions of telecommunication services by operators of public telecommunications networks.See details

Ministerial Order No. 649-07 fixing the modalities of advertising and information of the consumer regarding telecommunication services, May 4, 2007

Articles 3 to 8 of the Ministerial Order No. 649-07 determine the rules to respect by operators in advertising telecommunication services.See details

Regulatory Entity: National Telecommunications Regulatory Agency (ANRT)

The ANRT is the public body in charge of the control and regulation of the telecommunications sector. It was created under Law No. 24-96 (see above). ANRT has the powerSee details

Attorney General, Lakome case, October 2013

The Attorney General ordered the ANRT to block the Arabic - and French - language websites of the investigative news site, Lakome. Its Arabic-language editor in chief, Ali Anouzla, wasSee details

Nigerian Copyright Act

Cap C28, 2004 The Act does not contain provisions specifically dedicated to Internet intermediaries. However, provisions that may be relevant for intermediary liability are listed below. Also, amendments to theSee details

Nigerian Communications Act

Repealing a previous Act of 1992, which introduced the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC). The Act governs the operations of the telecommunications regualtor and provides the NCC with competence on oversightingSee details

Copyright Amendment Bill, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act Cap. C28 Lpn 2004 for the Purposes of Making Provisions for Technological Measures in Protecting Copyright and for Other Related Matters, SB.03, 2011

The Copyright Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Copyright Act of 2004 and focuses primarily on the role of new technologies in the infringement of copyright, with provisions on InternetSee details

Electronic Transaction Bill, An Act to Facilitate Electronic Transactions in Nigeria; and for Related Matters, HB.03, 2011

The Electronic Transaction Bill does specifically focus on internet intermediaries but includes provisions imposing obligations on intermediaries. ( 1 ) Section 16 provides that an accredited certification authority is liableSee details

Law No. 02/2013 Regulating Media, February 8, 2013 (published in Official Gazette No. 10 of March 11, 2013)

( 1 ) Article 6 prohibits a journalist from publishing documents from legislative, executive or judicial powers with respect to confidentiality in the national security and national integrity; confidentiality ofSee details

Law No. 18/2010 relating to Electronic Messages, Electronic Signatures and Electronic Transactions, March 12, 2010 (published in Official Gazette No. 20 of March 17, 2010)

( 1 ) Article 8 : Liability of communication network services - A communication network service shall not be liable in respect of contents of documents, electronic message through his/herSee details

Law N° 31/2009 on the Protection of Intellectual Property (Articles 255-264), October 26, 2009 (published in Official Gazette No. 50 bis of December 14, 2009)

( 1 ) Article 261 provides that any industrial or commercial use of an invention, utility model, industrial design and model, mark or other distinctive sign of business, trade name,See details

Organic Law N° 01/2012/OL instituting the Penal Code, May 2, 2012 (published in Official Gazette No. Special of June 14, 2012)

( 2 ) Article 230 provides that any person who displays, sells, rents, disseminates or distributes pornographic pictures, objects, movies, photos, slides and other pornographic materials involving children shall beSee details

Guidelines No. 29474/2006, December 14, 2006, Guidelines for the Recognition of Industry Representative Bodies of Information System Service Providers

Setting forth some general principles (section 2), minimum requirements (section 5) and some preferred requirements (section 6) for the codes of conducts to be adopted by industry representative bodies.See details

Act N. 25/2002, July 31, 2002, Electronic Communications and Transactions Act

( 1 ) Introducing liability limitations for mere conduit (section 73), caching (section 74), hosting (section 75) and information location tools (section 76). ( 2 ) The conditions to fallSee details

Act No. 4 /2000, February 9, 2000, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair & Discrimination Act

Establishing civil liability for any person found to disseminate, broadcast, publish or display any content that could reasonably be construed or reasonably be understood to demonstrate a clear intention toSee details

Act No. 65/1996, November 8, 1996, Film and Publications Act

Establishing the obligation of IAPs, subject to criminal sanctions (section 27 (A) (4)), to: ( a ) register with the Board in the manner prescribed by regulations made under thisSee details

Act No. 98/1978, June 20, 1978, Copyright Act

Subjecting to liability for damages, interdict, delivery of infringing copies (section 24)… “any person who…does or causes any other person to do … any act which the owner has theSee details

Internet Service Provider Association (ISPA) Code of Conduct

Establishing wide-ranging obligations in terms of freedom of expression (section A), privacy and confidentiality (section B), consumer protection (section C), standard terms and conditions (section D), spam (section E), cybercrimeSee details

ISPA Takedown procedure

Detailing a specific timeline and procedure for members to respond to notices submitted in accordance with section 77 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act.See details

Draft Policy Framework on Combating Hate Crimes, Hate Speech and Unfair Discrimination

Draft bill not yet introduced into Parliament, August 26, 2013, Draft Policy Framework on Combating Hate Crimes, Hate Speech and Unfair Discrimination ( 1 ) establishing the concept of hateSee details

Bill No. 35821/2012, October 26, 2012, amending the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act

( 1 ) introducing into the notice and takedown procedure identified in section 77 the opportunity for the ISP (and not the alleged infringer) to respond in writing to aSee details

Supreme Court, Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele v Mail & Guardian Limited, 2004 (6). SA 329 (SCA), August 2, 2004

Clarifying that whether the publication of a potentially defamatory comment is “fair” or “reasonable” depends on the relevant circumstances, such as the interest of the public in being informed; theSee details

Constitutional Court, Khumalo and Others v Holomisa , [2002] ZACC 12; 2002 (5) SA 401; 2002 (8) BCLR 771, June 14, 2002

Recognizing that the mass media have a particular role in the protection of freedom of expression — to ensure that individual citizens are able to receive and impart information andSee details

Supreme Court, National Media Ltd v Bogoshi 1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA), September 29, 1998

Identifying two defences from liability for defamation: (1) that defamatory comments were true and of public interest contents of a defamatory statement were true and their publication to the benefitSee details

South Gauteng High Court, Ketler Investments CC t/a Ketler Presentations v Internet Service Providers Association, (2012/1249) [2013] ZAGPJHC 232 , September 19, 2013

Finding that publication of the name of the applicant in the “Hall of Shame” list of spammers by the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) was justified by its true characterSee details

South Gauteng High Court, H v W, (12/10142) [2013 ZAGP JHC 1; 2013 (2) SA 530 (GSJ) 2013 (5) BCLR 554 (GSJ); [2013] 2 All SA 218 (GSJ), January 30, 2013

Ordering a user to remove defamatory content, but declining to enjoin the respondent from posting any information pertaining to the applicant on Facebook or any other social media, and decliningSee details

South Gauteng High Court, Tschilas and Another v Touch Line media (Pty) LTD, 2004 (2) SA 112 (W), June 26, 2003

Rejecting the safe harbor defense of section 75 of the Electronic Communications because respondent does not fall within the definition of “service provider”, as it is instead the means toSee details

Cape Provincial Division, Arthur E Abrahams & Gross v Cohen and others, 1991 (2) SA 301 (C)

Ruling that indirect liability arises when a copyright owner suffers an economic loss that was foreseeable by a defendant who was under a legal duty to prevent it.See details

Transvaal Provincial Division, Paramount Pictures Corporation v Video Parktown North (Pty) Ltd, 1986 (2) SA 623 (T)

Finding sufficient to trigger liability the notice of facts that would suggest to a reasonable person that a copyright infringement was being committed.See details

The Electronic and Postal Communications Act, 2010

( 1 ) Section 104 , provides for the establishment of a code of conduct for Content Service Licensees. The envisaged code is to inter alia prohibit the provision ofSee details

The Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority Act, 2003

Section 27B (6) as amended by Section 174 of the Electronic and Postal Communications Act, 2010 requires Content Service Providers to comply with copyright law and regulations.See details

Copyright Act, Chapter 26:01, January 1st, 1967

( 1 ) Section 5(4) lists the acts restricted by copyright law with regard to a literary, dramatic or musical work. These restrictions entail “reproducing the work in any materialSee details

Statutory Instrument No. 262 of 2001, Postal and Telecommunications (Internet Services) Regulations, 2001

Section 14 (1) : “internet content shall be subject to the existing laws of Zimbabwe.” No penalty is provided for in the said Regulations.See details

Guatemalan Civil Code, Decree No.106, July, 1964 (Article 1645)

Guatemala does not have any specific legislation regarding Internet Service Providers’ (ISP) liability. However, Guatemalan legislation regarding civil obligation establishes that any harm or damage caused by any person, mustSee details

Copyright Law, Decree No. 33-89, May 2003

Copyright law would be the legal basis for decisions regarding any case of Internet Service Providers’ (ISP) liability in Guatemala involving infringinment of moral or economic rights belonging to anSee details

HIPCAR Project (Enhancing competitiveness in the Caribbean through the harmonization of ICT Policies, Legislation and Regulatory Procedures)

In 2009, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) funded the HIPCAR Project (Enhancing competitiveness in the Caribbean through the harmonization of ICT Policies, Legislation and Regulatory Procedures). The beneficiary countries wereSee details

Regional Model Policies and Regulations on Electronic Transactions

The HIPCAR Project resulted in ‘Regional Model Policies and Regulations’. For most Caribbean States with recent legislation, the Electronic Transactions Act (and hence Intermediary Liability) generally resembles this model legislation.See details

Copyright Amendment Bill 2014

( 1 ) Establishing a statutory ‘safe harbour’ for OSPs so that their liabilities for copyright infringement occurring on their service platforms could be limited, provided that OSPs meet certainSee details

Consultation on Draft Code of Practice for the reference of Online Service Providers (8 August 2011 to 9 September 2011)

When HK government introduced the 2011 Copyright (Amendment) Bill into the Legislative Council, it also brought into sight the statutory ‘safe harbour’ for OSPs so as to protect their potentialSee details

Court of Final Appeals, Oriental Press Group Ltd. v. Fevaworks Solutions Ltd, HKCFA 47, 2013

Holding online intermediaries of discussion forums as secondary publishers with liabilities imposed from outset, who also have the duties to monitor and take active actions when noticed of defamatory activitiesSee details

The Copyright Act of 1957, as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012

( 1 ) The protection provided to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act (see below) is not available for offences under the Copyright Act of 1957 asSee details

Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (to be read with Section 79 of the IT Act)

( 1 ) Setting up due diligence provisions to be observed by intermediaries while discharging their duties, including the publications of rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreement forSee details

Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (to be read with section 69A of the IT Act)

( 1 ) If the Government is of the view that it is necessary to block certain information 'generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource' it can directSee details

Information Technology Act 2000, as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008

as amended by the Information Technology Act 2000 This statute came into force on and provided legal recognition for electronic commerce and gave effect to a resolution of the UNSee details

Regulatory Entity: Committee ex Rule 7 of the IT Rules, 2009

A committee consisting of the designated officer and representatives from the ministries of Law and Justice, Home Affairs and Information and Broadcasting and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In)See details

Supreme Court, Criminal, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, No. 167/2012, March 24, 2015

( 1 ) The Supreme Court of India issued a landmark decision regarding the constitutionality of several provisions included in the Indian Information Technology Act ("IT Act"). The provisions dealtSee details

Supreme Court, Rajeev Chandrasekhar (pending)

Rajeev Chandrasekhar , a member of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Parliament of India has filed a petition in the Indian Supreme Court challenging Section 66A ofSee details

Supreme Court, Common Cause (pending)

Common Cause , a NGO along with senior Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Law Minister of Delhi Somnath Bharti has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court ofSee details

Supreme Court, Mouthshut.com PVT.LTD v. Union of India, 2013 (pending)

Mouthshut, India's leading online community for consumer reviews, filed a petition before the Supreme Court for quashing the Information Technology Rules (Intermediaries Guidelines), 2011 and declaring them violative of ArticlesSee details

Supreme Court, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (pending)

Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India arguing that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Information Technology (ProcedureSee details

High Court of Gujarat, Vyas v. Gujarat, No. 191/2015, September 15, 2015

( 1 ) In response to public protests and agitations, the State of Gujarat, India blocked Internet access through mobile phones for a week pursuant to Section 144 of theSee details

High Court of Delhi, Vinay Rai v. Google et al, 2012

Summoned executives from Google, Facebook, Twitter and other companies to remove objectionable content from their website within the prescribed time period failing to which may result into blocking of theSee details

Standards for Assessment of Internet Enterprises' Protection of Personal Information, March 15, 2014

These industrial standards define ISPs into three categories: original service/connection provider, information provider and processor, and third party intermediaries who do not link to users' personal information directly. These standardsSee details

Regulation on Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, State Council Order No. 468, May 18, 2006, amended in accordance with the Decision of the State Council on Amending the Regulation on Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information on January 30, 2013`

Clarifying the "Fair Use" Exception under the PRC Copyright Law (article 6), standards of network dissemination of information including how to address a potential violation. Establishing a more stringent standardSee details

Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Strengthening the Protection of Online Information, December 28, 2012 [English Version]

Imposing further regulations on ISPs and business enterprises, and non-profits to handle electronic personal information including: ( 1 ) stating explicitly the purpose, means and scope of such personal informationSee details

Judicial Interpretation No. 20 [2012] of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases Involving Infringement of the Right of Dissemination on Information Networks, December 17, 2012 [English Version]

This Judicial Interpretation provides the detailed rules on deciding Internet intermediary’s liability for copyright infringement. ( 1 ) First, whether an Internet intermediary ought to be liable mainly depends whetherSee details

Intangible Cultural Heritage Law, February 25, 2011

Focusing on the distortion of expressions of intangible forms of Chinese cultural heritage.See details

Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Amending the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, February 26, 2010

Explaining that copyright holders must not exert their rights against the PRC constitution and that the pledger and the pledgee of the copyright application must abide by the State CouncilSee details

Administrative Measures on Internet Information Services, September 20, 2000

Requiring Internet information providers (ISPs) to obtain approval from the Ministry of Information Industry before creating any sort of joint venture with a foreign company and associated creation of anySee details

Interim Regulations on International Interconnection of Computer Networks in the People's Republic of China, State Council Order No.195, February 1, 1996, amended on May 20, 1997

Forbidding the use of internet to harm national security, disclose state secrets, damage national interests endanger social stability, or produce/distribute/consumer pornographic information."See details

Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, September 7, 1990

 

Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, August 23, 1982

 

Beijing Higher People’s Court [北京市高级人民法院], Zhong Qin Wen v. Baidu [中青文v.百度], 2014 Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 2045, [（2014）高民终字第2045号], 2014

( 1 ) In this case, the plaintiff Zhong Qin Wen found some of its copyrighted works made available on the platform BaiduWenku and sued Baidu for copyright infringement. BaiduSee details

Beijing High Court, Go East Entertainment Co. Ltd. (H.K.) v. Beijing Alibaba Technology Co., Ltd., (2007) Er Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 02627, December 20, 2007

Court held that defendant search engine Alibaba is liable for taking down 15 of the 26 allegedly infringing recording in accordance with the take-down notices. Although Alibaba claims that itSee details

Beijing District High Court , EMI Group Hong Kong Limited v. Beijing Baidu Network Technology Co. Ltd., (2007) Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 593, November 17, 2006

Court rejected EMI’s claim against the search engine Baidu because EMI’s take-down notice to Baidu did not comply with the requisite formalities, and thus failed to specify the names ofSee details

Beijing Chaoyang District Court (北京市朝阳区人民法院), Chineseall.com v. 178.com [北京中文在线v.北京智珠网络技术], (2013) Chao Min Chu Zi No. 8854 [朝民初字第8854号], December 20, 2013

( 1 ) In this case, the BBS operated by the defendant “178.com” had a sub-platform for subscribers to upload ePub-formatted e-books, and a copyrighted book owned by the plaintiffSee details

No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality, Shanghai Push Sound Music & Entertainment Co., Ltd. v. Beijing FashioNow Co. Ltd., (2005) Er Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 13739, December 19, 2006

Holding that the Defendants, developers, and operators of the P2P website and client software “Kuro” liable under Article 130 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, in contributory infringementSee details

No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality, Zhejiang FanYa Co. Ltd. (5fad.com) v. Beijing Yahoo! China & Alibaba Information Technology Co. Ltd., (2006) Er Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 07905, December 15, 2006

Holding that if the right holder did not exhaust her obligations to notify an intermediary providing referring services vis-a vis take-down notices, and that there is no evidence to suggestSee details

No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality , Music Copyright Society of China v. Netease Com., Inc. & Mobile Communications Corp., September 20, 2002

Holding that the defendant, who operated the website chinamp3.com, was not liable for disseminating the plaintiff’s sound recordings by merely linking to them, by selecting, organizing and finalizing the variousSee details

No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality, Music Copyright Society of China v. Netease Com., Inc. & Mobile Communications Corp., (2002) Er Zhong Min Chu No. 3119, September 20, 2002

Holding that because Mobile Communications were merely providing a technical and passive service of network dissemination for receiving ringtones sent by Netease and forwarding them to its subscribers, it wasSee details

Republic Act No. 10175 (a.k.a. the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), September 12, 2012

(1) On Service Providers ( i ) The law defines service provider as “any public or private entity that provides to users of its service the ability to communicate bySee details

Republic Act No. 9775 (a.k.a. the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009), November 17, 2009

( 1 ) On Internet Content Hosts ( i ) Under the law, an internet content host is defined as any person who hosts or who proposes to host internetSee details

Republic Act No. 8792 (a.k.a. the Electronic Commerce Act), June 14, 2000

( 1 ) On Intermediaries The law defines an intermediary as “a person who in behalf of another person and with respect to a particular electronic document sends, receives, and/orSee details

Supreme Court, Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014

In a recent decision by the country’s Supreme Court, two provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (see above) were stricken down and declared void for being unconstitutional. (See details

Act No. 137 of 2001 on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers, November 30, 2001

Article 3 sets forth a safe harbor for telecommunications service providers in the following circumstances: ( i ) When any right of others is infringed by information distribution via specifiedSee details

Supreme Court, Animal Hospital Case, October 7, 2005

Channel 2, a Japanese bulletin board, has tried to invoke the safe harbor in an online libel actions, claiming that as an operator it could not know or reasonably knowSee details

Supreme Court (The Third Petty Bench), Heisei 28 (Kyo) No. 45 Google Inc. Case, January 31, 2017

On January 31, 2017, the Supreme Court of Japan issued a decision on a case filed by an individual residing in Japan against Google Inc. in the United States, demandingSee details

IP High Court Decision, Heisei 22 (Ne) No. 10076, Rakuten case, February 14, 2012

( 1 ) In this litigation, a trademark holder brought a trademark infringement litigation against Rakuten K.K., the operator of the online shopping mall named “Rakuten Ichiba”, claiming that Rakuten'sSee details

Tokyo High Court Decision, File Rogue case, March 31, 2005, upholding Tokyo District Court, December 17, 2003

( 1 ) With respect to a copyright infringement case involving Channel 2 where a user uploaded a small part of a copyrighted work onto the bulletin board, the TokyoSee details

Tokio High Court, Shogakan case, reversing Tokyo District Court, March 11, 2004

( 1 ) With respect to a copyright infringement case involving Channel 2 where a user uploaded a small part of a copyrighted work onto the bulletin board, the TokyoSee details

Tokyo High Court Decision, NiftyServe Modern Thought Forum Case, September 5, 2001 (reversing Tokyo District Court, May 27, 1997)

( 1 ) The issue of whether a party which merely administers or maintains a website or other online forums in which users or attendees committed illegal activities may beSee details

Tokyo District Court, Toritsu University case, September 24, 1999

( 1 ) In this case, an individual placed on a university’s website, a webpage that contained defamation of another. The plaintiff sought damages against both the one who builtSee details

The Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act of 2012, Act A1432

The Amendment of Evidence Act 1950 introduced Section 114A. Presumption of fact in publication , providing ( 1 ) A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publicationSee details

Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of Malaysia for an Economic Partnership, July 13, 2006

The Agreement contains Article 122 (2) : “Each Country shall provide for appropriate measures concerning limitations on liability for service providers: ( a ) in case where a service providerSee details

Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Act of 1998 (CMA 1998), Act 588

This Act provides a legal mandate to defend a free and open internet. Malaysia is one of the only countries in the world where a free and open internet isSee details

Malaysian Multimedia and Communications Commission Act 1998 (MMCCA 1998), Act 589

( 1 ) The MMCCA was passed to create a Commission to supervise the implementation of the CMA 1998. ( 2 ) The CMA 1998 does not define ‘industry’ orSee details

Copyright Act of 1987, Act 322, December 1, 1987

Section 36(1) Copyright Act 1987 provided a measure against primary infringers “Copyright is infringed by any person who does”, and secondary infringers “or causes any other person to do,” withoutSee details

Copyright Amendments Act of 1990 (Act A775), and 2012 (Act 1420), before amended in 1996 (Act A952), 1997 (Act A994), 2000 (Act A1082), 2002 (Act A1139) and 2003 (Act 1195)

In 2012 Section 36(1) Copyright Act 1987 remains unaltered in the amendment (Act A1420) of 2012. However, Part VIB ‘Limitation of Liabilities of the Service Provider’ Sections 43B-I, was addedSee details

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code, September 1, 2004

The Code was officially registered with the MMCC with effect from 1 September 1, 2004. ( 1 ) Paragraph 6.4 Content Code states that apart from the relevant legislation underSee details

Communications and Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia (CMCF), February 2001

The CMCF was established in February 2001 under the CMA 1998 to govern electronic content and address content related issues. Designated by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) onSee details

Trans-Pacific Partnership

( 1 ) Malaysia is one of the negotiating partners of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. The intellectual property chapter of one of the drafts was published by WikiLeaks inSee details

Internet Filtering Plan, 2009

Malaysia considered the establishment of an internet filter similar to the Green Dam project in China. Niluksi Koswanage, Malaysia Examines Internet Filter, Tougher Controls , Reuters, Aug. 6, 2009. MalaysiaSee details

Copyright (Amendment) Act 2014, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act (Chapter 63 of the 2006 Revised Edition), July 2014

( 1 ) The Singapore Paliament passed an anti-piracy amendment to the Copyright Act, which will enter into force at the end of August 2014, to allow right holders toSee details

Personal Data Protection Act 2012, Act No. 26 of 2012, November 20, 2012 (An Act to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by organisations, and to establish the Personal Data Protection Commission and Do Not Call Register and to provide for their administration, and for matters connected therewith, and to make related and consequential amendments to various other Acts. Among others, it sets out provisions to deal with the liability of “data intermediaries” in relation to their processing of personal data)

Singapore introduced its first comprehensive data protection legislation in the form of the Personal Data Protection Act in 2012 (“PDPA”). The PDPA subjects all Singapore organizations as “data organizations” toSee details

Electronic Transactions Act, Parliamentary Legislation, Chapter 88, Revised Edition 2011, Dec 31, 2011 (originally Jul 10, 1998) (An Act to provide for the security and use of electronic transactions, to implement the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 23rd November 2005)

Section 26 in Part IV of the Electronic Transactions Act, which was modeled after Art 1 s 5 of the German Federal Law to Regulate Conditions for Information and CommunicationSee details

Copyright Act, Parliamentary Legislation, Chapter 63, Revised Edition 2006, January 31, 2006 (originally Apr. 19, 1987) (An Act relating to copyright and matters related thereto)

In 1999, Singapore made its first amendments to the Copyright Act to introduce various safe harbor defenses for Internet intermediaries as network service providers. Arising from its obligations under theSee details

Bill, Apr 7, 2014, Proposed Amendments to Revise the Copyright Act to empower the courts to make site blocking orders

The Singapore Ministry of Law is proposing legislative amendments to allow right holders to apply directly to the courts for injunctions against Internet Service Providers to prevent users from accessingSee details

Court of Appeal, Civil Action, RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd, [2011] 1 SLR 830; [2010] SGCA 43, December 1, 2010

( 1 ) The appellant/plaintiff, RecordTV, was the provider of a remote-store digital video recorder service, known as iDVR or Internet digital video recorder, which allowed its registered users toSee details

High Court, Civil Action, Odex Pte. Ltd. v. Pacific Internet Ltd., [2008] SGHC 35, [2008] 3 SLR 18, March 22, 2001

( 1 ) Odex was a private company that provided Japanese anime programs to local television stations for broadcasting. It also distributed authorized copies of these programs to retailers forSee details

Copyright Act, as amended on January 22, 2014

( 1 ) Intermediary Liability of Copyright Infringement . The inducement liability of copyright infringement was enacted in 2007 under the influence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, MGM v.See details

Criminal Code, as amended on January 15, 2014

Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability and Aiding Liability . Article 15 . A person who has a legal obligation and is able to prevent the results of the occurrence of anSee details

Bill on Telecommunication Act

A telecommunications enterprise is required to remove content if an "administrative agency" (not a court) in authority deems that the content violate a law or regulation, such as copyright orSee details

Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) Bill [TIPO's Press Release]

TIPO's Press Release There was a controversial SOPA-like bill proposed by Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) last year, which authorized TIPO to block websites from other jurisdictions if it deemsSee details

Intellectual Property Court, Year 2010, Sin-Tsu-Shan-Yi-Tsu No. 52, Criminal Case (智慧財產法院99年度刑智上易字第52號刑事判決)

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 programSee details

Intellectual Property Court, Year 2010, Sin-Tsu-Shan-Yi-Tsu No. 59, Criminal Case (智慧財產法院99年度刑智上易字第59號刑事判決)

Another case of peer-to-peer file sharing services involving a less known program called Kupeer was also decided on the ground of inducement liability. The defendant was found guilty in co-perpetrationSee details

Intellectual Property Court, Year 2010, Xing-Zhi-Shang-Geng-(II), NO.24, Criminal Case [智慧財產法院99年度刑智上更(二)第24號刑事判決]

In contrast to Kuro, another peer-to-peer file sharing services, ezPeer was initially found neither guilty in joint criminal enterprise liability nor aiding criminal liability by Taiwan Shilin District Court inSee details

Intellectual Property Court, Year 2009, Xing-Zhi-Shang-Geng-Zi No. 48, Criminal Case (智慧財產法院 98 年度刑智上更字第 48 號刑事判決)

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 TaipeiSee details

Copyright Act, last amended by Act No. 12137, Dec. 30, 2013

( 1 ) Article 102 provides safe harbor for intermediaries from third party copyright infringement. The provision was amended twice in 2011 first to reflect the Korea-EU FTA and thenSee details

Telecommunications Business Act, last amended Act No. 12761, October 15, 2014 (English Version)

English Version ( 1 ) According to Article 27(2)6 , a value-added telecommunications service provider of special type (the special types of OSPs such as P2P or web-hard service providersSee details

Act on the Establishment and Operation of Korea Communications Commission (KCCA) last amended by Act No. 11711, March 23, 2013 (English Version)

( 1 ) Article 18 establishes the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC) consisting of nine members, in addition to the Korea Communications Commission KCC. ( 2 ) Under Article 21See details

Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles Against Sexual Abuse, last amended by Act No. 11690, March 23, 2013 (English Version)

( 1 ) Article 2 subparagraph 1 defines “children or juveniles” as “persons under 19 years of age” and “child or juvenile pornography” as “depiction of children or juveniles, orSee details

Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Etc., last amended by Act No. 11461, June 1, 2012 (English Version)

(1) Article 2 subparagraph 4 defines “ mail order brokerage ” as “the act of intermediating mail order between both parties to a transaction by allowing the use of aSee details

Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (ICNA, Information and Communications Network Act), last amended by Act No. 11322, February17, 2012 (English Version)

( 1 ) Article 44-2(1) and (2) provide that, when a person requests certain information to be deleted as it infringes upon the person’s rights, the service provider “shall” immediatelySee details

Public Official Election Act, last amended by Act No. 11071, November 7, 2011 (English Version)

( 1 ) Article 82-4 is titled “Election Campaigns by Utilizing Information and Communications Networks.” According to paragraph (3), when the election commission of each level or any candidate hasSee details

Regulatory Entity: Korea Communications Commission (KCC)

Established under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Korea Communications Commission (KCCA) , the KCC implements deletion or blocking orders according to the request and standards of theSee details

Regulatory Entity: Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC)

Established under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Korea Communications Commission (KCCA) in addition to the KCC, the KCSC, consisting of nine members, shall deliberate on matters fallingSee details

24-1(B) KCCR 578, 2010Hun-Ma88, May 31, 2012

This is a decision on the notice and takedown system under Article 44-2 of ICNA (see above). The Constitutional Court found that the provisions do not infringe upon the freedomSee details

23-1(A) KCCR 53, 2009Hun-Ba13, 52, 110 (consolidated), February 24, 2011

Majority of the Constitutional Court found Article 104 of the Copyright Act constitutional. However, two Justices dissented, stating that it is unconstitutional to delegate the authority to determine the notionSee details

Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1435, September 26, 2013

( 1 ) In this decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the safe harbor under Article 102 of the Copyright Act (before it was amended by Act no. 8852 onSee details

Supreme Court Decision 2010Ma817, December 4, 2012

( 1 ) This is an important decision regarding trade of counterfeit goods on online shopping malls, so called open-markets, where the service providers do not sell goods but intermediateSee details

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4343, March 11, 2010

( 1 ) This decision applied the rule of 2008Da53812 (see below), the leading case on intermediary liability, on copyright infringement . The defendant was Yahoo Korea and the plaintiffSee details

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da53812, April 16, 2009 (English Version)

( English Version ) ( 1 ) This is a much criticized Supreme Court decision on intermediary liability for defamatory content . There were two contradictory Supreme Court decisions (2001Da36801See details

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do872, December 14, 2007

( 1 ) This case is significant in that the Supreme Court found p2p file sharing software “Soribada” – Korean Napster - liable for copyright infringement by aiding its subscribers’See details

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11626, January 25, 2007 (English Version)

( English Version ) ( 1 ) This decision affirmed the decision of appellate court (2003Na21140) which held an intermediary – “Soribada” - liable for aiding copyright infringement for theSee details

Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4128, April 28, 2006 (English Version)

( English Version ) ( 1 ) This case concerns obscene materials . The defendants were employees of an Internet portal in charge of the portal’s “entertainment channel.” There wereSee details

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da72194, June 27, 2003 [English Version]

English Version ( 1 ) The Court held that, an intermediary, even if it knew or had reason to know of the defamatory material for 52 days, should not beSee details

Supreme Court Decision 2001Da36801, September 7, 2001

The Supreme Court held an electronic bulletin board provider liable for refusing , even upon demands both by the injury claimant and a government censorship body, to takedown postings deprecatingSee details

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na35260, October 13, 2010

( 1 ) In February 2009, Woo Jong-Hyun (surname Woo) recorded his 5-year old daughter casually singing part of the popular singer Sondambi’s major hit I am Crazy unaccompanied andSee details

Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2015 (Cth)

Website blocking scheme : Section 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 enables copyright owners to the Federal Court of Australia for an injunction requiring ISPs to disable access to onlineSee details

Trade Agreement Implementation Act 2004 (Cth) Sch 9 & Copyright Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (Cth) Sch 1 (Safe Harbours)

Trade Agreement Implementation Act 2004 (Cth) Sch 9 & Copyright Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (Cth) Sch 1 (Safe Harbours ) Safe harbours for intermediaries were introduced as part of theSee details

Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), Schedule 5, Cl 91(1)

Clause 91(1) of Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) provides a general limitation of liability for internet service providers and content hosts from Australian State and TerritorySee details

Copyright Regulations 1969 (Cth), Part 3A

Setting out the particulars of the notice and takedown regime.See details

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)

Sections 36(1) and 101(1) establish the exclusive right to ‘authorise’ the doing, in Australia, of any act comprised in the copyright. Whether an intermediary has ‘authorised’ an act of infringementSee details

Copyright Notice Scheme – Industry Code (pending registration under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)), April 2015

An industry-negotiated graduated response Code was submitted to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) for registration as an industry code under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) on 8 AprilSee details

Online Copyright Infringement – Discussion Paper, July 2014 (Public consultation) [ENACTED as the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringment) Act 2015 (see above)]

The Australian Government Attorney-General’s and Communications’ Departments released a discussion paper proposing to extend the scope of secondary infringement, introduce website blocking provisions, and broaden the safe harbours in Australia’sSee details

Australia-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA), signed on April 8th 2014 (Chapter 13, Intellectual Property Rights, Article 13.5)

Proposing an amendment of the Copyright Act 1968 in due course to provide a legal incentive for online service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in preventing infringement due toSee details

Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Piscioneri v Brisciani [2015] ACTSC 106, May 6, 2015

The proprietor of an online discussion forum was held liable in defamation for posts made by himself and third parties about the plaintiff. The self-represented defendant was found to beSee details

Supreme Court of New South Wales, Bleyer v. Google Inc. [2014] NSWSC 897, August 12, 2014

Bleyer brought a claim in defamation against Google on the basis of its organic search results. The New South Wales Supreme Court dismissed the claim on summary judgment on theSee details

Supreme Court of New South Wales, Visscher v. Maritime Union of Australia (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 350, March 31, 2014

New South Wales Supreme Court found the Maritime Union was liable for publishing defamatory imputations when it hyperlinked to a third party webpage. The Court held that the words “ReadSee details

High Court of Australia, Google Inc. v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2013) 249 CLR 435; [2013] HCA 1, February 6, 2013

The High Court of Australia held that Google did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2, Competition and Consumer ActSee details

Supreme Court of Victoria, Trkulja v. Google Inc. & Anor [2012] VSC 533, November 12, 2012

Plaintiff’s personal information and photos in Google’s search engine were displayed together with pictures of major known criminals in Melburne, Australia. Plaintiff sued Google for defamation and required the contentSee details

Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Criminal Appeal, Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty. Ltd. v. Ibrahim (2012) 83 NSWLR 52; (2012) 293 ALR 384; (2012) 263 FLR 211; [2012] NSWCCA 125, June 13, 2012

Successful appeal against suppression orders that would oblige internet content hosts to remove, or otherwise restrict access to, content they were not aware of. The suppression orders, made pursuant toSee details

High Court of Australia, Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited [2012] HCA 16, April 20, 2012

The High Court of Australia held that iiNet, Australia’s second largest ISP, was not liable for authorising its customers’ infringement of copyright films downloaded over BitTorrent. The Australian Federation AgainstSee details

High Court of Australia, University of New South Wales v. Moorhouse [1975] HCA 26; (1975) 133 CLR 1

The University of New South Wales was found liable for authorising the infringements of those who used the photocopiers it provided in its library. The case was brought as aSee details

Federal Court of Australia, Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited (No. 4) [2015] FCA 838, August 14, 2015

In a subsequent decision following Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited (see below), the court rejected Voltage Pictures’ draft demands as unreasonable and excessive. The court was satisfied VoltageSee details

Federal Court of Australia, Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited [2015] FCA 317, 07 April 7, 2015

The Federal Court of Australia ordered preliminary discovery from iiNet and five other Australian ISPs of the information of 4,726 account holders of IP addresses believed to have infringed copyrightSee details

Federal Court of Australia, Rana v. Google Australia Pty. Ltd. and Google Inc. [2013] FCA 60, February 7, 2013

Rana claimed damages from Google Australia and Google Inc. in defamation for publishing links to defamatory websites in its search results. The Federal Court granted summary judgment to Google Australia,See details

Federal Court of Australia, Clarke v. Nationwide News Pty. Ltd. (t/as The Sunday Times) (2012) 289 ALR 345; [2012] FCA 307, March 27, 2012

A news website publisher was found liable for publishing vilifying comments posted by a reader. A claim was brought under s 18C the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), which prohibitsSee details

District Court South of Australia, Duffy v Google Inc [2011] SADC 178, November 15, 2011

Duffy alleged defamation against Google Inc and Google Australia Pty Ltd for search results that contained links to third-party pages containing defamatory material and extracted snippets that were themselves defamatory.See details

Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 187, December 18, 2006

Cooper and his hosting provider, Comcen, were liable for authorising infringements by users of his website, mp3s4free.net, which linked to infringing MP3 files on third-party websites. The index was populatedSee details

Federal Court of Australia, Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 1242, September 5, 2005

Sharman, who operated the Kazaa filesharing platform, were found liable for authorising the infringements of its users. The court held that Sharman knew that the Kazaa system was primarily usedSee details

Revising the Scope of the Copyright Safe Harbour Scheme (public consultation)

The Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department released a public consultation paper in October 2011 concerning the scope of the copyright safe harbour provisions. Submissions were accepted until 22 November 2011 andSee details

Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015

( 1 ) This Act offers possibly the widest safe harbour protection for "online content hosts". The Act also establishes a civil regime in respect of digital communications that breachSee details

Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Regulations 2011

( 1 ) These regulations set out the matters that must be included in a " rights owner notice " to be sent from rights owners to IPAPs under SectionsSee details

Copyright Act 1994

( 1 ) A person who infringes copyright may face both civil and criminal proceedings under the Copyright Act. (i) The Act contains exemptions from infringement liability for transient &See details

Defamation Act 1992

( 1 ) The Act provides protection from defamation liability for innocent disseminator s that have no actual knowledge of the defamatory content complained of ( Section 21 ). AnySee details

Court of Appeal, Murray v Wishart [2014] 3 NZLR 722, [2014] NZCA 461, September 19, 2014

( 1 ) Wishart (Respondent) was the author of a book about Macsyna King. Wishart sought damages for defamation arising from comments by Murray made on a Facebook page establishedSee details

High Court, A v Google New Zealand Ltd [2012] NZHC 2352, 12 September 2012

( 1 ) Successful application by Google for defendant summary judgment; unsuccessful application for strike out by Google on basis Google was not a publisher; unsuccessful application for plaintiff summarySee details

High Court, Sadiq v Baycorp (NZ) Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2007-404-6421, March 31, 2008

( 1 ) The plaintiff, Sadiq, issued defamation and negligence proceedings against two parties, arising out of allegedly defamatory statements published on a credit reporting website. The issue for determinationSee details

Information Society Services Act, May 1, 2004

The Information Society Services Act (ISSA), which is based on the EU e-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC), lists three types on services the providers which are exempted from potential liability underSee details

Copyright Act, December 12, 1992

Section 817 of Copyright Act stipulates that in the case of the unlawful use of a work or an object of related rights, the author or holder of related rightsSee details

Law of Obligations Act, July 1, 2002

The Law of Obligations Act (LOA) implements Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC). If unlawful damage is caused by violation of copyright or related rights or violation ofSee details

The draft Copyright Act, July 19, 2014

The draft Copyright Act in its currently available version does not include a special provision referring to Section 1055 of Law of Obligations Act as stated above. The Law ofSee details

Supreme Court, Civil, Case No. 3-2-1-43-09, Delfi case, June 10, 2009

( 1 ) The case arose when a popular news portal (Delfi) in Estonia published an article about the ferry connection with the islands in Estonia. The news portal enabledSee details

Circuit Court of Tallinn, Civil, Case No. 2-08-76058/74, February 21, 2012

( 1 ) The court ruled that the news portal that enabled commenting news articles published at its websites did not act neutrally (the activities of the ISP were notSee details

Harju County Court of Harju, Civil, Case No. 2-05-22224/34, November 30, 2007

The court found that news portals which enabled uncensored commenting at its website were not liable for the activities of the users of the news portal under Sections 10 andSee details

The Constitution of Georgia, August 24, 1995

Providing that “everyone has the right to freely receive and impart information, to express and impart his/her opinion orally, in writing or by in any other means. . . .See details

Law on the Protection of Minors from Harmful Influence, September 28, 2011

There is no law that specifically govern the internet, regulates online censorship or bans inappropriate content, such as pornography or violent material. The Law of Georgia on the Protection ofSee details

Law No. 1514 on Electronic Communications, June 6, 2005

( 1 ) To ensure that regulatory decisions of the Commission are taken in an open, non-discriminatory, transparent and technologically neutral way, this law provides the principles for pursuing activitiesSee details

Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression, June 24, 2004

( 1 ) Granting “Freedom of speech and expression” (art 3), “Protection of confidential information and sources (art 11)” and “Liability for disclosure of a secret” (art 12). ( 2See details

Law No. 11-12, Law of Georgia on Advertising, 1998

The advertising distributor shall be held responsible for the violation of the advertising legislation of Georgia in regards to the advertising time, place or media (art 19.3).See details

Law No. 97 on Audiovisual Media in the Republic of Albania, 2013

( 1 ) This law regulates the activity of audiovisual media and their support services in Albania on the basis of the technological neutrality principle (Article 1). ( 2 )See details

Law No. 10128 on Electronic Commerce, May 11, 2009

( 1 ) The object of this law is to establish rules for conducting commercial transactions electronically, through services offered by the information society for the protection of persons participating,See details

Law No. 9918 on Electronic Communications in the Republic of Albania, May 19, 2008

Law No. 9918 on electronic communications includes certain provisions on obligations and criteria for telecommunication operators relating to the safeguarding of fundamental rights and freedoms. The Law also includes provisionsSee details

Law No. 9887 on Protection of Personal Data, March 10, 2008

( 1 ) This law aims at defining the rules for the protection and legal processing of the personal data. ( 2 ) According to Article 2, the legal processingSee details

Law No. 9380 on Copyright and Related Rights, April 28, 2005

The copyright law provides protection to rightholders for copyright infringment. The law targets primary infringers but secondary liability might be extended to third parties facilitating, aiding or abetting infringement.See details

Constitution of Albania (approved by referendum on November 22, 1998), November 28, 1998

( 1 ) According to Article 22 , freedom of expression and freedom of the press, radio and television are guaranteed. Prior censorship of means of communication is prohibited. TheSee details

Law No. 7895, Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania as amended, January 27, 1995

( 1 ) Article 7 Implementation of the law on criminal acts committed by foreign nationals – letter j) - applies to criminal acts related to technological information field. (See details

Regulatory Entity: Albanian Authority on Electronic and Postal Communications (AKEP)

AKEP is an administrative body in charge with implementing websites blocking orders or content takedown in Albania.See details

Federal Act governing certain legal aspects of electronic commercial and legal transactions (E-Commerce Act) [E-Commerce-Gesetz] (ECG), January 1, 2002

The safe harbors for intermediaries of the E-Commerce Directive are incorporated into Austrian national law by the E-Commerce-Act (E-Commerce-Gesetz - ECG). Section V of this act deals with the exclusionSee details

Copyright Act [Urheberrechtsgesetz] (UrhG), 1936

According to Section 81 (1a) of the Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz – UrhG), the intermediary can be sued for injunctive relief. However, if the safe harbors of the §§ 13 -See details

General Civil Code [Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch] (ABGB), 1811

ABGB does not have a central provision concerning liability for intermediaries. According to Section 1295 a person can be held liable for damages caused unlawfully through a fault of his.See details

Criminal Code [Strafgesetzbuch] (StGB), 1975

Under certain circumstances the intermediary can be criminally responsible as a coperpertrator. The criminal responsibility of coperpertrators is specified in the Austrian Criminal Code (StGB). The code affirms that personsSee details

Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), 4 Ob 140/14p, October 21, 2014

( 1 ) The defendant maintains an Internet media website where users can upload content if they have an account and are logged in. The general terms and conditions ofSee details

Oberster Gerichtshof, 6 Ob 133/13x, January 23, 2014 (later confirmed in 6 Ob 188/14m, December 15, 2014 and 6 Ob 145/14p, February 19, 2015)

( 1 ) An Austrian politician sued the publisher of an online newspaper for disclosure of the names and email addresses of users who posted allegedly infringing comments in theSee details

Oberster Gerichtshof, UPC Telekabel, 4 Ob 6/12d, May 11, 2012

( 1 ) UPC Telekabel appealed on a point of law to the Supreme Court a decision form a lower court ordering Telekable to block access to an illegal movieSee details

Oberster Gerichtshof, 6 Ob 178/04a, December 21, 2006

The claimant sued the hosting provider for damage allegedly caused by the users of an online guest book which the defendant operates. The Court stated that a hosting provider isSee details

Oberster Gerichtshof, Google AdWords, 4 Ob 194/05s, December 19, 2005

( 1 ) A pharmaceutical company is the holder of a registered trademark 'Glucochondrin'. A third party has used the word 'glucochondrin' for the purposes of keyword advertising in GoogleSee details

Oberster Gerichtshof, 6 Ob 190/03i, February 19, 2004

( 1 ) An Austrian Bishop claimed that an online newspaper article infringed his personality rights. He sued the newspaper publisher for injunctive relief. The defendant claimed that he isSee details

Oberster Gerichtshof, fpo.at II, 4 Ob 176/01p, September 12, 2001

In the second decision regarding the domain www.fpo.at , the Court decided that the domain name authority is obliged to block the domain when the infringement of someone’s right isSee details

Oberster Gerichtshof, fpo.at I, 4 Ob 166/00s, September 13, 2000

( 1 ) The Austrian political party FPÖ operates the website www.fpoe.at . It alleged that the operator of the domain www.fpo.at infringed its name rights because his site containedSee details

Austrian Regional Criminal Court in Graz [Landesgericht für Strafsachen in Graz], July 2014

finding the operator of a TOR exit node guilty of willingly contributing to distribution of child pornography under the Austrian Criminal Code. For more information see Husovec .See details

Oberlandesgericht Wien [Higher Regional Court, Vienna], UPC Telekabel, October 27, 2011

( 1 ) The Court, as an appeal court, partially reversed the order of the court of first instance (see below) in so far as it had wrongly specified theSee details

Handelsgericht Wien [Commercial Court, Vienna], UPC Telekabel, May 13, 2011

( 1 ) Having established that a website was offering, without their agreement, either a download or ‘streaming’ of some of the films which they had produced, Constantin Film andSee details

Oberlandesgericht Wien, eBay, 1 R 182/10g, September 27, 2010

( 1 ) The plaintiff bought gold on eBay from a seller who had the status of a Power Seller. The Power Seller status is awarded by eBay to sellersSee details

Law of December 15, 2013, introducing Book XII, Electronic Commercial Law [Droit de l’économie électronique] in the Belgian Commercial Law Codification [entered into force on May, 31 2014]

Book XII contains the Belgian implementation of the European e-commerce Directive, which includes in its “Section 4: Liability of intermediary service providers” specific provisions related to safe harbours for informationSee details

Law of June, 13 2005 related to the Electronic Communications

Articles 122 to 125 of this Law prohibit to collect electronic information and to identify users involved in an electronic transmission except in specific circumstancesSee details

Law of June 30, 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights

including Article 87 implementing Article 8.2 of the Infosoc Directive of 2001 which states that “Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunctionSee details

Criminal Code of June 8, 1867

Article 314bis protects the content of private electronic communicationsSee details

Belgian Internet Service Providers Association Code of Conduct

This is the Code of conduct set up by ISPA, the Belgian Association of Internet service providers. This Code of conduct is a example of self-regulation. It is mandatory forSee details

Protocol of Cooperation between ISPs and Judicial Authorities

This April 1999 Protocol of cooperation between ISPA (the Belgian ISP Association), the police and judicial authorities was agreed upon to improve the cooperation between Belgian ISPs and judicial authorities.See details

Supreme Court, Criminal, Belgacom SA/NV & Scarlet SA/NV (The Pirate Bay case II), P.13.0551.N/1, October 22, 2013

( 1 ) Reversing the decision of the Anvers Court of Appeal of February, 14 2013, ordering the blockage of all the websites redirecting to "thepiratebay.org," and sending the caseSee details

Supreme Court, Civil, H.L. v. Test-Achats SCRL, C.10.0153.F/1, June, 16 2011

The Belgian Supreme Court upheld an appelate decision holding that it is not possible for rightsholders or any other interested party to obtain from an hosting provider certain information toSee details

Supreme Court, Criminal, R.V., P.03.1427.N/1, February 3, 2004

The Supreme Court reviewed the application of the exemptions from liability established in the e-commerce Directive, as implemented by Article 20 of Law of March, 11 2003 related to certainSee details

Brussels Court of Appeal, Belgian State v. SABAM, No. 2015/AR/810, June 3, 2016

confirming the March 13, 2015 judgment of the Brussels Court of First Instance (see below) and restating that there is no legal basis for SABAM to seek the collection ofSee details

Brussels Court of First Instance, Belgian Privacy Authority v. Facebook, No. 15/57/C, November 9, 2015

TheCourt found that Facebook’s practice of tracking non-users of Facebook’s surfing history through social plugins, even when the user was not accessing Facebook, violated the Belgian Data Protection Law. TheSee details

Brussels Court of First Instance, Civil, Belgian State v. SABAM, No. 13/12839/A, March 13, 2015

( 1 ) SABAM, the largest Belgian collective management organisation (CMO), sought to obtain the payment of a copyright levy from Belgian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for communicating to theSee details

Anvers Court of Appeal, Criminal, Belgacom SA/NV, Scarlet Belgium SA/NV, Edpnet SA/NV & Mobistar SA/NV (The Pirate Bay case II), No. K.379/13 / 2013/697, February, 14 2013

Upholding the request of issuing a permanent blocking order for the primary domain name “thepiratebay.org” and other domain names redirecting to this primary domain name. This criminal proceeding was initiatedSee details

Anvers Court of Appeal, Civil, The Belgian Anti-piracy federation ASBL/VZW v. Telenet SA/NV & Belgacom SA/NV (“The Pirate Bay case I), No. 3399/Rep. 2011/9314, September, 26 2011

Reversing the decision of the Anvers Court of First Instance of July, 8 2010 and ordering Belgian ISPs, Telenet and Belgacom, to block DNS extensions for 11 domain names relatedSee details

Brussels Court of Appeal, Civil, Scarlet Extended SA/NV v. SABAM (“The Tiscali/Scarlet case”), R.G. 2007/AR/2424, January 1, 2010

The Court of Appeal of Brussels had to answer the question whether an internet service provider could be required to install a filtering system with a view to preventing theSee details

Anvers Court of First Instance, Civil, The Belgian Anti-piracy federation ASBL/VZW v. Telenet SA/NV & Belgacom SA/NV (The Pirate Bay case I), No. A/10/5374, July 8, 2010

The Court rejected the request of blocking eight "ThePirateBay" websites and other “ThePirateBay” websites extensions. The request was filed against two of the biggest Belgian Internet providers, Telenet and Belgacom.See details

Brussels Court of First Instance, Civil, SABAM v. Scarlet SA/NV (“The Tiscali/Scarlet case”), 04/8975A, June 29, 2007

In its report filed January, 3 2007, the expert witness presented 11 solutions that can be applied to block or filter file sharing, including 7 applicable to Scarlet/Tiscali. On theSee details

Brussels Court of First Instance, Civil, SABAM v. Tiscali SA/NV (“The Tiscali/Scarlet case”), 04/8975A, November, 26 2004]

( 1 ) The Court had to answer the question whether an internet service provider could be required to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegalSee details

Law on Electronic Communications, January 01, 2008 [English version]

( 1 ) According to the Law on Electronic Communications (LEC), Information Service Providers (ISPs) are obliged to guarantee the confidentiality of communications by undertaking all the necessary technical andSee details

Code of Civil Procedure, No. 59/2007, July 20, 2007 [English version]

In a civil or administrative case the court can base a request of information disclosure either on Article 190 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) if the ISP is participatingSee details

Law on Electronic Commerce (spec. Art.13-18), December 24, 2006 [English version]

( 1 ) The liability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is regulated by the Law on Electronic Commerce. The law is implementing the Directive 2000/31/EC (E-Commerce Directive) on electronic commerceSee details

Personal Data Protection Act, January 01, 2002 [English version]

( 1 ) According to this Act, personal data shall be considered any information related to a natural person that has been identified or can be identified directly or indirectlySee details

Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, August 01, 1993 [English version]

There is a contradiction between the applicable Rules of CIvil Procedure and the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (LCNR), which requires a pending civil proceeding to be initiated beforeSee details

Criminal code (spec. Art.172a-174, Article 159(1) and 159(3)), May 01, 1968 [English version]

( 1 ) Under the LCNR and the Criminal Code (CC), it is illegal to “upload (reproduction), distribute and make available (broadcast), transmits infringing content” on the Internet. Article 172аSee details

Law of Obligations and Contracts (spec. Art.45(1) ), January 1, 1951 [English version]

Providing a general principle of civil liability according to which any person is liable for the damages it causes. Every person must redress the damage he has guiltily caused toSee details

Constitutional Court of Bulgaria, Case No 8/2014 г, March 12, 2015

Bulgaria’s Constitutional Court ruled on March 12 to declare provisions in the Electronic Communications Act Art.250а-251а mandating the bulk collection of telecommunications data as unconstitutional. The unconstitutional provisions required telecommunicationSee details

Sofia Administrative Court, Decision № 5920/2012 (administrative trial case № 6859/2012), acting in Cassation, November 7, 2012

( 1 ) The Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) was claiming that an ISP hosting a website with false and misleading real estate advertisements was engaging in unfair commercial practice contrarySee details

Sofia Regional Court, Decision № -/2013 (administrative trial case № 8308/2012), June 10, 2013

( 1 ) Plaintiff sent internet users unsolicited bulk e-mail, commonly known as "spam," to promote its internet business and website. The recipients of these unsollicited communications filled complaints withSee details

Competition Protection Commission, Net Info and others vs. Google Ireland and Google Inc., No. 395 (May 12, 2015)

( 1 ) The Bulgarian online media companies Net Info and V Box—Bulgaria's largest video sharing portal—filed a complaint with the Competition Protection Commission (CPC) against Google and its videoSee details

Law No. 89/2012, February 3, 2012, Civil Code

The Civil Code provides for general tort law basis for liability including vicarious liability, wrongful omission, liability as a participant, etc. It regulates substantial part of the private law. IntellectualSee details

Law No. 480/2004, July 29, 2004, on Some Services of the Information Society

The Act implements e-Commerce Directive into Czech law incorporating mere conduit (§ 3), caching (§ 4) and hosting safe harbors (§ 5), and prohibition of general monitoring obligation (§ 6).See details

Supreme Court [Nejvyšší soud ČR], Civil, Liberec Pirate, 8 Tdo 137/2013, February 27, 2013

The Court upheld the criminal liability of an operator of video indexing site, which included number of copyright infringing embed links. The Court found that the defendant himself put theSee details

City Court in Prague, First instance court, Civil, Share-rapid.cz, 31 C 72/2011-33, December 12, 2011

The Court hold an operator of a cyberlocker liable for committing a copyright infringement. As the decision came in the form of the default judgment against the operator, the groundsSee details

Higher Court in Prague, Court of Appeals, Civil, Prolux, 3 Cmo 197/2010-82, March 2, 2011

The Court accepted the liability of a discussion forum provider for user comments. Unknown users posted several libelous statements on the website. The discussion provider refused to take them down,See details

City Court in Prague, First Instance Court, Civil, Kaufland.cz, 32 Cm 55/2005

The Court in a regular domain name dispute enabled the domain name transfer against the domain name authority as a defendant arguing that the source of such an injunction isSee details

Greek Presidential Decree 131/2003, implementing Directive 2000/31/EC, May 16, 2003

Articles 11-14 provide that the intermediary will not be held liable for the type of information transmitted through, cached in, or hosted on the intermediary’s services, as long as someSee details

Greek Law 2121/1993 on Intellectual Property, articles 64 and 64A implementing Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2004/48/EC, March 4, 1993

The articles provide that rightsholders may seek injunctions against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe upon creators’ rights, neighbouring rights, or sui generis database rights.See details

Protodikeio Athinon [Athens Court of First Instance], Decision 13478/2014, December 22, 2014

( 1 ) This recent high-profile case was a joinder of multiple applications for injunctions by Greek collecting societies against Greek ISPs in order to block access to websites containingSee details

Plimmeleiodikeio Athinon [Athens Magistrates Court], Blogme.gr case, January 23, 2013

( 1 ) The court acquitted the administrator of a blog aggregator website, after a Greek TV personality sued him for defamation and indecency over comments posted about him onSee details

Protodikeio Athinon [Athens Court of First Instance], Decision 4658/2012, May 16, 2012

( 1 ) The court ordered a temporary injunction against Greek ISPs in order to block access to certain websites that were thought to illegally contain or distribute copyrighted contentSee details

Directive 2004/48/EC on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights

Article 11 states that "Member States shall also ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third partySee details

Directive 2001/29/EC on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society

Article 8(3) provides that “Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party toSee details

Directive 2000/31/EC on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market

( 1 ) Articles from 12 to 15 provides mere conduit, caching, and hosting exemptions for intermediaries, together with the exclusion of a general obligation on access, hosting and cachingSee details

Directive 95/46/EC on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data

Inter alia , Article 23, titled "Liability," provides that "1. Member States shall provide that any person who has suffered damage as a result of an unlawful processing operation orSee details

European Commission, Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online: First Results on Implementation, December 6, 2016

providing information on the first result of implementation of the Code of Conduct and urging platforms to do more to implement the code of conductSee details

European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, COM(2016) 593 final, September 14, 2016

The draft directive aims—inter alia—to close the so called “value gap” between Internet platforms and copyright holders. To that end, the proposed reform includes a provision that would impact platformSee details

European Commission, Communication Promoting a Fair, Efficient and Competitive European Copyright-based Economy in the Digital Single Market, (COM) 2016 592 final, September 14, 2016

Released in parallel with the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive Proposal (above).See details

Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, May 31, 2016

Commission agreed with all major online hosting providers—including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft—on a code of conduct that includes a series of commitments to combat the spread of illegal hateSee details

European Commission, Communication, Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market: Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, COM(2016) 288 Final, May 25, 2016

The Communication apparently endorses the plan of maintaining the existing intermediary liability regime. However, the Commission stresses that “a number of specific issues relating to illegal and harmful content andSee details

European Commission, Communication, Towards a Modern, more European Copyright Framework, COM(2015) 626 final, December 9, 2015

The Commission anticipated that policy and legislative action would be taken in respect of: ( 1 ) exceptions and limitations; ( 2 ) exclusive rights, including both clarifying issues facingSee details

European Commission, Communication, A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM(2015) 192 final, May 6, 2015

The Strategy plans the introduction of enhanced obligations that websites and other Internet intermediaries should have for dealing with unlawful third-party content and discusses what regulations should apply to aSee details

European Commission, Staff Working Document, E-commerce Action Plan 2012-2015. State of Play 2013, SWD(2013) 153 final, April 23, 2013

The Commission specifically prioritizes tackling excessive fragmentation of notice-and-take-down (or "notice-and-action") procedures in European jurisdictions (3.4, main action 12). This fragmentation in turn leads to a high level of legalSee details

European Commission, A Clean and Open Internet: Public Consultation on Procedures for Notifying and Acting on Illegal Content Hosted by Online Intermediaries, June 4 - September 11, 2012

 

European Commission, Initiative on a Clean and Open Internet: Procedures for Notifying and Acting on Illegal Content Hosted by Online Intermediaries, Roadmap, June 2012

 

European Commission, Communication, A Coherent Framework for Building Trust in the Digital Single Market for e-Commerce and Online Services, COM(2011) 942 final, February 6, 2012

mentioning that it appears necessary to set up a horizontal European framework for notice-and-action procedures and announcing an initiative on notice-and-action procedures (Main Action 12).See details

Memorandum of Understanding on the Online Sale of Counterfeit Products, May 4, 2011

This European Protocol signed between major rights-holders and internet platforms on the online sale of counterfeit products requires, in addition to a notification and take-down procedure, action against repeat infringementsSee details

European Commission, Public Consultation on the Future of Electronic Commerce in the Internal Market and the Implementation of the Directive on Electronic Commerce (2000/31/EC), November 5, 2010

 

European Court of Justice, GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, Case C-160/15, September 8, 2016

( 1 ) In GS Media, the ECJ had to decide whether a link to materials that the copyright holder didn’t authorize were infringing communication to the public. In thisSee details

European Court of Justice, Tobias Mc Fadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH, Case C-484/14, September 15, 2016

( 1 ) The ECJ had to consider the potential liability of Mr. Mc Fadden--running a business selling lighting and sound systems--for the use by a third party of theSee details

European Court of Justice, Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, C-362/14, October 6, 2015

( 1 ) Maximillian Schrems, an Austrian citizen and Facebook user, lodged a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner saying that in light of Edward Snowden's revelations concerning theSee details

European Court of Justice, C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg, C‑279/13, March 26, 2015

( 1 ) The ECJ had to decide whether linking to live internet streams of sport events infringed on the exclusive related rights of broadcasting organizations. Prior to this case,See details

European Court of Justice, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch, C348/13, October 21, 2014

( 1 ) The Court issued a reasoned order ex Article 99 of the Rule of Procedure of the European Court of Justice , which applied the findings of theSee details

European Court of Justice, Sotiris Papasavvas v O Fileleftheros Dimosia Etaireia Ltd and Others, C-291/13, September 11, 2014

The ECJ clarified the notion of "information society services" within the meaning of the Directive 2000/31/EC and the application of rules of civil liability for defamation to those intermediaries. TheSee details

European Court of Justice, Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG, C 117/13, September 11, 2014

The ECJ stated that European libraries may digitize books in their collection without permission from the rightholders. The decision confirmed a previous opinion of the ECJ's Advocate General . (See details

European Court of Justice, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González, C-131/12, May 13, 2014

( 1 ) ruling that "an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by thirdSee details

European Court of Justice, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproducktionsgesellschaft mbH, Case C-314/12, March 27, 2014

The ECJ stated that EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a court injunction that does not specify the measures which an access provider must take to block accessSee details

European Court of Justice, Nils Svensson et al v Retriever Sverige AB, C-466/12, February 13, 2014

The ECJ decided that links to authorized works freely available online do not infringe the E.U.-recognized exclusive right of communication to the public. The case involved journalists claiming that theSee details

European Court of Justice, ITV Broadcasting Ltd and others v TVCatchup Ltd, C-607/2011, March 7, 2013

( 1 ) The ECJ was asked to decide whether sites that link to streams are responsible for communicating copyrighted works to the public. In this case, the defendant operatedSee details

European Court of Justice, Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v. Netlog NV, C-360/10, February 16, 2012

The ECJ had to decide whether a Belgian court could require Netlog, the Belgian equivalent to Facebook, to immediately cease making available works from SABAM‘s repertoire by installing a filteringSee details

European Court of Justice, Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM), C-70/10, November 24, 2011

( 1 ) The ECJ had to decide whether a Belgian collective rights managment organization (SABAM) could require an internet service provider, namely Scarlet and Tiscali, to install a filteringSee details

European Court of Justice, L’Oréal SA and Others v. eBay International AG and Others, C-324/09, July 12, 2011

Considering the use of keywords as a trigger for contributory liability of an hosting provider that operates an online marketplace. The ECJ found that an hosting provider cannot benefit fromSee details

European Court of Justice, Google France SARL and Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, C-236/08, Google France SARL v. Viaticum SA and Luteciel SARL (C-237/08) and Google France SARL v. Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and Others, C-238/08, joined cases, March 23, 2010

Considering the contributory liability for trademark infringement of an hosting provider auctioning words corresponding to the plantiffs' trademarks while operating an online advertising service. The ECJ found that the providerSee details

European Court of Justice, LSG v. Tele2, C-557/07, February 19, 2009

Performing rights organization LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten ("LSG") asked Tele2 to disclose users’ temporary IP addresses as personal traffic data, for the purpose of civil proceedings for alleged infringementsSee details

European Court of Justice, Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España SAU, Case C-275/06, July 16, 2009

Promusicae sought an order from a commercial court in Spain to force Telefónica, a Spanish ISP, to divulge identities corresponding to IP addresses that Promusicae had collected in its ownSee details

Act 1068/2006, on the Measures Preventing the Propagation of Child pornography, December 2006

The law explicitly allows the police to maintain, and access providers to use for blocking, a secret list of websites, some 4000 entries, which may include child pornography. However, almostSee details

Act 460/2003, on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media, June 13, 2003 [English version]

The law includes additional provisions on freedom of expression. Most importantly, hosting providers have no "editor" responsibility. In this regard, Sections 17–20 and 22 apply to technical operations "consisting solelySee details

Act 458/2002, on Information Society Services and Electronic Commerce, June 5, 2002

The law implements the E-Commerce Directive almost verbatim, Sections 13–15 corresponding to Articles 12–14 of the Directive. ( 1 ) A presumption of knowledge is provided by the hosting exemptionSee details

Copyright Act 404/1961, July 8, 1961

Section 60a empowers a court to order an intermediary of those users to disclose information of subscribers who make copyrighted content available to the public "to a significant extent". SectionSee details

Code of Judicial Procedure 4/1734 [English version]

Chapter 7 and in particular its Section 3 provides a general provision on judicial precautionary (preliminary) measures. However, it has been held that these injunctions cannot be applied against intermediariesSee details

Copyright Act Amendment, HE 181/2014, submitted on October 9, 2014

The upcoming bill would inter alia rephrase Section 60c on blocking injunctions, reportedly making it clearer and removing the requirement to sue the infringer in case of anonymity.See details

Information Society Code, submitted on January 30, 2013 [English version]

The bill, approved with changes on October 7, 2014, combines most telecoms regulations in a consolidated code. It will also move the E-Commerce liability provisions there without changes. The dataSee details

Supreme Administrative Court, Lapsiporno.info, KHO 2013:136, August 26, 2013

The Court held that a site providing links of blocked targets was helping in propagating child pornography and there were grounds to add it to the blocking list provided bySee details

Supreme Court, Finreactor, 2010:47, June 30, 2010

The operators and administrators of Bittorrent tracker "Finreactor" were held to be jointly criminally liable for users' copyright infringement and, in consequence, also liable for compensation and remuneration. The hostingSee details

Supreme Court, Finreactor, 2010:48, June 30, 2010

In a parallel Finreactor case, the uploader of a torrent file was held to be criminally liable for other users' making available copyrighted files to the public.See details

Court of Appeal of Helsinki, TeliaSonera Finland, S 12/2223, February 11, 2013

 

Court of Appeal of Helsinki, DNA, S 12/1850, February 8, 2013

 

Court of Appeal of Helsinki, Elisa, S 11/3097, June 15, 2012 (Supreme Court denied leave to appeal)

These cases concerned blocking access to The Pirate Bay. Requests were granted, but the court approved the list of blocked IP addresses and DNS names. Court approval is required forSee details

Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland, Decision S 12/306, October 4, 2012

The Court held that, in case of infringiment committed through an open WLAN network, it was more likely that the infringment, which was carried out by making works available toSee details

Court of Appeal of Helsinki, "pelastakaa pedofiilit" decision, R 07/3400, May 29, 2008

The E-Commerce Act, Section 16 was applied to issue against a hosting provider an order to remove access to the website. However, probably due to a technical misunderstanding, the orderSee details

Court of Appeal of Helsinki, Decision S 05/445, June 2, 2005

The Court held that the Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 7, Section 3 (see above) is not applicable against intermediaries to order measures for copyright infringement.See details

District Court of Helsinki, Decision in case H 11/11065, July 21, 2012

 

District Court of Helsinki, Decision in case H 11/11063, May 9, 2011

 

District Court of Helsinki, Decision in case H 11/11018, March 31, 2011

 

District Court of Helsinki, Decision in case H 08/3008, June 23, 2008 and August 6, 2008

In these four cases, Section 60c of the Copyright Act was applied to disconnect DirectConnect p2p filesharing users. All the issues were settled quickly afterwards and later the request wasSee details

District Court of Helsinki , fin-tv.com, R 11/3075, April 29, 2011

In this case, Section 18 of the Freedom of Expression Act (460/2003) was argued to be the basis for access providers to block access to a website allegedly distributing FinnishSee details

District Court of Ylivieska-Raahe, Decision in case L 11/3769, May 14, 2012

The Court held that the provider of an open WLAN network was not shown to infringe and had no duty to protect the WLAN from outsiders. Therefore, the internet subscriberSee details

Law No 2014-315 of March 11, 2014, Reinforcing the Fight against Counterfeiting (renforçant la lutte contre la contrefaçon)

increasing access to information and damages available in case of infringement.See details

Law No. 2009-1311 of October 28, 2009, on the Criminal Protection of Literary and Artistic Property on the Internet

providing internet suspension sanctions for persons using the Internet to commit infringement (art 7 of this law, now codified under L335-7 French IPC) and obligations for owner of internet accessSee details

Law No. 2009-669 of June 12, 2009, Promoting The Dissemination and Protection Of Creative Works on The Internet (a.k.a. HADOPI law)

providing injunctive measures against any person likely to remedy the situation (art 10 now codified under L336-2 French Intellectual Property Code (IPC)See details

Law No. 2007-1544 of October 29, 2007, against Counterfeiting (de lutte contre la contrefacon)

notably providing that persons involved in the distribution of infringing products or providing a service used to infringe can be ordered to provide information concerning the source or network ofSee details

Law No, 2006-961 of August1, 2006, on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society (relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la societe de l’information, a.k.a DADVSI)

implementing new exception to copyright – providing injunctions against providers of software whose main functions is to give unauthorized access to copyrighted content.See details

Law No. 2004-575 of June 21, 2004, For Confidence in the Digital Economy (Loi pour la Confiance dans l’Economie Numérique a.k.a LCEN)

implementing limitations of liability provided in Council Directive 2000/31/EC (e-commerce Directive), specially to the benefit of routing, caching and hosting providers (see art. 6-I-2). No specific exemption for linking providers.See details

Civil Code (spec. art.1382 1383 and 1384)

providing the general principle of civil liability according to which any person is liable for the damages it causes.See details

Senate’s bill to establish compulsory collective management for the reproduction and communication to the public of plastic, graphic and photographic works by search engine

Senate’s bill offering to impose an automatic assignment of the right holder’s right to approved collecting societies, that would be in charge of negotiating agreements with search engine services inSee details

Cour de Cassation, Google Inc. / Compagnie des phares et balises ; Google Inc./ Bac Films, the Factory (movie “L’affaire Clearstream”); Google Inc./ Bac Films, the Factory, Canal + (movie “Les dissimulateurs”) and Google Inc./Les Films de la Croisade, Goatworks Films (movie “Mondovino”), July 12, 2012 (Court of Appeals of Paris, January 14, 2011)

Google is eligible under the hosting safe harbor and cannot be bound by general monitoring obligation but may be enjoined to set up some targeted and temporary monitoring tools toSee details

Cour de Cassation, Syndicat National des Producteurs de Music (SNEP) v. Google France, July 12, 2012

Google is liable for suggesting in its auto-suggest tool, words such as “Torrent”, “Megaupload” or “Rapidshare” when users type in names of artists or bands in the Google search bar,See details

Cour de Cassation, eBay Inc et al. v. LVMH, Parfums Christian Dior et al, May 3, 2012 (affirming C.A. Paris Sep. 3, 2010)

holding eBay liable for third parties’ sales on eBay because played an “active role” in providing assistance in the promotion and optimization of these offers. eBay was also held toSee details

Cour de Cassation, Christian C., Nord Ouest Production v. Dailymotion, UGC Images, February 17, 2011

holding video sharing platform Dailymotion eligible under the hosting safe harbor. The Court held that the mere awareness by the intermediary that its service may be used for infringing activitySee details

Cour de Cassation, Olivier Martinez v. Bloobox.net, February 17, 2011 (affirming Court of Appeals of Paris, November 21, 2008)

dismissing M. X (actor) from its action based on breach of privacy, based on the fact that Bloobox was a mere aggregator, whose activity was limited to organizing and classifyingSee details

Cour de Cassation (ch. crim.), Galatee films et al v. AOL France et al Cour de Cassation (1ere civ.), January 11, 2011

providing no liability for the advertisers which had put advertisement on peer-to-peer websites offering illegal content because no intent to facilitate infringement was shown.See details

Cour de Cassation, Telecom Italia (formerly Tiscali Media) v. Companies Dargaud Lombard and Lucky Comics, January 14, 2010

holding Tiscali liable under a regime of regular liability for hosting on its portal a blog featuring unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted comics owned by Dargaud because its function was thatSee details

Cour de Cassation, Sedo GmbH v. Hotel Meridien, Stephane H., October 21, 2008 (affirming Hôtels Meridien v. Sedo, Stephane H., Paris Court of Appeal, March 7, 2007)

holding Sedo, domain name selling platform, liable for assisting third parties bidding on famous trademarksSee details

TF1 v. DailyMotion, Court of Appeals of Paris, December 2, 2014

The Paris Court of Appeals handed down a decision awarding €1.3M in damages to the French commercial TV broadcaster TF1 against DailyMotion, which failed its duty of promptly removing infringingSee details

Licra, ACIT, CRIF v. Orange, SFR, Bouygues, Numericables, Darty Telecom, TGI Toulouse, April 11, 2014

Court dismisses A.G.’s action aimed at taking down allegedly anti-Semitic blog “Joe Le Corbeau” based on lack of respect of formalities of 1881 law on freedom of press (lack ofSee details

Bluetouff v. Anses, Court of Appelas of Paris, February 14, 2014

blogger Bluetoof is held liable on the ground of fraudulent accessing and/or remaining on an automated data processing system further to the publication of confidential document of ANSES (national agencySee details

Overblog v. Paperblog, Court of Appeals of Paris, November 8, 2013

blog aggregator paperblog is entitled to safe harbor protection because does not have control over, or prior knowledge of, content hosted.See details

Youtube v. SPPF, Paris Court of Appeal, June 21 2013

holding Youtube eligible under the hosting safe harbor and not liable for the re-posting of content already flagged as infringing. Only the judicial authority has the power to impose onSee details

Google v. Jean-Baptiste D.V. et al, Lyon Court of Appeals, March 22, 2012

 

eBay International v. Burberry et al., Paris Court of Appeals, January 23, 2012

eBay is not eligible under the hosting safe harbor because plays an active role in the promotion and follow-up of the sales. As a result, eBay is and liable forSee details

Cobrason v. Google, Inc, Google France & Home Ciné Solutions, Paris Court of Appeals, May 11, 2011

Google is contributory liable on the ground of unfair competition, misleading advertising and illegal comparative advertising for having sold as Adwords to Cobrason’s main competitor, Cobrason’s trademarks thereby contributing toSee details

André Rau v. Google & Au feminin.com, Paris Court of Appeals, Feb. 5, 2011 (affirming TGI Paris 3e ch. 2nd section, Oct. 9, 2009)

Google has an obligation not only to take down but also to make sure that an image identified as infringing does not reappear on its website (take down/ Stay down).See details

Société des Auteurs des Arts visuels et de L’image Fixe (SAIF) v. Google France and Google Inc, Court of Appeals of Paris, January 26, 2011

Holding Google eligible under the hosting safe harbor. The Court held that the mere awareness by the intermediary that its service may be used for infringing activity was insufficient toSee details

Zadig Production v. Google Inc, Court of Appeals of Paris, December 3, 2010

 

Google at al. v. Syndicat Français de la litterie, Paris Court of Appeals, November 25, 2010

 

LVMH v. eBay, Court of Appeals of Paris, September 3, 2010 (affirming Commercial Court of Paris (T.C.), June 30, 2008)

liability of eBay for third party’s sales.See details

Hermes v. eBay, Court of Appeals of Reims, July 20, 2010

holding eBay liable for sales by third party on its platforms of bags and items infringing Hermes’ rights.See details

Dailymotion v. Nord Ouest Production et al., Paris Court of Appeals, ch. 4, sec. A., May 5, 2009

 

O. Martinez v. Bloobox.net, Court of Appeals of Paris, November 21, 2008 (reversing TGI Paris, March 2008)

no liability of aggregator for third party content because did not have knowledge or control over such content.See details

eBay v. DWC, Paris Court of Appeals, November 9, 2007

 

Google France v. Louis Vuitton Malletier, Court of Appeals of Paris , June 28, 2006

Adwords case referred to the ECJ in Google France and Google v. LVMH.See details

Google v. Viaticum and Luteciel, Versailles Court of Appeals, March 10, 2005

 

Estelle Halliday v. Valentin Lacambre, Paris Court of Appeals, 14th ch., February 10, 1999 (Gaz. Pal. 5-6 April 2000, jurisp. 19)

early case law re. ISP liability (before e-commerce Directive) : holding hosting provider liable for hosting nude or semi-nude photos of famous actress.See details

La Societe Civile des Producteurs Phonographiques (SCPP) v. Orange, Free, SFR, and Bouygues Telecom, Tribunal de Grand Instance (TGI) Paris, December 4, 2014

The High Court of Paris ordered ISPs to “implement all necessary measures to prevent access from the French territory to the music file-sharing site the Pirate Bay and its redirectionSee details

X v. Google Inc, T.C. (Commercial Court) Paris, January 28, 2014

Google is subject to data protection law (loi informatique et liberte) and liable for breaching it when kept in Google suggest tools, personal information about art dealer (criminal charges forSee details

APC et al v. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Bouygues et Al (Allostreaming decision), TGI Paris, November 28, 2013

ordering main French ISPs and search engines (Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! to block access and referencing to unauthorized movie streaming site.See details

Google v. Mosley, TGI Paris, November 6, 2013

Google is ordered to take down and stop referencing in its Google image tool for a duration of 5 years, 9 photos of Max Mosley which had already been heldSee details

Bruno L. v. Google, October 23, 2013

Liability of Google on the ground of general civil liability for refusing to delete from its Google suggest tool suggestions such as “crook” or “sect” associated with the name ofSee details

Matthieu S. v. Twitter, TGI Paris, April 4, 2013

Paris Court orders Twitter to provide personal identification information of fake Twitter profile, regardless of the fact that this information was hosted in the US.See details

Twitter v. UEJF, J’Accuse, MRAP, SOS Racisme and Licra, TGI Paris, January 24, 2013

Paris Court orders Twitter to (i) provide identification information of Twitter users who had created allegedly racist and anti-Semitic hashtags on the ground of French Civil Procedure regulation (legitimate reasonSee details

eBay v. Maceo, TGI Paris, 3rd ch., 3rd Section, March 13, 2012

eBay is eligible under the hosting safe harbor and neither the selling tools he is offering to increase the sales of its users nor the financial interest he is takingSee details

Olivier Martinez v. Google and Prisma Press, TGI Paris, November 14, 2011

holding Google liable for breach of privacy resulting from its Adwords and Google suggest services, as a result of “knowledge” imputed to Google as a result of its “active role”See details

Andre Rau v. Google Images, TGI Paris, May 26, 2011

Google is eligible under hosting safe harbor and not liable for future posting of same images (no take down/ stay down obligation). Moreover, linking is not reproducing and indexation ofSee details

H & K SALR and M/A v. Google France, Google Inc. and Aufeminin.com, TGI Paris, October 9, 2009

 

Omar et Fred et al v. Youtube et al, TGI Paris, 3rd ch, 1st section, September 22, 2009

 

Eva Herzigova v. Société de conception de presse et d’édition, TGI Paris, June 8, 2009

 

SARL Temps noir et al v. Youtube, Dailymotion, Google Inc., TGI Paris, 3rd ch, 3rd section, May 13, 2009

 

L’Oreal et al. v. eBay et al, TGI Paris, May 13, 2009

 

SA Direct Energy v. Google, Commercial Court of Paris (T.C.), May 7, 2009

 

Roland Magdane et al v. Youtube, TGI Paris (sum. Judg.), March 5, 2009

 

Jean-Yves Lafesse et al v. Youtube, TGI Paris, November 14, 2008

 

SA Louis Vuitton Malletier v. eBay Inc, eBay International AG; Parfums Christian Dior et al. v. eBay Inc, eBay International AG; Christian Dior Couture v. eBay Inc, eBay International AG, Commercial Court of Paris, June 30, 2008 (affirmed by Court of Appeal of Paris, Pole 5, ch. 2, September 3, 2010).

holding eBay not eligible under hosting safe harbor and liable for third party’s infringing sales on eBay.See details

Hermes v. eBay, TGI Troyes, June 4, 2008

 

Dahan v. Eric Duperrin (les pipoles.com), TGI Nanterre, February 2008

 

Flach Film & Les Editions Montparnasse v. Google France, Google Inc, Commercial Court of Paris (T.C.), February 20, 2008

 

TWD Industry v. Google France and Google Inc., Court of Appeals of Aix en Provence, December 6, 2007

 

Kenzo v. DMIS (Vivastreet), Commercial Court of Paris (T.C.) (Sum. Judg.), July 26 and October 31, 2007

 

Zadig Production v. Google Inc, Afa, TGI Paris, October 19, 2007

 

Christian C. and Nord Ouest production v. Dailymotion, TGI Paris, July 13, 2007 (reversed by Cour de Cassation Feb. 2011 – see above)

 

J. Y. Lafesse v. Google et al, TGI Paris, 3rd ch., 3rd section, June 24, 2006

 

GIFAM v. Google, TGI Paris, 2006

 

Société Viaticum, Luteciel v. Google France, TGI Nanterre, October 13, 2003

early case law regarding ISP liability, holding Google liable for Adwords services.See details

Yahoo! v. Association Amicale des déportés d’Auschwitz et des camps de Haute Silesie, le MRAP, TGI Paris, February 11, 2003

 

Greenpeace v. Esso, TGI Paris, July 8, 2002

 

Gervais Danone Co. v. M Olivier M., TGI Paris (sum Judg.), April 23, 2001

 

RATP v. Valentin Lacambre et al, TGI Paris, 3rd ch, 3rd sec (sum. Judg.), March 21, 2000

 

Lacoste v. Multimania, Eterel and Cybermedia, TGI Nanterre, December 8, 1999 (affirmed by Court of Appeals of Versailles, June 8, 2000)

 

Telemedia Act, February 26, 2007

The Telemedia Act (Telemediengesetz, TMG) applies to all providers of electronic information and communication services, such as ISPs, to the extent that they are not providing telecommunications services. The TelemediaSee details

Civil Code, August 18, 1886

The Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) comprises general regulations civil law provision, e.g. on contract law, tort law and property law. The central provisions which may be applied to intermediaries,See details

Coalition Contract, December 16, 2013 [Expansion of Hosting Provider Liability]

After the federal elections in Germany in September 2013, the leaders of the two coalition parties have concluded a non-binding coalition agreement that includes expanded hosting provider liability for onlineSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], Sixth Civil Section, Jameda, VI ZR 34/15, March 1, 2016

( 1 ) The court ruled that a “review portal” can be liable for the accuracy of user-generated ratings on their web-page if they do not verify the review uponSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], First Civil Section, GEMA, I ZR 3/14, November 26, 2015

( 1 ) The Court decided on actions against internet service providers over access to websites linking to copyright infringing material. The collecting rights society GEMA sought to enjoin DeutscheSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], First Civil Section, Hotelbewertungsportal, I ZR 94/13, March 19, 2015

The court ruled that online travel agencies are not liable for the accuracy of user-generated ratings on their web pages. First, anonymous remarks in a review cannot be ascribed toSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], GEMA v. Rapidshare, I ZR 80/12, August 15, 2013

( 1 ) This case concerns a dispute between the German copyright collecting society, GEMA, and the Swiss-based file-hosting service, RapidShare. GEMA sued RapidShare in Germany, alleging that over 4,800See details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], Sixth Civil Section, Google Autocomplete, VI ZR 269/12, May 14, 2013

The prediction of certain negative terms within the autocomplete function of the Google’s search engine is likely to violate personality rights. Google is not privileged by § 10 TMG becauseSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], First Civil Section, Morpheus, I ZR 74/12, November 15, 2012

The Court ruled that parents are not liable under parental responsibility laws for damages caused by their children using file sharing devices, if parents duly fulfill their supervisory duties. TheSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], First Civil Section, Sommer unseres Lebens, I ZR 74/12, November 15, 2012

The Court ruled that whoever uses a Wi-Fi router and does not implement the safety standards against third party usage that are commonly accepted at the time the router isSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], Atari Europe v. Rapidshare, I ZR 18/11, July 12, 2012

In this case, RapidShare neglected to check whether certain files violating Atari's copyright over the computer game "Alone in the dark" were stored on its servers by other users. TheSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], First Civil Section, Jugendgefährdende Medien bei eBay, I ZR 18/04, July 12, 2007

Even if there is no direct responsibility of intermediaries due to the privilege of § 10 TMG, intermediaries have a duty to prevent others from violating youth protection law andSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], Sixth Civil Section, Katzenfreund, VI ZR 101/06, July 23, 2007

The Court accepted an injunction against an Internet forum operator whose user was found to commit libel on the service. The court noted that even if the operator did notSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], First Civil Section, Internetversteigerung II, I ZR 35/04, April 19, 2007

The Court confirmed that an injunction against a disturber is available when no third party infringement was committed, but is feared. The Court recalled that injunctions should not lead toSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], First Civil Section, Internetversteigerung I, I ZR 304/01, March 11, 2004

Auction portals like eBay are neither direct infringer nor aider and abettor and hence generally does not bear tortious liability for infringing offers of its users. Obligation to remove offersSee details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], First Civil Section, kurt-biedenkopf.de, I ZR 82/01, February 19, 2004

The Court confirmed its ambiente.de case holding that same applies even in case of re-registration of the infringing domain names.See details

Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice of Germany], First Civil Section, ambiente.de, I ZR 251/99, May 17, 2001

A domain name authority is neither a direct infringer nor an aider and abettor and hence generally does not bear tortious liability for third party registrations that infringe trademarks rightsSee details

Landgericht Heidelberg [District Court of Heidelberg], Civil, 2 O 162/13, December 9, 2014

The Court to decide whether Google had to remove links to a web page which claimed to “expose” racists, i.e. the plaintiffs. The Court ordered Google to remove the linksSee details

Landgericht Hamburg [District Court of Hamburg], Civil, 324 O 660/12, November 7, 2014

The plaintiff, an entrepreneur, alleged that the German google-webpage contained a “snippet” from a third-party’s blog which suggested that the plaintiff had owned a brothel. In German legal language, aSee details

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart [Higher Regional Court in Stuttgart], Civil, Wikimedia, 4 U 78/13, October 2, 2013

The plaintiff, a TV station owner, alleged that the German-language Wikipedia article about him contained inaccurate information. The Court ruled that Wikimedia is a “service provider” and not a “contentSee details

European Union (Copyright and Related Rights) Regulations 2012, S.I. No. 59 of 2012

These Regulations amend sections 40 and 205 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 to allow an application for an injunction against an intermediary regarding copyright infringement. They wereSee details

Defamation Act 2009

The legislation governing defamation in Ireland. Includes a defence of innocent publication in s.27. A court may make an order prohibiting publication of a defamatory statement under s.33. The ActSee details

European Communities (Directive 2000/31/EC) Regulations 2003, S.I. No. 68 of 2003

This Statutory Instrument implements the E-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC) into Irish law. The Regulations include restrictions on liability, subject to certain conditions, regarding mere conduits, caching and hosting (Regs. 15-18).See details

Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000

The main Act dealing with Copyright in Ireland. The Act has been amended a number of times and most of the amendments are available here . Of particular relevance toSee details

Communications (Retention of Data) Act, 2011

 

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

 

Trade Marks Act, 1996

 

Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989

 

Data Protection Acts, 1988-2003

 

Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998

 

Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997

 

Criminal Damage Act, 1991

 

Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland, Code of Practice and Ethics, 2002

The Code governs the conduct of ISPAI's Members and may be amended from time to time by 75% majority vote of members of ISPAI. The Code mandates the development ofSee details

Copyright Review Committee, Modernising Copyright, 2013

A report by an expert committee on reform of copyright law, including a draft Bill. Includes proposals concerning intermediaries, e.g. (1) that a “marshalling” exception be introduced for sites whichSee details

Privacy Bill, 2006

The Privacy Bill was published by the previous Government in 2006 but has not been enacted. In 2012, the Minister for Justice stated that he was considering re-introducing a versionSee details

Supreme Court, EMI v Data Protection Commissioner [2013] IESC 34

A settlement had been reached between record companies and a large ISP, Eircom, instituting a Graduated Response Protocol under which Eircom would issue copyright infringement notices to customers. The DataSee details

High Court, Sony Music & Ors v UPC Communications [2015] IECH 317

( 1 ) The plaintiffs, Sony, Universal and Warner Music, sought an injunction to impose upon UPC Communications, the second largest Irish Internet access provider, an obligation to implement aSee details

High Court, Walsh v Twitter, October 2, 2015

( 1 ) Twitter International Company was ordered to disclose data about the source of tweets about a whistleblower. The tweets, which included allegations of insurance fraud, are alleged toSee details

High Court, Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner [2014] IEHC 310

( 1 ) The Data Protection Act 1988 as amended prohibits transfers of personal data outside the state unless adequate privacy protections are in place. In 2000, the European CommissionSee details

High Court, Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (No.2) [2014] IEHC 351

The High Court ordered that Digital Rights Ireland (DRI) be added as amicus curiae in the proceedings, which will now proceed to the CJEU. DRI had stated that it wouldSee details

High Court, Cummins v Twitter, February 2014

The High Court ordered that Twitter remove defamatory posts concerning the mayor of Waterford. The order was made under s.33 of the Defamation Act 2009.See details

High Court, EMI v UPC [2013] IEHC 274

Record companies successfully applied for an order against various ISPs blocking access to the Pirate Bay website, based on the amended s.40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000.See details

High Court, EMI v UPC [2013] IEHC 204

Record companies had instituted proceedings seeking an order against various ISPs blocking access to the Pirate Bay website. Digital Rights Ireland (DRI) applied to be added as an amicus curiae.See details

High Court, Tansey v Gill [2012] IEHC 42

The plaintiff claimed he had been defamed on the website www.rate-your-solicitor.com . He successfully sought interlocutory orders under s.33 of the Defamation Act 2009 against certain defendants prohibiting publication ofSee details

High Court, McKeogh v Doe [2012] IEHC 95

The plaintiff had wrongly been identified as the taxi fare evader shown in a video posted on various websites. The judgment primarily concerns the issue of whether the plaintiff couldSee details

High Court, EMI v UPC [2010] IEHC 377

Record companies sought orders ( 1 ) restraining UPC, an ISP, from making available to the public copies of sound recordings which breach copyright and ( 2 ) requiring UPCSee details

High Court, Digital Rights Ireland v Minister for Communications [2010] IEHC 22

This litigation concerned the validity of the data retention requirements imposed on ISPs and telephony providers. This case led to a decision by the CJEU (Grand Chamber) that the DataSee details

High Court, EMI v Eircom [2010] IEHC 108

Record companies had reached a settlement with a large ISP (Eircom) instituting a graduated response system. Charleton J. held that the settlement did not breach data protection laws as IPSee details

High Court: Irish Red Cross v UPC and Google (Unreported, 2010)

According to website reports, it appears that the High Court ordered that UPC and Google reveal the name of an anonymous blogger who allegedly breached confidentiality on the Blogger website.See details

High Court, EMI v Eircom [2009] IEHC 411

Record companies had reached a settlement with a large ISP (Eircom) instituting a graduated response system. The court ordered, on application by the record companies, that Eircom should block accessSee details

High Court, Mulvaney v Sporting Exchange trading as Betfair [2009] IEHC 133

Betfair was a gambling site which also operated internet forums (chatrooms) where users could discuss sports events and other issues. The plaintiffs alleged defamation by forum users. As a preliminarySee details

High Court, Ryanair v Johnston, 2005/514P, July 12, 2006

This was an action against the operators and moderator of an internet site and bulletin board set up to facilitate discussions by Ryanair pilots. Ryanair alleged that bullying and intimidationSee details

High Court, EMI v Eircom [2005] IEHC 233

Record companies requested Eircom, a large ISP, to provide identities of 17 customers who were allegedly infringing copyright. The High Court ordered that customers’ identities should be passed to theSee details

Law Implementing Directive 2004/48/CE of 29 April 2004 Relating to the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, as amended, May 22, 2009

providing that the President of the District Court ("Tribunal d'arrondissement") may issue an interim injunction, upon request of a person authorised to file an action for counterfeiting, against an intermediarySee details

Law on the Freedom of Expression in the Media, as amended, June 8, 2004

providing that the civil or criminal liability for any infringement committed by way of a media lies on the contributor, if known, or by default, on the editor, or bySee details

Law on Copyrights, Related Rights and Databases, as amended, April 18, 2001

providing that the judge may issue a cessation injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe a copyright or a sui generis right on databases (See details

Law on E-commerce, as amended, August 14, 2000

implementing almost verbatim the Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on E-commerce regarding the mere conduit (Article 60), caching (Article 61), and hosting (Article 62) exemptions for intermediaries, together withSee details

Law Modifying the Regime of Patents, as amended, July 20, 1992

providing that the judge may issue a cessation injunction against the intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe patents ( Article 80ter ).See details

Tribunal d'arrondissement [District Court], Civil, 31/2010, January 27, 2010

recalling that the liability for any infringement committed by way of a media lies on the contributor, if known, or by default, on the editor, or by default, on theSee details

AGCOM Regulations regarding Online Copyright Enforcement, 680/13/CONS, December 12, 2013

Vesting the Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM) with new administrative copyright enforcement powers; copyright enforcement would be done through administrative procedures which would not target direct infringers but rather Internet ServiceSee details

Legislative Decree N. 140, March 16, 2006 Implementing Directive 2004/48/EC

implementing Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive in the following terms: ( 1 ) amending Article 156 of the Italian Copyright Law as follows: "who has reason to fear theSee details

Legislative Decree N. 68, April 9, 2003 Implementing Directive 2001/29/EC

( 1 ) including a new Article 68bis in the Italian Copyright law stating that "except as provided by the E-Commerce Directive regarding liability of intermediaries, acts of temporary reproductionSee details

Legislative Decree N. 70, April 9, 2003 Implementing Directive 2000/31/EC

Implementing almost verbatim the eCommerce Directive and including mere conduit (Article 14), caching (Article 15), and hosting (Article 16) exemptions for intermediaries, together with the exclusion of a general obligationSee details

Legislative Decree N. 196, June 30, 2003 Implementing Data Protection Directive

Implementing the Data Protection Directive 95/46 into the “Personal Data Protection Code” or so-called “Privacy Code”. Instituting a “Personal Data Authority” (“Garante”) an administrative body responsible for: (Section 154 DataSee details

Law N. 633, April 22, 1941 on the Protection of Copyright and Neighboring Rights [English Version]

Providing that ( 1 ) the acts of temporary reproduction devoid of economic significance which are transient or incidental and an integral and essential part of a technological process andSee details

Regulatory Entity: Communication Authority (AGCOM)

The AGCOM Regulations regarding Online Copyright Enforcement vested the Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM) with new administrative copyright enforcement powers; copyright enforcement would be done through administrative procedures which would notSee details

Corte di Cassazione [Supreme Court], Third Criminal Section, Google-Vividown, 5107/14, December 17, 2013

Upholding the Milan Court of Appeal’s judgment and concluding a long dispute between the no-profit association Vividown and Google. ( 1 ) Vividown brought a lawsuit against Google because itSee details

Corte di Cassazione [Supreme Court], Third Criminal Section, ThePirateBay, 49437/09, September 29, 2009

Endorsing a principle upon which the judiciary is entrusted with the power of ordering the intermediaries to provide a material aid to prevent further copyright infringement by blocking access toSee details

Corte di Cassazione [Supreme Court], Third Criminal Section, Coolstreaming and Calciolibero, 33945/06, October 10, 2006

( 1 ) Coolstreaming and Calciolibero facilitated access to soccer games, which were originally streamed by a Chinese broadcaster, by providing online information and links allowing viewers to connect directlySee details

Corte d'Appello di Milano [Court of Appeal of Milan], Civil, Reti Televisive Italiane S.p.A. (RTI) v. Yahoo! Italia S.r.l. (Yahoo!) et al., 3821/2011, January 7, 2015

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 videosSee details

Tribunale di Roma [Court of Rome], Civil, TMFT Enterprises LLC- Break Media v. Reti Televisive Italiane S.p.A. (RTI), April 27, 2016

( 1 ) The Court of Rome found TMFT Enterprises LLC- Break Media ("Break Media") liable for copyright infringement for the unauthorized streaming of audiovisual content to which Reti TelevisiveSee details

Tribunale Regionale Amministrativo (TAR) del Lazio [Lazio Regional Administrative Tribunal], Administrative, ANSO, FEMI and Open Media Coalition v. Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM), 2184/2014, June 25, 2014

( 1 ) The associations for the defense of freedom of information as well as those representing web-tv, micro web-tv, micromedia hyperlocal, blogs and video blogs, information portals, aggregators andSee details

Tribunale di Roma [Tribunal of Rome], Civil, Antonio Angelucci and Giampaolo Angelucci v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Italia, 70572/09, July 9, 2014

( 1 ) Italian politicians Antonio Angelucci and his son claimed that Wikipedia pages related to the Angeluccis contained false statements supposedly harming the family’s reputation. The allegedly defamatory statementsSee details

Tribunale di Roma [Tribunal of Rome], Criminal, Operation EyeMoon, July 2014

( 1 ) The Tribunal of Rome ordered Internet Service Providers to block access in Italy to the ip addresses of 24 websites hosting copyrighted content without the rightsholders’ consent.See details

Tribunale di Torino [Tribunal of Turin], Civil, IP Specialized Section, Delta TV Programs S.rl. v. YouTube et al, June 23, 2014

Reversing en banc a previous judgment of the same Tribunal of May 5, 2014 (see below). This time, the Court accepted Delta TV’s request for interim injunction against Google andSee details

Tribunale di Torino [Tribunal of Turin], Civil, IP Specialized Section, Delta TV Programs S.rl. v. YouTube et al, May 5, 2014

Rejecting Delta TV’s request for interim injunction against YouTube for copyright infringement on certain South American soap operas which had been uploaded by YouTube users. Delta TV sued Google andSee details

Tribunale di Milano [Tribunal of Milan], Criminal, Lega Calcio, July 19, 2013

Ordering Internet Service Providers to block access within Italy to all present and future IP numbers associated with the Rojadirecta domain names, a website linking to football games streamed onlineSee details

Tribunale di Roma [Tribunal of Rome], Civil, IP Specialized Section, Reti Televisive Italiane v. Il Post, 15055/13, July 16, 2013

Ruling that by providing links to streaming services, an Italian news website had infringed on copyrights owned by a major Italian media company in relation to the broadcasting of footballSee details

Tribunale di Roma [Tribunal of Rome], Civil, IP Specialized Section, Previti v. Wikimedia, 12262/13, June 20, 2013

Ruling against the plaintiff - who claimed that Wikipedia was responsible for the inaccurate and defamatory statements posted by individual users on the page devoted to him. The court foundSee details

Tribunale di Milano [Tribunal of Milan], Civil, Paoletti et all v. Google, 68306/12, March 25, 2013

Reversing its previous decision of March 24, 2011 on the liability of search engines for the results generated by the "auto-complete" function. The court resoned that those results are notSee details

Tribunale di Milano [Tribunal of Milan], Criminal, Reti Televisive Italiane, January 12, 2013

Ordering Internet Service Providers to block access to 10 websites streaming football games without authorization upon a claim of the main Italian private broadcaster (RTI-Mediaset), since the unlawful streaming infringedSee details

Tribunale di Milano [Tribunal of Milan], Criminal, Mondadori, November 22, 2012

At the request of Italy’s largest publishing company, Mondadori, the court ordered all Italian Internet Service Providers to block access within the Italian terriory to Avaxhome.ws, a popular website featuringSee details

Tribunale di Milano [Tribunal of Milan], Civil, Reti Televisive Italiane S.p.A. (RTI) v. Yahoo! Italia S.r.l. (Yahoo!) et al., 3821/11, September 9, 2011

The Court of Milan found Yahoo! liable for copyright infringement. Infringement supposedly occurred with the publication of fragments of television programs through the now deceased Yahoo! Video service. The CourtSee details

Tribunale di Roma [Tribunal of Rome], Civil, IP Specialized Section, Reti Televisive Italiane v. Rojadirecta, August 17, 2011

Concluding that Rojadirecta “consciously and willfully” aided and abetted the infringement of the right to broadcasting sporting events because the links, which may in itself be legit, were integrated inSee details

Privacy Authority ("Garante") Decision about the Publication on a Newspaper Bulletin Board of Personal Data concerning Heath, doc. web n. 1821322, May 19, 2011

The claimant asked the newspaper to remove the message herself posted on the board. She claimed she was not aware of the public nature of the board and she deemedSee details

Privacy Authority ("Garante") Decision about the Request of Deleting a “Tag” from a Facebook Picture, doc. web n. 1712776, 18 February 2010

The claimant requested to force Facebook to remove of a “tag” from a Facebook photo able to identify her and her sexual orientation. The Garante rejected the complaint because theSee details

Privacy Authority ("Garante") Decision about “The Right to be Forgotten”: Obsolete Information Found in Online Archives of Newspapers through Search Engines, doc. web n. 1583162, December 11, 2008

The claimant was seeking to remove an article concerning an investigation about him dated 1993. The claimant was later found innocent in connection with the investigation described in the article.See details

Law No. XII-1428on Cyber Security, December 11, 2014

The law established specific requirements applicable to public electronic communication and hosting service providers. The law grants jurisdiction to law enforcement entities to issue mandatory orders to the service providersSee details

Regulation on Mandatory Filtering Measures to be Used at Locations of Public Access to Internet, approved by the Government Resolution No. 463 on April 28, 2010.

The Regulation requires all internet service providers who offer access to internet at public places to install mandatory filtering measures approved by the Information Society Development Committee under the MinistrySee details

Regulation on Denial of Access to Information which was Acquired, Created, Modified or Used Illegally, approved by the Government Resolution No. 881 on August 22, 2007

( 1 ) The Regulation provides for detailed procedure and steps to be followed by service providers in dealing with take down requests against illegal content. ( 2 ) TheSee details

Law No. X-614 On Information Society Services, as amended, May 25, 2006

The law implements the Ecommerce Directive 2000/31/EC transposing the provisions on liability of intermediaries (mere conduit, caching and hosting) ( Articles 12 to 14 ) almost identically to the directiveSee details

Law No. VIII-1185 on Copyright and Related Rights, as amended, May 18, 1999

The law implements the Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. ( 1 ) Article 78 of the law providesSee details

Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Case No. 3K-3-49/2013, February 27, 2013

( 1 ) Applicants sought the court to declare information disseminated on a website as false, offending honour and dignity and business reputation and to adjudge non-pecuniary damages. ( 2See details

Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Case No. 3K-3-586/2012, December 21, 2012

( 1 ) The court explained that claim against an information society service provider for removal of illegal information can be made regardless of whether he is a passive intermediarySee details

Supreme Court of Lithuania, Civil Case No. 3K-3-479/2012, November 13, 2012

( 1 ) The case focused on a take down request against a service provider that hosted a website dedicated to publishing consumers’ complaints. The claimant requested to disable publicationSee details

Vilnius Regional Court, Civil Case No. 2A-1049-577/2015, January 6, 2015; Civil Case No. 2A-1407-392/2015, May 4, 2015

( 1 ) In both cases, the claimant asked the court to find the communication service providers (cable network companies) liable for copyright infringement committed by its users, who downloadedSee details

Kaunas Regional Court, Civil Case No. 2A-852-324/2012, May 24, 2012

The court decided that in cases when hosting service provider after receiving a take down request is not able to contact the user, who posted the content, the legal consequencesSee details

Legislative Decree Stb. 2007, 108, March 8, 2007, Law implementing Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC); Article 26d Dutch Copyright Act

Article 26d of the Dutch Copyright Act contains a rule that allows courts to subject an intermediary to an injunction without the intermediary having to commit a tort. The articleSee details

Legislative Decree Stb. 2004, 210, May 25, 2004, Law implementing E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC); Article 6:196c Dutch Civil Code [English version]

This law implemented the E-Commerce Directive into Dutch law, including an almost verbatim implementation of the limitations on liability of Articles 12 to 14 of the Directive. It added aSee details

Article 6:162 Dutch Civil Code

Article 6:162 DCC is the general basis for claims for damages that arise from torts. On the basis of 6:162(1) DCC, “a person who commits a tort towards another whichSee details

Article 3:296 Dutch Civil Code

Under Dutch law, injunctions are based on Article 3:296 DCC, which indicates that if someone is obligated to give, to do, or to refrain from doing something towards another, heSee details

Notice-and-Take-Down Code of Conduct, October 9, 2008 [English Version]

The Dutch government, businesses and interest groups created a code of conduct on 'notice and takedown.' The code contains a procedure to deal with requests to take down content. EndorsementSee details

Hoge Raad [Dutch Supreme Court], Civil law, Lycos v. Pessers, ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AU4019, 25 November 2005

The Dutch Supreme Court confirmed a Court of Appeals decision holding that even when a hosting provider itself does not commit a tort by refusing to delete defamatory information onSee details

Gerechtshof Den Haag [Court of Appeals Den Haag], Civil law, Ziggo and XS4ALL v. BREIN, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2014:88, January 28, 2014

The Court of Appeals stroke through the decision of the District Court of Den Haag, which held that Internet access providers Ziggo and XS4ALL had to block access to theSee details

Gerechtshof Amsterdam [Court of Appeals Amsterdam], Civil law, GS Media v. Sanoma, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2013:4019, November 19, 2013

The case is about leaked nude photographs of Dutch television-personality Britt Dekker that had yet to appear in Playboy magazine. An unknown person had stored the photographs online with Filefactory’sSee details

Gerechtshof Leeuwarden [Court of Appeals Leeuwarden], Civil law, Stokke v. Marktplaats, ECLI:NL:GHLEE:2012:BW6296, May 22, 2012

Online marketplace Marktplaats is covered by the hosting safe harbor provision in Article 6:196c(4) of the Dutch Civil Code with regard to copyright infringing advertisements. The Court of Appeals heldSee details

Gerechtshof Amsterdam [Court of Appeals Amsterdam], Civil law, Shareconnector v. Brein, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2010:BL7920, March 16, 2010

The website operator in question had created a website that listed, verified and categorized hash codes that could be used to download copyright protected works on the e-Donkey peer-to-peer fileSee details

Gerechtshof Arnhem [Court of Appeals Arnhem], Civil law, NVM v. Alletekoopstaandehuizen.NL, ECLI:NL:GHARN:2006:AY0089, July 4, 2006

This case is about the liability of an operator of a search engine that offered information on houses for sale. The search engine provided deep links into the websites ofSee details

Gerechtshof Amsterdam [Court of Appeals Amsterdam], Civil law, Brein v. Techno Design, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2006:AX7579, June 15, 2006

This case deals with the liability of an operator of a search engine for MP3-files stored on other locations on the Internet. The Court of Appeals held the search engineSee details

Gerechtshof Amsterdam [Court of Appeals Amsterdam], Civil law, KaZaA v. Buma/Stemra, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2002:AE0805, March 28, 2002

KaZaA offered peer-to-peer file sharing software that could be used to share all kinds of computer files, including music files. The KaZaA-network was a decentralized network that made use ofSee details

Rechtbank Amsterdam [District Court Amsterdam], Civil law, X. v. Facebook, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2015:3984, June 25, 2015

( 1 ) The Amsterdam District Court ruled that Facebook has a duty to identify a person who has uploaded a revenge porn video on its social network. ( 2See details

Rechtbank Amsterdam [District Court Amsterdam], Civil law, Kim Holland Productions v. 123Video, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2010:BP6880, November 24, 2010

This case deals with the liability of the operator of video hosting platform 123video.nl, which stored, converted and categorized videos uploaded by its users. The videos in question were ofSee details

Rechtbank Utrecht [District Court Utrecht], Civil law, Brein v. Mininova, ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2009:BJ6008, August 26, 2009

This case dealt with the liability of a website operator that stored and made available torrent-files on his website. The District Court held that the storing of torrent-files is notSee details

Act of July 18, 2002 on Providing Services by Electronic Means, O.J. 2002 No. 144, item 1204 as amended [English Version]

This Act implemented the EU Electronic Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC, introducing intermediary liability for unlawful content. Following the Directive it differentiates between mere conduit, catching and hosting, introducing no obligation toSee details

Press Law Act of January 26, 1984, O. J. 1984 No. 5, item 24 as amended

( 1 ) Definitions . According to Article 7 para 2 pt 2 of the Press Law Act press is defined as “any and all existing and emerging in theSee details

Draft Ammendment of the Act of July 18, 2002 on Providing Services by Electronic Means, UD70, August 13, 2013

The proposed amendments will introduce a comprehensive notice-and-takedown procedure for service providers. The amendments will include modernization and supplementing the provisions of the Act specifying the conditions to be metSee details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, Dariusz B. v the City of E., IV CSK 665/10, July 8, 2011 (Restricted Access Version Available)

Providing open access to the Internet does not result in liability for content uploaded by anonymous users. The case was filed by Darius B. who anonymously posted a letter toSee details

Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber, State Prosecutor v. Norbert Z. & Tomasz K. (the szyciepoprzemysku case), IV KK 174/07, July 26, 2007

The Polish Supreme Court found that the "deliberations that, according to the law, publishing press in electronic form does not require registration are wrong and contrary to entrenched doctrine." Therefore,See details

Appelate Court, Civil, B.K.v. A.J., I ACa 1273/11, January 19, 2012 (Restricted Access Version Available)

Cracow Appellate Court, reversing the decision of the County Court of First Instance in Tarnów, found that a blogger is not obliged to monitor comments added by guests to theSee details

Decreto-Lei n.º 7-2004, de 7 de Janeiro [Decree-Law No. 7/2004 of 7 January], Lei do Comércio Electrónico, January 7, 2004 [English Version]

( 1 ) Transposes into national law Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 8, 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, inSee details

Código do Direito de Autor e dos Direitos Conexos (CDADC) [Code of Copyright and Related Rights], Law No. 45/85 of September 17, 1985, last amended by Law n.º 16/2008 [English Version]

This law covers the legal protection of intellectual creations in the literary sphere and artistic works. It transposed into Portuguese legislation EU Directive n.º 2004/28/EC of 29 April 2004 .See details

Administrative decision from the National Authority of Communications (ANACOM), Nokia Portugal v. Verza Facility Management, Google and others, May 18, 2004

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 accessSee details

Administrative decision from General Inspection of Cultural Activities, 2005

This administrative resolution also imposed on host providers and service providers associated with content an obligation to block access to a website that infringed copyright. This resolution, which is notSee details

Federal Law No. 264-FZ, Amending the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies, and Data Protection” and Articles 29 and 402 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (aka Right to be Forgotten Law), July 13, 2015

( 1 ) The law imposes an obligation on search engines that disseminate advertisements targeted at consumers located in Russia to remove search results listing information on individuals where suchSee details

Federal Law No. 364-FZ, on Amending Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies, and Data Protection” and Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (aka “Anti-Piracy Law”), November 24, 2014

( 1 ) The law specified and extended the application of judicial and administrative enforcement mechanisms, earlier introduced by Federal Law No.187-FZ , from movies to all copyright objects, exceptSee details

Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation, July 31,2014 (the regulation for identified access to public WiFi).

This resolution was adopted pursuant to the anti-terrorism package of bills and ( 1 ) establishes that ISPs should identify Internet users, by means of identity documents (such as passport);See details

Federal Law No. 242-FZ, on Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation as to the Clarification of the Processing of Personal Data in Information and Telecommunications Networks, July 21, 2014

( 1 ) The law that came into effect on September 1, 2015. It requires that the processing of personal data of Russian citizens be conducted with the use ofSee details

Federal Law No. 97-FZ, on Amending Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information” and Other Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Concerning Putting in Order Information Exchange Using Information and Telecommunication Networks, May 5, 2014 (aka "Bloggers Law")

( 1 ) The law requires that bloggers (owners of sites with more than 3000 daily visitors) refrain from using their blog for illegal activities, ensure correctness of published information,See details

Federal Law No. 433-FZ, December, 20, 2013 and Federal Law No. 274-FZ, July, 21, 2014 on Amendments to Criminal code of the Russian Federation (setting criminal liability for calls for separatism made in the Internet)

These laws establish criminal liability for public calls for actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. If such kind of call is made in the globalSee details

Federal Law No. 398-FZ, on Amending Federal Law on Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection, December 28, 2013

( 1 ) The Law introduces new Article 15.3 to the Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection” (see below), which sets out the conditions for blocking access toSee details

Federal Law No. 187-FZ, on Amending Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Concerning the Questions of Protection of Intellectual Rights in Information and Telecommunication Networks, July 2, 2013

( 1 ) The law sought to strengthen the protection of motion pictures online and introduced amendments to the Civil Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Procedure Code,See details

Federal Law No. 139-FZ, on the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development and Other Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation (aka “Blacklist law”), July 28, 2012

( 1 ) Positioned as means for the protection of children from harmful content that contains information about drug usage, advocates suicide or describes suicide methods, or contain child pornography,See details

Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, December 18, 2006

( 1 ) Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code, introduced by Federal Law No. 187-FZ of July 2, 2013, defines “information intermediary” as “an entity that carries out the transmissionSee details

Constitution of the Russian Federation, December 12, 1993 [English version]

Article 29. 1. Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech. 2. The propaganda or agitation instigating social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife shall not beSee details

Federal Law No. 149-FZ, on Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information , July 27, 2006

( 1 ) Article 17 of the Law establishes general principles of intermediary liability for distribution of illegal information (other than IP) by exempting intermediaries from civil liability subject toSee details

Federal Law No. 2121-1, on Mass Media, December 27, 1991

( 1 ) The law requires that "mass media" businesses be registered with the applicable governmental authority. The registration process is cumbersome and enables the government to exert direct andSee details

Regulatory Entity: Roskomnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecommunication, Information Technologies and Mass Communications)

The Roskomnadzor is an administrative body competent to request telecoms operators to block access to website featuring content that violate miscellaneous pieces of legislation (see above) and competent to keepSee details

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Deputy State Prosecutor for the Pskov Region v. Rostelecom, October 9, 2012

The Roskomnadzor is an administrative body competent to request telecoms operators to block access to website featuring content that violate miscellaneous pieces of legislation (see above) and competent to keepSee details

Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Kontent I Pravo v. Masterhost, December 23, 2008

In this case, Kontent I Pravo claimed that its rights to copyright objects, uploaded by third parties on the website that was hosted on servers provided by Masterhost, were violated.See details

The Law on Public Information and Media, Official Gazzette No. 83/2014, August 13, 2014.

( 1 ) This law regulates inter alia the freedom to gather, publish and receive information, freedom to form and express ideas and opinions, as well as freedom of sharingSee details

The Advertising Law, Official Gazette No. 79/2005, September 24, 2005.

( 2 ) Article 2, par, 1.5. defines that producer of an advertising message as a a legal entity, which has been registered for planning advertising activities, creating or producingSee details

The Law on Electronic Commerce, Official Gazette No. 41/2009, June 10, 2009

( 1 ) This Law regulates the regulates the conditions and manner of information society services, obligations to inform service users, commercial messages, rules relating to the conclusion of theSee details

The Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Official Gazette No. 104/2009, December 24, 2009.

Article 48 states that any person shall have the right to make a temporary reproduction of a work of authorship without the author’s permission and without paying any remuneration, underSee details

The Law on Contracts and Torts, Official Gazette No. 29/1978, October 1, 1978.

Provisions of this law are relevant in terms of civil liability of intermediaries for damages caused by breaching contractual and extra-contractual obligations provided by the law.See details

Belgrade Court of Appeal, GŽ/101 2014, February 19, 2014

In this case Court decided that in order to prevent further violation of personal rights, court can order the removal from an internet portal of a text which harms honorSee details

Law No. 22/2004, December 3, 2003, on Electronic Commerce

The Act implements e-Commerce Directive into Slovak law incorporating mere conduit, caching and hosting safe harbors, and prohibition of general monitoring obligation (§ 6). The implementation is of very inferiorSee details

Law No. 40/1964, February 26, 1964, Civil Code

The Civil Code provides for all general tort law basis for liability including vicarious liability, wrongful omission, liability as a participant, etc. It regulates substantial part of the private law.See details

Supreme Court [Najvyšší súd SR], Civil, BMW v. SK-NIC, 3 Obo 197/06, May 12, 2007

The Court rejected a delictual cease and desist claim against the domain authority arguing that it is not liable for registrations carried out by the third parties. The court doesSee details

Court of Appeals [Krajský súd Trenčín], Civil, Stacho v. Klub Strážov, 19Co/35/2012, April 26, 2012

The Court denied liability of the discussion forum provider for libelous comments of unknown users. The provider was sued without previous notice and takedown request. Although the first instance CourtSee details

Electronic Communications Act, December 20, 2012 [English Version]

Article 203 of the Electronic Communications Act (Zakon o elektronskih komunikacijah, hereinafter ZEKom-1) obliges internet network operators and internet access providers to refrain from any interference that would limit, retainSee details

Electronic Commerce Market Act, May 30, 2006

The eCommerce directive was implemented into Slovenian law by the Electronic Commerce Market Act (Zakon o elektronskem poslovanju na trgu, hereinafter ZEPT). ( 1 ) The safe harbor regime (articlesSee details

Code of Obligations, October 3, 2001 [English Version]

The Code of Obligations (Obligacijski zakonik, hereinafter OZ) provides basic tort principles upon which internet intermediaries may be held liable. ( 1 ) Article 131 thus stipulates that: “Any personSee details

Draft Law on Amending and Supplementing the Media Act, May 25, 2015

( 1 ) The Ministry of Culture released a new Draft Law on Amending and Supplementing the Media Act, which states that in order to regulate hate speech – especiallySee details

Higher Court in Maribor, VSM sodba I Cp 11/2015, 2015

The Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance which imposed liability on the operator of a discussion forum for failing to remove defamatory statements, written by itsSee details

Higher Court in Ljubljana, VSL sodba in sklep I Cp 252/2014, 2014

( 1 ) The Court confirmed the decision of the court of first instance which held that a blogger (a well know musician) and the blog portal operator (which wasSee details

Higher Court in Ljubljana, VSL sklep I Cpg 862/2013, 2013

( 1 ) The Court upheld an interim injunction issued against an hosting provider running a web forum where the primary defendant posted the statements tarnishing the reputation of aSee details

Higher Court in Ljubljana, VSL sodba I Cp 3037/2011, 2011

( 1 ) The Court upheld a decision to impose joint and several liability on a blog portal operator, who was acting as a host provider, despite the fact thatSee details

Law No. 1/2015 , to amend the Spanish Criminal Code, March 30, 2015 (entering into force on July 1, 2015)

( 1 ) widening the definition of copyright criminal offense so as to include any act of exploitation, and no longer limited to acts of reproduction, plagiarism, distribution and communicationSee details

Royal Legislative Decree No. 1/1996, enacting the consolidated text of the Copyright Act, April 12, 1996 (as amended by the Law No. 21/2014, November 4, 2014)

( 1 ) implementing the InfoSoc Directive (2001/29) mandatory exception for temporary acts of reproduction which are transient or incidental, have no independent economic significance, and are an integral andSee details

Law No. 1/2000, January 7, 2000, on Civil Procedure (as amended by the Law No. 21/2014, November 4, 2014)

providing that ISP could be obliged in some situations to reveal the identity of a subscriber who allegedly engages in copyright infringement (art. 256).See details

Royal Decree No. 1889/2011, on the functions of the Copyright Commission, December 30, 2011

instituting an administrative body - the Second Section of the Copyright Commission - in charge of issuing orders against information society services hosting copyright infringing materials (Article 43, introducing ArticleSee details

Law No. 34/2002, on Information Society Services and Electronic Commerce, July 11, 2002

implementing the liability limitations set forth in the eCommerce Directive; exemptions for mere conduit (art. 14) and caching (art. 15) are implemented almost verbatim; the hosting safe harbor provision (art.See details

Regulatory Entity: Second Section of the Copyright Commission

The Law No. 2/2011 amended the Spanish Copyright Act to create an administrative body – the Second Section of the Intellectual Property Commission – which orders injunctions against information societySee details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, Palomo v. Google, 144/2013, March 4, 2013

holding Google and its CEO are not liable for the search engine’s links to pieces of news containing false accusations against an individual; defendants are shielded from liability by Art.See details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, eleconomista.com, 128/2013, February 26, 2013

holding a company running a digital newspaper liable for defamatory comments posted on its website by its users; the defendant should have taken more precautions and exert more control onSee details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, merodeando.com, 742/2012, December 4, 2012

holding a blogger not liable for one of his posts and for the comments posted by users; the court found that both the blogger’s post – which linked to allegedlySee details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, megakini.com, 172/2012, April 3, 2012

dismissing a copyright infringement claim brought by a website owner against Google; the Court of Appeals held that while Google’s acts of reproducing and making available a cached copy ofSee details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, alasbarricadas.com, 72/2011, February 10, 2011

holding the owner of an internet forum liable for defamatory remarks posted by users against the Spanish pop singer Ramoncín; the court considered that the owner of the forum didSee details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, quejasonline.com, 316/2010, May 18, 2010

holding the owner of an internet forum not liable for its users’ defamatory messages; the website owner complied with the hosting exemption’s requirements to be free from liability as itSee details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, Asociación de Internautas v. SGAE, 773/2009, December 9, 2009

holding the defendant liable for hosting a third party gripe site and awarding 36,000 Euros in damages to plaintiffs; the defendant could not benefit from the hosting exemption as itSee details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Castellón, Section 1, Criminal, Bajatetodo.com, 414/2014, November 12, 2014 (ES:APCS:2014:1098)

( 1 ) The Criminal Court of Appeal of Castellón upheld a previous decision charging the webmaster of the website Bajatetodo.com with a eighteen-month prison term under Article 270 ofSee details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Madrid, Section 28 (specializing on IP), Civil, Telecinco v. YouTube, 11/2014, January 14, 2014

holding YouTube not liable for copyright infringement; the plaintiff had not properly identified the allegedly infringing videos; YouTube met the conditions required by the hosting safe harbor and thus wasSee details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Barcelona, Section 15 (specializing on IP), Civil, Promusicae v. R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, 470/2013, December 18, 2013

ordering an ISP to suspend, immediately and for good, the Internet connection of a user who engaged in copyright infringing file-sharing.See details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Barcelona, Section 15 (specializing on IP), Civil, Indice-web.com, 301/11, July 7, 2011

finding that a website offering links to copyright infringing content located somewhere else on the Internet does not satisfy either acts of reproduction or acts of communication to the publicSee details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Badajoz, 3rd. Section, Civil, PSOE Mérida, 280/10, September 17, 2010

holding the owners of a website devoted to politics liable on account of some defamatory comments posted by users.See details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Madrid, 21st Section, Civil, rankia.com, 181/10, April 13, 2010

holding the owner of a website not liable for defamatory comments posted by one user; the defendant qualified for the hosting safe harbor and thus was exempted from liability.See details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Barcelona, 19th Section, Civil, Yahoo!, 98/10, March 3, 2010

holding Yahoo! not liable for comments posted on a chat room hosted by Yahoo!; the defendant qualified for the hosting safe harbor as it duly removed the contents once notifiedSee details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Lugo, 1st Section, Civil, mindoniense.com, 538/09, July 9, 2009

holding the owner of an internet forum not liable for defamatory comments posted by users; the defendant was qualified for the hosting safe harbor and thus was exempted from liability.See details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Madrid, Section N. 2, Criminal, sharemula.com, 582/08, September 11, 2008

dismissing a criminal claim against the owner of a website that provides links to copyright infringing content; the court held that linking to content hosted somewhere else does not amountSee details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Madrid, 10th Section, Civil, Veloxia Network, 511/08, July 16, 2008

holding the owner of an internet forum not liable for defamatory comments posted by users; the defendant qualified for the hosting safe harbor and thus was exempted from liability.See details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Madrid, 12th Section, Civil, Relevance v. Derecho.com, 278/08, April 17, 2008

holding the owner of an internet forum not liable for defamatory comments posted by users; however, the defendant was enjoined from publishing similar comments in the future.See details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Madrid, 18th Section, Civil, SGAE v. Frikipedia, 516/07, October 8, 2007

holding the owner of the satirical wiki, Frikipedia, liable for some defamatory remarks on the entry about SGAE; the court held the hosting safe harbor did not apply.See details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Madrid, 3dr Section, Criminal, Mafius blog, 96/07, February 26, 2007

holding a blog owner guilty on account of defamatory comments sent by unidentified readers; the court of appeals held that the hosting safe harbor did not apply.See details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of the Balearic Islands, 3rd Section, Civil, Unió Mallorquina, 65/07, February 22, 2007

holding the owner of an internet forum liable for defamatory comments posted by users.See details

Audiencia Provincial [Court of Appeals] of Madrid, 14th Section, Civil, iEspaña, 835/05, December 20, 2005

holding a hosting provider not liable for hosting a website where some defamatory comments were posted; the defendant qualified for the hosting safe harbor and thus was exempted from liability.See details

Juzgado de lo penal [criminal court] # 4 of Castellón, Criminal, bajatetodo.com, 513/13, October 30, 2013

finding a website operator guilty of a criminal copyright infringement; the court found that a website providing links to infringing content hosted in P2P networks engaged in a communication toSee details

Juzgado de lo Mercantil [Commercial Court] #7 of Madrid, Civil, Telecinco v. YouTube, 289/2010, September 20, 2010 [English version]

holding YouTube not liable for copyright infringement; the plaintiff had not properly identified the allegedly infringing videos; YouTube met the conditions required by the hosting safe harbor and thus wasSee details

Act on Electronic Commerce and Information Society Services (2002:562), June 6, 2002

Act incorporating the E-Commerce Directive into Swedish law. See in particular Sections 16-19.See details

Personal Data Act (1998:204), April 29, 1998

There are several types of situations in which Internet intermediaries may need to consider the Personal Data Act. The types of rules that apply are determined in important regards bySee details

Act on Responsibility for Electronic Bulletin Boards (1998:112), March 12, 1998

Despite its technology-specific title, this Act has a broad scope and is of fundamental importance to Internet intermediaries. Essentially it outlines three duties for affected Internet intermediaries: (1) an informationSee details

Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (1960:729) as amended up to April 1, 2011

Consider in particular Section 57 b.See details

Penal Code (1962:700), January 1, 1965

Consider in particular Chapter 23 Section 4.See details

Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) HFD 2012 ref. 21, 5 June 2012 (Swedish only)

The provider of an online self-service facility was deemed to be a data controller.See details

Supreme Court of Sweden (Högsta Domstolen) NJA 2007 s. 805, November 7, 2007 (Swedish only)

The matter related to whether the failure to remove certain content could result in criminal liability. The Court concluded that it had not been obvious that the content was illegalSee details

Supreme Court of Sweden (Högsta Domstolen) NJA 1996 s. 79, February 22, 1996 (Swedish only)

The owner of a BBS had dealt with at least 1000 copyright protected software products, amongst other things making the software products available to 300 paying subscribers. The matter relatedSee details

Supreme Court of Sweden (Högsta Domstolen) NJA 1996 s. 74, February 22, 1996 (Swedish only)

The matter related to whether the owner of a BBS could be liable for copyright infringements committed via the BBS. The key issue regarded what parts of that party’s technicalSee details

Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) ‘The Pirate Bay case’ RH 2013:27, 26 November 2010 (Swedish only)

( 1 ) Importantly this case tested the scope of the protection afforded to intermediaries under the E-Commerce Directive as implemented into Swedish law. The Court concluded that, due toSee details

Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) ‘Black Internet case’ Ö 7131-09, 4 May 2010 (Swedish only)

Related to the ‘The Pirate Bay’ case.See details

Swiss Criminal Code (federal classified compilation 311.0) [English Version]

Articles 173 et seq. – Offence against personal honor; Article 259 – Public incitement to commit a felony or act of violence; Article 261bis – Racial discrimination; Article 25 –See details

Swiss Civil Code (federal classified compilation 210.0) [English Version]

Articles 28 et seq. – Protection of legal personality against infringementsSee details

Swiss Code of Obligations (federal classified compilation 220.0) [English Version]

Articles 41 et seq. – Obligations in torts; Article 50 – Multiple liable partiesSee details

Swiss Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights (federal classified compilation 231.1) [English Version]

Article 62 – Civil actions (including references to the Swiss Code of Obligations); Articles 67 et seq. – Criminal provisionsSee details

Swiss Federal Act on the Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications (federal classified compilation 232.11)

Article 55 – Civil actions (including references to the Swiss Code of Obligations); Articles 61 et seq. – Criminal provisionsSee details

Swiss Federal Act against Unfair Competition (federal classified compilation 241.0)

Article 9 et seq. – Civil actions (including references to the Swiss Code of Obligations); Articles 23 et seq. – Criminal provisionsSee details

Cybercrime project (abandoned), Federal Department of Justice and Police

Between 2001 and 2008, the federal government examined the opportunity to propose new rules governing the criminal liability of ISPs. However, it came to the conclusion that the current regulatorySee details

AGUR 12, Federal Department of Justice and Police & Federal Institute of Intellectual Property

AGUR 12 is a working group created in 2012 by the Federal Councillor Simonetta Sommaruga, Head of the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police, and under the supervision ofSee details

Federal Supreme Court, Civil, Tribune de Genève case, 5A_792/2011, January 14, 2013

In the so-called Tribune de Genève case, the Swiss Supreme Court held that a newspaper is civilly liable (Article 28 of the Swiss civil code) when it hosts on itsSee details

Deregulation Act 2015 c. 20

Section 56 of this Act repeals sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (which warranted the introduction of specific website blocking injunctions, see below).See details

Serious Crime Act 2015 c. 9

Section 69(1) of the Act provides that “it is an offence to be in possession of any item that contains advice or guidance about abusing children sexually.” Schedule 3 ofSee details

Regulations 2013/3028, Defamation (Operators of Websites)

These regulations are supplementary to section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 (see below). Among others, they specify the characteristics of a valid notice of infringement, as well as requireSee details

Defamation Act 2013 c. 26

Section 5 of the Act sets out a new defence from liability in defamation, for the benefit of website operators. By virtue of this provision, such intermediaries are exempt fromSee details

Digital Economy Act 2010 c. 24

The DEA 2010 introduced two key procedures aimed at reducing online piracy through the “graduated response” approach – procedures labelled as the “initial obligations” and the “obligations to limit InternetSee details

Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002/2013

The E-Commerce Regulations implement the E-Commerce Directive into the UK law, with the three liability “safe harbours” being transplanted through regs. 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations in anSee details

Defamation Act 1996 c. 31

Section 1 of the Defamation Act sets out a defence against liability in defamation, on which online intermediaries might try to rely on. Section 1 states that a defendant inSee details

Trademarks Act 1994 c. 26

This piece of legislation implements the Council Directive 89/104/EEC, and in doing so, sets out in section 10 what counts as trademark infringement within the UK law. This provision mightSee details

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c. 48

The sizeable CDPA 1988 contains quite a few provisions related to intermediary liability. First of all, Sections 16 to 26 set out the definitions of various copyright infringing acts –See details

Creative Content UK, July 19, 2014

A programme based on the “notice & notice” variant of the graduated response approach. UK ISPs have agreed to send educational notices to P2P filesharers who are found by theSee details

CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc [1988] UKHL 15

The decision in CBS v Amstrad is a leading authority on joint tort liability and authorisation liability of intermediaries facilitating the copyright-infringing actions of their users. In this case, aSee details

Cartier International Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc [2016] EWHC 339 (Ch)

A blocking injunction was awarded against several further websites which facilitated the trade in goods infringing the claimant’s trademark; the criteria set out in the first Cartier case were successfullySee details

Mosley v Google [2015] EWHC 59 (QB)

The claimant brought a claim against Google under art. 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 in order to oblige the search engine to disable access to pictures infringing onSee details

Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311

Google was found to be using tracking cookies in order to secretly obtain data about its users’ online activity. A group of the latter sought to obtain corresponding damages forSee details

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v Sky UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 1082 (Ch)

The claimants applied for a “Newzbin 2” blocking order against websites which made available and facilitated the use of the so called Popcorn Time applications (used for BitTorrent-based, illegal streamingSee details

1967 v B Sky B [2014] EWHC 3444 (Ch)

Another “Newzbin 2” injunction case – an application was granted against 21 torrent websites. It is worth to add that the CJEU case C-466/12 Svensson, and its impact on theSee details

Clark v TripAdvisor LLC [2014] CSIH 110

A Scottish case, in which the claiming guest house owners were refused a court order which would oblige TripAdvisor - a US-based company – to disclose the personal data ofSee details

Omnibill (PTY) Ltd v Egpsxxx Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] EWHC 3762 (IPEC)

An owner of a website advertising escort services in South Africa found out that the UK copyright-protected pictures from his website were placed on his competitor’s website. The latter partySee details

Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2014] EWHC 3765 (Ch)

A case following the initial Cartier decision. It was found that the IP address-based blockade of websites targeted in the initial court order may disable access to other websites usingSee details

Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch)

A UK court issued a blocking order in a case involving an attempt to combat trademark infringement rather than copyright infringement. The Court noted that there is no statutory counterpartSee details

Paramount Home Entertainment International Ltd v British Sky Broad-casting Ltd [2013] EWHC 3479 (Ch)

A successful application for a “Newzbin 2” blocking injunction against two streaming websites (SolarMovie and TubePlus), which were found to facilitate copyright-infringing activities.See details

EMI Records Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch)

A successful application for a “Newzbin 2” blocking injunction against two streaming websites (SolarMovie and TubePlus), which were found to facilitate copyright-infringing activities.See details

Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68

A successful application for a “Newzbin 2” blocking injunction against two streaming websites (SolarMovie and TubePlus), which were found to facilitate copyright-infringing activities.See details

Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Others [2013] EWHC 2058 (Ch)

A successful application for a “Newzbin 2” blocking injunction against a football streaming website known as FirstRow Sports, which was found to facilitate copyright-infringing activities. See alsoSee details

Dramatico Entertainment v British Sky Broadcasting (No. 2) [2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch)

A successful application made against six largest ISPs in the UK for a “Newzbin 2” blocking injunction (see below) aimed at The Pirate Bay.See details

Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (No. 1) [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch)

Both users and operators of The Pirate Bay were found to be engaging in activities infringing the claimants’ copyrights. A preliminary case to the ( No. 2) described above.See details

Davison v Habeeb and others [2011] EWHC 3031 (QB)

This case concerned a defamatory blog post which appeared on Blogger.com, a website operated by Google. The claimant sought to make Google liable as a publisher of the defamatory statement.See details

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v British Telecommunications plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch)

The “Newzbin 2” case. Shortly after the decision in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd 2010 (described below), the Usenet indexing service was reactivated as Newzbin2. Upon noticingSee details

ITV Broadcasting Ltd v TV Catchup Ltd [2011] EWHC 1874 (Pat)

The defendant operated a website based on free, unauthorised live streaming of television programmes; including those protected by the claimant’s copyright. It was provisionally decided that the defendant’s service didSee details

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch)

Known as the “Newzbin 1” case. The operators of a Usenet indexing website (which was found to have been used for the illegal exchange of copyrighted movies) were found toSee details

Kaschke v Gray [2010] EWHC 690 (QB)

The case revolved around the liability of a blog owner for the defamatory comment posted on his website. It was held that checking the spelling and grammar of such user-generatedSee details

R. v Allan Ellis T20087573 (2010) (at Middlesborough Crown Court)

On the basis of the infringing activities occurring on his website, the operator of Oink’s Pink Palace (which was a BitTorrent-oriented music sharing website running a torrent tracker) was chargedSee details

R. v Rock and Overton (2010) T20087573 (at Gloucester Crown Court)

The operator of a website known as TV Links (which facilitated copyright-infringing activities by hosting links to 3rd party streaming websites) was charged with conspiracy to defraud. The judge initiallySee details

L’Oreal v eBay [2009] EWHC 1094 (Ch)

Operator of an auction website was not found liable in joint tort liability for failing to prevent trademark-infringing actions of its users, who sold counterfeit goods bearing the claimant’s trademarkSee details

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corp [2009] EWHC 1765 Q.B.

This case was triggered by the appearance of defamatory comments on an online bulletin board, provided by the website operated by the first defendant. Apart from bringing the case againstSee details

Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB)

This case saw three British ISPs (AOL, Tiscali and BT) being placed at the crosshair of publisher’s liability for defamatory posts shared through the Usenet newsgroups, due to the factSee details

Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75

In this case, a defamatory article was posted on the website of the Wall Street Journal Online. The claim against Dow Jones (the publisher of the WSJ) failed due toSee details

Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [1999] EWHC QB 244

In the case of Godfrey v Demon Internet , a forged posting was shared through the soc.culture.thai Usenet newsgroup by someone pretending to be the claimant. The latter decided toSee details

Argentine Civil Code, September, 1871 (articles 1109 and 1113 as modified by Law 17.711 of July 1, 1968)

Although Argentina does not have any specific legislation regarding Internet Service Providers’ (ISP) liability, Articles 1.109 and 1.113 of the Argentine Civil Code are used as references for court casesSee details

Intellectual Property Law N. 11.723, September 26, 1933

A number of the judicial decisions regarding intermediary responsibility are based on Intellectual Property Law 11.723. The following articles have been repetedly applied in decisions dealing with intermediary liability: (See details

Legislative Proposal, 8070-D-2012, November 15, 2012, Intermediary Services on the Internet. Providers’ Responsibility Guidelines

Proposing that ISPs should not be liable for the transmitted information, unless they originally transmitted it or modified it. Defines caching, hosting and discusses the dissemination of preventive policies toSee details

Legislative Proposal, 2668-D-2012, May 2, 2012, ISPs Responsibility Guideline

Article 1.1 defines Internet Service Providers (ISP) as the technological intermediaries who allow access, connection and interconnection to networks and data on the Internet. This also includes those spaces thatSee details

Corte Suprema [Supreme Court], Civil, Rodriguez M. Belen c/Google y Otro s/ daños y perjuicios, R.522.XLIX., October 29, 2014

The case discussed the question whether search engines are liable for linking in search results to third-party content that violates fundamental rights or infringes copyright. The decision was largely favorableSee details

Corte Suprema [Supreme Court], Civil, Sujarchuk Ariel Bernardo c/Warley Jorge Alberto, S.755, L.XLVI, June 26, 2012

The civil court charged a journalist for describing Ariel Bernardo Sujarchuk, sub secretary at the University of Buenos Aires, as sinister in a published blog. The Supreme Court applied aSee details

Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Civil de la Capital Federal [National Civil Court of Appeals, Buenos Aires capital District], Civil, S. M., M. S. c/ Yahoo de Argentina SRL y Otro s/ daños y perjuicios, Expte. Nº 89.007/2006; Cita Online: AR/JUR/XXXXX/2013, November 6, 2013

This case is one among numerous civil lawsuits brought against the search engines Google and Yahoo! by different ‘celebrities’ and well‐known public figures for violation of their honor and privacySee details

Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional de la Capital Federal [National Court of Criminal Appeals, Buenos Aires capital District], Criminal, “P., L. y otros”, October 28, 2013

Confirmed the previous decision regarding a criminal lawsuit against 10 YouTube users accused of publishing a movie on the platform and infringing copyright law, in particular Article 71 of LawSee details

Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Civil de la Capital Federal [National Civil Court of Appeals, Buenos Aires capital District], Civil, María Belén c/ Google Inc. y Otro s/ Daños y Perjuicios, Expte. Nº 99.613/06; Cita Online: AR/JUR/21886/2013, May 13, 2013

This case is one among other civil lawsuits brought against the search engines Google and Yahoo! by different ‘celebrities’ and well‐known public figures for violation of their honor and privacySee details

Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional de la Capital Federal [National Court of Criminal Appeals, Buenos Aires capital District], Criminal, “Incidente de medida cautelar en autos Escobar, Tomas s/ infracción Ley 11723”, Expte. 1681/2012/2, February, 1, 2013

The website Cuevana, active since 2009, provides streaming links to several movies and TV series. HBO Ole Partners requested to completely block the website for a copyright law violation inSee details

Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Civil de la Capital Federal [National Civil Court of Appeals, Buenos Aires capital District], Civil, C. E. M. Y OTRO C/Mercado Libre S. A. S/ DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS, Expte. Nº 36440/2010 Cita Online: AA83B9, October 5, 2012

Individuals sued Mercado Libre after having bought counterfeit tickets on their website. Mercado Libre functions as an online platform which provides a space for sellers to advertise and sell theirSee details

Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Civil de la Capital Federal [National Civil Court of Appeals, Buenos Aires capital District], Civil, Da Cunha, Virginia c. Yahoo de Argentina S.R.L. and Google, Expte. Nº 99.620/2006; Cita Online: AR/JUR/40066/2010, August 10, 2010

In Argentina, controversies against the search engines Google and Yahoo! arose in civil lawsuits brought by different ‘celebrities’ and well‐known public figures for violation of their honor and privacy, orSee details

Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Civil de la Capital Federal [National Civil Court of Appeals, Buenos Aires capital District], Civil, Bluvol, Esteban Carlos c / Google Inc. y otros s/ daños y perjuicios , Exp. N° 59.532/2009, Cita Online: AR/JUR/55851/2009, September 29, 2009

In the Bluvol case, the plaintiff came to know of a blog on Blogspot, which he had not created, but was posted under his name. This blog was easily accessibleSee details

Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Civil [National First Instance Civil Court] No. 64, Civil, CAPIF Camara Argentina de Productores de Fonograms y Otros c/ The Pirate Bay s/Medidas Precautorias, Expte. Nº 67921/2013, March 31, 2014

The District Court No. 64 in Buenos Aires issued an injunction to block access to the Pirate Bay website in a case initiated by the Argentine Chamber of Phonographic Producers.See details

Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Civil [National First Instance Civil Court], Civil, Imagen Satelital S.A. c/Quien Resulta Titular del Sitio Web CUEVANA s/Medidas Precautorias, Expte. Nº 72.792/2011, November 25, 2011

On November 2011, following a claim from Imagen Satelital S.A., a judge ordered ISPs to block access, for all Internet users, to specific content on the website “Cuevana," including theSee details

Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Civil [National First Instance Civil Court], Civil, Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas c/ Google Inc, Expte. n° 34023/11 Cita Online La Ley AR/JUR/16489/2011, May 16, 2011

The Argentine Delegation of Israeli Associations (DAIA) requested that Google removed the links to many websites presenting ostensibly anti-Semitic and discriminatory content. DAIA filed a class action and the judgeSee details

Law No. 164, on Telecommunications, Information and Communication Technologies, August 8, 2011

This law defines a network as a group of connections that conducts symbols, texts and information among others and information and communication technologies as a collection of tools, resources, informaticsSee details

Andean Community Decision No. 351, December 17, 1993 (Regional Level)

This is a Community legislation covering Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. This decision gives protection to intellectual works. Article 3 defines “distribution to the public”, “divulgation”, “retransmission” as making theSee details

Law No. 1322, on Copyright, April 13, 1992

Gives protection to intellectual creations. Article 5 defines "publication" as communication to the public by any form or system.See details

Supreme Decree No. 24582, on Software, 1997

This decree extends the copyright protection and liabilities to any reproduction of information through computers.See details

Supreme Decree No. 23907, July 12, 1994

Providing the right of the author to benefit from the production of any revenue.See details

Supreme Decree No. 1391 on the Regulation of the Law 164 on Telecommunications, Information and Communication Technologies, 2012

This decree establishes the protection of rights of the users, including the right of privacy and personal data. It declares national priority on the promotion and use of information andSee details

Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, October 10, 1988 [English Version]

Article 5, items IX, X and XIISee details

Marco Civil da Internet - “Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights," Federal Law no. 12.965, April 23, 2014 [English version]

The law introduces a liability exemption for Internet connection providers and the application of the safe harbor doctrine for other Internet application providers. Article 18 addresses the liability of InternetSee details

Brazilian Civil Code, Federal Law no. 10.406, January 10, 2002

When the underlying relation does not regard consumer law (see below), the applicable law regarding civil intermediary liability is the Civil Code. This legislation institutes the core principles and provisionsSee details

Elections Regulation Law, Federal Law no. 9.504, September 30, 1997

Articles 36, 36-A, 41 §2, 43, 57-A, 57-B, 57-C, 57-D, 57-E, 57-F and 57-ISee details

Brazilian Consumer Defense Code, Federal Law no. 8.078, September 11, 1990 [English version]

Articles 3, 14, 17 and 43, §2 The Consumer Protection and Defense Code, which application should prevail over the Civil Code by virtue of the principle of lex specialis, definesSee details

Statute of Children and Adolescents, Federal Law no. 8.069, 1990

The crime described in Article 241-A specifies as crime the activity of legal guardians of Internet Service Providers regarding pornography involving children or adolescents, but conditions liability to failure ofSee details

Brazilian Criminal Code, Federal Decree-Law no. 2.848, December 7, 1940

Article138, 139, 140, 154-A and 359 The Article 184 of the Criminal Code regards violation of copyright, which constitutes as crime making available to the public copyrighted work, by electronicSee details

Copyright Law Reform Bill, Federal Bill, Bill nº 3133/2012, 2012

By this agreement, signed between the Human Rights Secretary and the Brazilian Association of Internet (ABRANET), a non-profit organization that supports the development of the Internet in Brazil. On theSee details

Superior Court of Justice, Orkut (Google Brasil Internet LTDA), Special Appeal No. 1512647/MG (2013/0162883-2), May 13, 2015

The Court ruled that content providers cannot be held liable for copyright violations committed by third parties in a case regarding whether the social networking site Orkut was responsible forSee details

Superior Court of Justice, Fourth Panel, Google Brazil v. Dafra, Special Appeal No. 1306157/SP, March 24, 2014

Decision held that the ISP is liable for not acting to takedown all copies of a video (parodying a commercial of the motorbike company Dafra) that was uploaded several timesSee details

Superior Electoral Court, Twitter Brazil, Special Electoral Appeal No. 74-64.2012.6.20.0003, September 12, 2013

Decision held that Twitter Posts (Tweets) are not to be interpreted as anticipated electoral propaganda, even if the tweets contain electoral content or political opinion (according to Federal Law no.See details

Superior Court of Justice, Third Panel, Google Brazil, Special Appeal No. 1323754/RJ, August 28, 2012

Decision held that the ISP must act expeditiously upon user notification in order to avoid being held jointly liable for offensive/illegal content. The decision suggests that, once communicated by aSee details

Superior Court of Brazil, Civil, Google Brasil Internet LTDA. vs. Maria da Graça Xuxa Meneghel, Special Appeal No. 1.316.921 - RJ (2011⁄0307909-6), June 30, 2012

Civil and Consumer law. Internet. Consumer relations. Applicability of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code. Irrelevance of gratuity of service. Internet search engine. Lack of necessity to prior filtering ofSee details

Superior Court of Brazil, Civil, Google Brasil Internet LTDA, Special Appeal No. 1.186.616 – MG (2010/0051226-3), Agust 31, 2011

Civil and Consumer law. Internet. Consumer relations. Applicability of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code. Irrelevance of gratuity of service. Internet Content Provider. Lack of duty of prior fiscalization ofSee details

Jose Eduardo Tarraf Filho v. Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A. e outro, January 23, 2017

The Plaintiff requested the removal of a publication available on the defendant’s websites informing about him being kidnapped in 1990. This old piece of information was only recently republished. TheSee details

Tribunal of São Paulo, Charles Berbare v. Google Brasil Internet Ltda., January 12, 2017

The Plaintiff requested the deletion of Google search results indexing old publications about his involvement in a flagrante arrest for alleged unauthorized practice of medicine. As the falsehood of theSee details

Wilker Aparecido Mendes Fernandes v. Goshme Soluções para Internet Ltda.– ME e Google Brasil Internet Ltda., November 22, 2016

The Plaintiff requested the suppression of information available on a legal website regarding a labor suit he filed. The website was listed on Google search. The Plaintiff alleged that theSee details

Gilberto Trama v. Google Brasil Internet Ltda e outras, November 29, 2016

The Plaintiff sought the delisting of search engines results mentioning his name as one involved with tax crimes committed by a mafia organization. As the Plaintiff did not present anySee details

Dulcimar Vilela de Queiroz v. Google Brasil Internet Ltda., June 29, 2015

The Plaintiff requested Google to remove search results mentioning her earlier criminal conviction. The judge upheld the inviolability of private life and the right to be forgotten, noting that thereSee details

Maria Helena Jurado Mellilo v. Google Internet Brasil Ltda., April 05, 2016

The Plaintiff sought the delisting of her artistic name “Meg Mellilo” from the Google search results. The judge stated that the right to be forgotten was not applicable, since theSee details

Roberto Borghette de Melo v. Google Brasil Internet Ltda., October 27, 2016

The Plaintiff was the defendant in a criminal proceeding, in which he was found not guilty. The Plaintiff requested the delisting of this episode from Google search results. The judgeSee details

Supremo Tribunal Federal [State Court of Appeals], Civil, Aliandra v. Orkut, ARE 660861, April 9, 2012

( 1 ) The Plaintiff, a teacher called Aliandra, was informed by students that Orkut hosted an allegedly defamatory "community" (a discussion forum created by users) called “I hate Aliandra".See details

Law No. 20.453, August 26, 2010, establishing the principle of Net Neutrality for consumers and Internet users

In general, this law tackles intermediary non-interference from the perspective of users by adding to the general rules within the General Telecommunications Act (Law Nº 18.168) new rules for internetSee details

Law No. 20.435, May 04, 2010, amending Intellectual Property Law

Together with new copyright exceptions and limitations and the new rules for collecting societies’ tariff procedures, this amendement establishes a regime of limitations on liability for information service providers, asSee details

Trans Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Rights Chapter [confidential text leaked on August 30, 2013]

Chile is partecipating in the negotiation of an international agreement including a section on Internet service provider liability, with countries lining up either in favour of a general notification obligationSee details

Supreme Court, Suazo vs Reclamos.cl, 2009

The plaintiff sought relief from the administrator of a website ( www.reclamos.cl ) where people can leave anonymous public messages with complaints against companies and services. The plaintiff, the representativeSee details

Court of Appeals of Valparaíso, Abbott vs Google, 2012

The plaintiff sought an injunction and relief against a series of Chilean websites as well as Google, claiming that the websites, along with blogs hosted by Google, were making slanderousSee details

Court of Appeals of Concepción, Fuentes vs Entel II, 2007

Plaintiff sought monetary relief from both the internet service provider (Entel) as well as the parent of the person that posted a defamatory content (see below Entel I). The CourtSee details

Court of Appeals of Concepción, Fuentes vs Entel I, 1999

Stating that liability for defamatory content - a false offering of sexual services by the minor daughter of plaintiff - may be exclusively casted upon the provider of the content,See details

Law No. 1143, July 4, 2007, approving the FTA between United States and Colombia

The FTA agreement between Colombia and US was approved by Colombia and incorporated into the local legislation through Law 1143/2007. However, the implementation of the law (and therefore the implementationSee details

Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Colombia and the United Sates, signed on November 22, 2006 (Chapter 16, Intellectual Property Rights, Art. 16.11, 29. Limitations on Liability for Service Providers)

This FTA has miscellaneous rules concerning IP Rights and ISP Liability, which resemble closely to the US DMCA provisions. However, the internal legislative proposals implementing the FTA and related intermediarySee details

Law No. 679, August 3, 2001, by which a statute is issued to prevent and counteract exploitation, pornography and child sex tourism, implementing Article 44 of the Constitution

Providers, servers, administrators and users of global information networks are prohibited to host on their own site: images, texts, documents or audiovisual files that direct or indirectly implicate sexual activitiesSee details

Andean Community Decision No. 351 of 1993

This is a Community legislation covering Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. This decision does not specifically establish provisions regarding intermediary liability on the internet. However, Article 54 may find applicationSee details

Law No. 23 of 1982, Copyright Act

There are no provisions in the Copyright Act that expressly establish rules regarding intermediary liability on the internet.See details

Law No. 84 of May 26, 1873, Colombian Civil Code

Due to the fact that there is not special law concerning liability of intermediaries on the Internet, the general provisions established in the Civil Code apply to liability of intermediaries.See details

Statutory Draft Law No. 119 of 2013 – House of Representatives, October 8, 2013, by which a statute is issued to establish the deactivation of autocomplete function on Internet search engines as long as they make a pejorative and/or undermining reference of the rights of good name, honor, privacy and human dignity of individuals and entities, nationals or internationals, and establishes other provisions.

This bill is currently under discussion. It prohibits the activation of the autocomplete function of search engines to do pejorative and/or undermining reference of the rights of good name, honor,See details

Draft Law No. 241 of 2011 – Senate, April 4, 2011, by which a statute is issued to regulate copyright and related rights infringement liability on the Internet

This bill was passed in 2011 before the Senate to implement the FTA between Colombia and USA. However, the bill was archived few months later, when it was evident thatSee details

Constitutional Court, Gloria v. Casa Editorial El Tiempo, T-277/15, May 12, 2013

Stating that when there is a favorable outcome for an individual in a proceeding—in this case Gloria was acquitted from charges of human trafficking—there is an obligation to update theSee details

Constitutional Court, On behalf of a minor vs. “El nuevo día” newspaper & Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar, Judgment T-453/13, July 15, 2013

A newspaper published information regarding an allegedly sexually abused minor. The published information, which leaked from governmental institutions, almost revealed the minor's identity completely. The Court confirmed that, by makingSee details

Constitutional Court, Martínez vs. Google Colombia & El Tiempo publishing house, Judgment T-040/13, January 28, 2013

Court ruled a writ of amparo (“acción de tutela”) regarding the request of a citizen of eliminating an old newspaper article that connected him to a criminal organization and aSee details

Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Peru and the United Sates, signed on April 12, 2006 (Chapter 16, Intellectual Property Rights, Art. 16.11, 29. Limitations on Liability for Service Providers)

( 1 ) This FTA has miscellaneous rules concerning IP Rights and ISP Liability, which resemble closely to the US DMCA provisions. However, the national implementation of intermediate liability rulesSee details

Legislative Decree 822, April 26, 1996, Copyright Law

providing that ( 1 ) no authority or private party may authorise the use of a copyrighted work or any other work protected under Copyright Law or assist in itsSee details

Andean Community Decision No. 351, December 17, 1993, Common Provisions on Copyright and Neighboring Rights

This decision does not specifically establish provisions regarding intermediary liability on the Internet. However, Article 54 may find application in this context, where it states that “No authority or person,See details

Legislative Decree 295, July 24, 1984, Peruvian Civil Code

establishing that: ( 1 ) anyone who through his fault or negligence causes damage to another is obliged to repair the damage (article 1969); ( 2 ) that liability maySee details

Trans Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Rights Chapter [May 16, 2014 version of the consolidated negotiating text for the Intellectual Property Chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership]

Peru is participating in the negotiation of an international agreement including a section on Internet service provider liability, with countries lining up either in favour of a general notification obligationSee details

Ley de Responsabilidad Social en Radio Televisión y Medios Electrónicos [ResorteME] [Law of Social Responsability in RadioTelevision and Electronic Media], Official Gazzette No. 39.579, December 22, 2012

In December 2010, the National Assembly of Venezuela adopted a reform of the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, extending regulation to online and electronic media. ( 1See details

Regulatory Entity: Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones de Venezuela (Conatel) [Venezuelan National Commission of Telecommunications]

Under ResorteMe, the regulatory entity Conatel is entitled to open "administrative procedures" against ISPs. Administrative procedures do not involve lawsuits and judicial review, those are instructions given by Conatel thatSee details

Conatel, Administrative Procedure, October 10, 2014

The National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel) ordered the blocking of Infobae website which operates in Argentina, arguing the dissemination of images of deputy Robert Serra who was murdered on October theSee details

Conatel, Administrative Procedure, March 2014

In March 2014, Conatel demanded that the ISPs block websites that illegally trade wildlife, basing this demand on a decision made by a court in Caracas. In spite of theSee details

Conatel, Administrative Procedure, November 2013

Conatel opened administrative procedures against 8 ISPs. Those ISPs hosted information portals where the cost of the black market dollar was published (Venezuela has a foreign currency exchange control policySee details

Electronic Transactions Act, No. 8 of 2006

Part VIII ( §§35-41 ) of the Electronic Transactions Act deals with the issue of ‘Liability of Intermediaries and Service Providers’. The statutory provisions generally employ a ‘mere conduit’ approach,See details

Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (Chapter 337A)

Part III ( §§19 -21 ) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act deals with ‘Intermediaries and E-Commerce Service Providers’. The statutory provisions generally employ a ‘mere conduit’ approach, andSee details

Electronic Transactions Act (Chapter 308B)

Part VII ( §§23-24 ) of the Electronic Transactions Act deals with the issue of ‘Intermediaries’. The statutory provisions generally employ a ‘mere conduit’ approach, and do not require intermediariesSee details

Electronic Transactions Act, May 14, 2008

§34 of the Electronic Transactions Act deals with the ‘Liability of Intermediaries’. The statutory provisions generally employ a ‘mere conduit’ approach, and do not require intermediaries to actively monitor informationSee details

Electronic Transactions Bill, 2013

This Bill is meant to presumably replace the 2008 Act. Part VIII ( Clauses 33-35 ) of the Bill deals with Intermediary Liability, and contains more expansive provisions than theSee details

Electronic Transactions Act, No. 15 of 2006

§§25 of the Electronic Transactions Act deals with ‘Liability of Intermediaries’. The statutory provisions generally employ a ‘mere conduit’ approach, and do not require intermediaries to actively monitor electronic documents.See details

Electronic Transactions Act, No. 7 of 2009

§§30-31 of the Electronic Transactions Act deals with ‘Liability of Intermediaries or E-Commerce Service Providers’. The statutory provisions generally employ a ‘mere conduit’ approach, and do not require intermediaries toSee details

Electronic Transactions Act, 2007

Part 5 of the Electronic Transactions Act (§43) deals with Intermediaries and Internet Service Providers. The provision is basic and employs a ‘mere conduit’ approach. There is no affirmation ofSee details

Electronic Transactions Act, 2007

PART VII of the Electronic Transactions Act ( §§51-59 ) deals with ‘Liability of Service Providers’. The statutory provisions generally employ a ‘mere conduit’ approach, and do not require serviceSee details

Electronic Transactions Act, No. 6 of 2011

Part VII (§§50-52) of the Electronic Transactions Act dealt with the issue of ‘Intermediaries and Telecommunications Service Providers’. The statutory provisions generally employ a ‘mere conduit’ approach, and do notSee details

The Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, August 12, 1995

Providing to the citizens freedom of expression (art 47), freedom of information (art 50) and right for confidentiality (art 32)See details

Amendments to the Criminal Code (criminalizing “defamatory and offensive views” posted on the Internet), May 14, 2013,

Prior to this amendment, only defamation on mass media produced liability. Internet was not mentioned. According to the amendments: ( 1 ) Spreading libel on the Internet is subject toSee details

Law No. 1024 IIQ, The Law of The Republic of Azerbaijan to obtain information, December 9, 2005

Article 29 of this Law provides a list of information to be disclosed by information owners. In addition to the available tools, the government agencies must disclose the information specifiedSee details

Law No. 927 IIG, Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Telecommunications, 14 June 2005

This law covers the main principles applying to telecommunication activities and provides for the protection of operators, providers and users (art 3). Among those principles, the law mentions that (See details

Law N. 404-IIKG, The Constitutional Law on Regulation of the Implementation of Human Rights and Freedoms, December 24, 2002

Stating that freedom of expression and information can be restricted only subject to Article 3.1 of the Constitutional Law which says: Provided by the Constitution of the Azerbaijani Republic andSee details

Law No. 598, Rules for Using Internet Communication, February 24, 2000

Article 4 governs the “Rights and responsibilities of Internet service providers” and regulates the relations between ISPs and Internet users. ( 1 ) Internet Providers shall provide the following: (See details

Law No. 769-IQ, The Law on Mass Media, December 7, 1999

Providing that: ( 1 ) Internet contents is regulated by the general rules regulating the content of all mass media (art 3); there are no special laws (neither legislation, norSee details

Regional Court of Astara , Mikayil Talobov prosecution, 14 August, 2013

After the amendment to the Criminal Code on Internet defamation on June 30, 2013, the the first person tried under the defamation act was Mikayil Talibov. On August 14, 2013See details

District Court of Nizami , F. Novruzoglu Prosecution, 22 August, 2012

Mr. Novruzoglu was accused of posting calls for riots on Facebook ahead of the 11 March 11, 2011 Great People’s Day protest. He was sentenced, and served 4 years andSee details

Executive Order of the Supreme Leader Establishing the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, March 2012

The Supreme Council of Cyberspace (SCC) serves as the centralized authority regarding policymaking, decision-making, and coordination in the realm of cyberspace. All state agencies - not excluding the Iranian ParliamentSee details

Computer Crimes Law, June 2009

( 1 ) Article 21 of Iran's Computer Crimes Law (CCL) imposes liability on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that fail to filter internet content that “generates crime.” Penalties for theSee details

Regulatory Entity: Supreme Council of Cyberspace

The Supreme Council of Cyberspace (SCC) was established by the order of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As stated in the SCC's charter , the body is tasked withSee details

Regulatory Entity: Committee for Determining Instances of Criminal Web Content

Under the Computer Crimes Law, the Committee for Determining Instances of Criminal Web Content (CDICWC) is the regulatory entity, which is entitled to issue orders against ISPs regarding the legality,See details

Committee for Determining Instances of Criminal Web Content, Administrative Procedures

Since 2009, the CDICWC has issued decisions regarding in the intermittent blocking of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, and WeChat. In Febraury 2014, the CDICWC also stated it is consideringSee details

The Copyright Act of 2007 (Unofficial English Version)

Section 18 establishes the permitted uses within the framework of the Copyright Act, these permitted uses are set out in Sections 19-30 . Section 26 deals with “temporary copies” createdSee details

Tort Ordinance (New Version) (Unofficial English Version)

Stipulation of the Tort Ordinance and common law tort law could be made use in the context of intermediary liability with respect to copyright issues because Section 52 of theSee details

Unjust Enrichment Act, 1979 (Unofficial English Version)

This act does not deal specifically with Intermediary Liability but it could be used in certain cases to claim unjust enrichment by the intermediary by the infringing act. Section 1See details

E-Commerce Bill, 2011

The proposed bill, which was first introduced in its original form in 2008, seeks to regulate e-commerce including the liability of ISPs, introducing a notice and take down safe harborSee details

Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 9183/09, The Football Association Premier League Ltd v John Doe (2012)

This case involves unauthorized streaming of live soccer games of the English Premier League. The Supreme Court suggests in dicta several possibilities to further establish Contributory Liability with regard toSee details

Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 5977/07, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem vs. Schocken Publishing House(2011)

The decision in Hebrew University v. Schocken is considered the leading authority on Contributory Liability in the context of copyright law. In this case, the Supreme Court introduced Contributory LiabilitySee details

Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 1636/98, Rav-Bariach Ltd v SDR Ltd, 2001

This is the first case which introduced the doctrine of Contributory Liability into the patent system in Israel, taking inspiration from the Contributory Liability found in the US Patent Act.See details

District Court of Tel-Aviv, 49918-05-12, Amir Savir v. Google, July 5, 2015

( 1 ) The case was brought by Ami Savir against the owner of the website court.org.il and Google. Mr. Savir, an Israeli attorney was mischaracterized as having committed fiveSee details

District Court of Tel Aviv , Civil Action 37039-05-15, ZIR”A et al. vs. Anonymous, Bezeq Ben Leumi et al., July 1 2015

( 1 ) Several content providers sued ISPs to block access to the websites allowing users to download a streaming software called “Popcorn” which allows users to stream video contentSee details

District Court of Tel-Aviv, Civil Ruling 33227-11-13, NMC United Entertainment LTD et al. vs. Bloomberg et al., May 12, 2015

( 1 ) This case involves unauthorized streaming and download of music recordings through the website Unidown. Five Israeli music record companies sued the owners of the website Unidown andSee details

District Court of Tel-Aviv, Charlton Ltd. v. Bezeq International & Co., 2014 (PENDING) (official name of case not yet available)

In early April 2014, Charlton Ltd. filed a lawsuit in the Tel-Aviv district court against three major Israeli ISPs. Charlton is arguing that the ISPs have contributory liability with regardSee details

District Court of Tel-Aviv, 10695-09-09, Nav N Go Kft. v. Goltzman, 2011

The district court in Tel-Aviv ruled that the notice and take down procedure does not have a legal standing in Israel, therefore, the argument that the website should have operatedSee details

District Court of Tel-Aviv, 567-08-09, ALIS - Association for the Protection of Cinematic Works v. Rotter.net Ltd., 2011

Influenced by the Supreme Court’s decision Hebrew University vs. Schocken , the district court in Tel-Aviv. The case involved a website which posted Links to copyrighted works which were postedSee details

Law No. 22 of 1992 on the Protection of Copyright, as amended on March 31, 2005

The Copyright Law in Jordan has no specific provisions dealing with the liability of Online Service Providers (OSPs). It contains no provisions that expressly deal with secondary liability.See details

Civil Code, Law No. 43 of 1976

( 1 ) In the absence of a provision in the Copyright Law, secondary liability is dealt with general tort law principles of joint liability under the Jordanian civil legalSee details

Omnibus Bill, No. 524 (first introduced on June 26, 2013), Amending Provisions in Various Laws and Decrees including Law No. 5651 “Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Suppression of Crimes Committed by means of Such Publications”, Law No. 5809 “Electronic Communications Law” and others.

( 1 ) 19 articles of the Omnibus Bill amend Law No. 5651. These amendments place the Internet service and access providers under the obligation of ( i ) establishing,See details

Law No. 5809, November 5, 2008, Electronic Communications Law (English Version)

( 1 ) An amendment to article 8 of Law No. 5651 (see below) was made through the Electronic Communication Law as follows: “ADDITIONAL ARTICLE 1- (7) The following paragraphSee details

By-Law No. RG-26942, July 20, 2008, By-Law On Security of Electronic Communications (English Version)

Note: This regulation was somehow published before the enactment of the Electronic Communications LawSee details

By-Law No. RG-27655, July 28, 2010, By-Law on Consumer Rights in the Electronic Communications Sector (English Version)

 

By-Law No. RG-27697, September 12, 2010, By-Law on Quality of Service in the Electronic Communications Sector (English Version)

 

Communique No. RG-28236, March 17, 2012, Communique on the Implementation of Annex-4 of the By-Law on Quality of Service in the Electronic Communication Sector

Communique on the Implementation of Annex-4 of the By-Law on Quality of Service in the Electronic Communication SectorSee details

By-Law, No. RG-27752, November 11, 2010, By-Law on Internet Domain Names

By-law that was prepared on the basis of the Article 5, 34 and 35 of the Electronic Communications Law No. 5809. Articles 16 to 20 regulates the responsibilities of theSee details

Communique No. RG-28267, April 17, 2012

Communique on Acquiring Quality of Service Criteria of GSM Mobile Telephony Services.See details

Regulation No. RG-28363, July 24, 2012, Regulation Concerning the Processing of Personal Data and the Protection of Privacy in the Electronic Communications Sector

The purpose of this Regulation, which was issued on the basis of Articles 4, 6, 12 and 51 of Electronic Communications Law Nr. 5809, is to set out the proceduresSee details

Law No. 5651, May 23, 2007, Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Suppression of Crimes Committed by means of Such Publications

( 1 ) The Law No. 5651 aims to combat certain online crimes and regulates procedures regarding such crimes committed on the Internet through content, hosting, and access providers. ItSee details

Regulation No. RG-26680, October 24, 2007

Regulation No. RG-26680, October 24, 2007, Regulation on the Procedures and Principles for Granting Operating Certificate to Access Providers and Hosting Providers by the Telecommunication Authority (English Version)See details

Regulation No. RG-26687, November 1, 2007

Regulation on Internet Public Use ProvidersSee details

Regulation No. RG-26716, November 30, 2007

Regulation on the Principles and Procedures of Regulating the Publications on the InternetSee details

Law No. 5237, October 12, 2004, Turkish Criminal Code (English Version)

Chapter 10 regulates the crimes in the field of Informatics. The crimes in Articles 84 (guidance to suicide), 103/1 (child abuse), 190 (facilitation of drug or cordial use), 194 (providingSee details

Law No. 5846, December 5, 1951, Turkish Code of Intellectual and Artistic Works, as Amended by Law No. 5101/25 of March 3, 2004 (English Version)

Access blocking is a legal remedy for intellectual property infringements provided under supplemental Article 4 (see Annex 4, Amendment: 3.3.2004-5101/25 within the English text linked above) of the Law No.See details

Law No. 5070, January 15, 2004, Electronic Signature Law (English Version)

Chapter 2 provides the responsibilities, Chapter 3 sets the penalties and inspection provisions of the Electronic Certificate Service Providers.See details

By-Law No. RG- 25692, January 6, 2005

By-law on the Procedures and Principles Pertaining to the Implementation of Electronic Signature Law (English Version)See details

Law No. 4721, December 7, 2002, Turkish Civil Code (English Version)

Internet intermediaries could be faced with blocking orders as precautionary injunctions, which are issued by civil courts with regard to the violation of personal rights and defamation claims (Article 24,See details

Constitutional Court, Akdeniz, Altiparmak + YouTube LLC, Tanrikulu, Feyzioglu, Tanal, Bedirhanoglu v Presidency of Telecommunications and Communication (TIB), No. 2014/4705, May 29, 2014

The Turkish Constitutional Court decided that TIB's blocking of the video sharing platform YouTube was unlawful and should have been be lifted as it violated Article 26 of the TurkishSee details

Constitutional Court, Akdeniz, Altiparmak, Tanrikulu v Presidency of Telecommunications and Communication (TIB), No. 2014/3986, April 2, 2014

The Turkish Constitutional Court decided that TIB's blocking of the video sharing platform YouTube was unlawful and should have been be lifted as it violated Article 26 of the TurkishSee details

Supreme Court, 9th Criminal Chamber, Coskun Ak case, E.2001/1854, K.2001/2649, October 25, 2001

Coskun Ak was a forum moderator operated by Superonline, a well known ISP in Turkey. He was sentenced to 40 months in prison due to a particular message about humanSee details

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Final Judgement, Yildirim v Turkey, 3111/10, December 18, 2012

Violation of Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights - Freedom of expression -{General} Related domestic law: Law No. 5651, Article 8. ECHR Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression, FreedomSee details

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Final Judgement, Akdeniz v. Turkey, 20877/10, March 11, 2014

( 1 ) Last.fm was blocked by Turkish courts at the request of a local group representing rights holders. It was challenged by the applicant simply as a user ofSee details

1st Criminal Court of Peace of Istanbul, Mehmet Selim Kiraz Case, No. 2015/1644, April 6, 2015

( 1 ) The 1st Criminal Court of Peace in Istanbul issued a content removal and blocking order against Twitter, Facebook and YouTube according to a request of the ChiefSee details

4th Administrative Court of Ankara, Google Inc. - YouTube v Presidency of Telecommunications and Communication (TIB), No. 2014/xxx, May 6, 2014

The Court in Ankara ordered TIB to stay the execution of a blocking order banning access to YouTube in Turkey. Later, upon claim of the Prosecution Office of the sameSee details

Criminal Court of First Instance of Ankara, Gölbaşı, Google Inc, YouTube, No. 2014/91 D, April 9, 2014

The Court finally ruled to unblock access to the popular video-sharing website YouTube, after initially ordering a temporary measure to reinstate the ban as per the prosecution’s request. ( 1See details

18th Criminal Court of Peace of Instanbul Anadolu, Objecting Party: Twitter Inc., No. 2014/98, March 27, 2014 [English Version]

Following a decision of the 5th Criminal Court of Peace of Istanbul Anadolu, TIB banned two Twitter accounts, discussing the government related corruption news that appeared in the mainstream andSee details

15th Administrative Court of Ankara, The Union of Turkish Bar Associations (TBB) v Presidency of Telecommunications and Communication (TIB), Information and Telecommunication Authority (BTK), No. 2014/511, March 25, 2014

The Court in Ankara ordered TIB to stay the execution of a blocking order banning access to Twitter in Turkey after receiving an appeal filled by the Turkish Bar Association,See details

Criminal Court of Peace, Recep Konuk Corruption Case, 2010

A 2010 decision of the Turkish criminal court of peace provides an important precedent in regards to how Turkish courts should interpret and apply the provisions of Law No. 5651See details

First Criminal Court of Peace of Diyarbakır, Digiturk, October 20, 2008

The Court lifted its blocking order (ban to the two domains and their IP addresses) with regards to Blogger.com and Blogspot. Digiturk, a subscription based digital TV platform in TurkeySee details

2nd Criminal Court of Peace of Sivas, Ataturk, No. 2008/11, January 16, 2008

Ordering an IP address based access ban to YouTube.com as the website contained two further videos containing defamatory statements about Ataturk contrary to article 8(1)(b) of the Law No. 5651See details

2nd Civil Court of First Instance of Kadıköy, Dean of University of Marmara, No. 2008/1, January 8, 2008

Issuing an URL access ban with regards to a single video containing defamatory statements about the dean of University of Marmara in Istanbul in breach of articles 24 and 25See details

11th Criminal Court of Peace of Ankara, Ataturk, No. 2007/1431, December 17, 2007

This is the first decision issuing an order to block access to certain YouTube pages (URL access ban). The blocking order was issued because YouTube contained 8 videos involving defamatorySee details

5th Criminal Court of Peace of Ankara, Ataturk prosecution, October 2007

Issuing a blocking order that banned access to www.youtube.com with regards to 66 video clips involving defamatory statements about Ataturk, the Turkish Army, the Prime Minister and the President ofSee details

2nd Civil Court of First Instance of Istanbul, Adnan Oktar vs. Wordpress.com and Google groups, August 2007

Defamation claims from Adnan Oktar resulted in the blocking of the websites Wordpress.com and Google groups in Turkey (article 9 of Law No. 5651).See details

11th Assize Court of Ankara, No. 2007/2882, June 1, 2007

Issuing blocking order in connection with two YouTube video clips involving a suspect who was under custody for interrogation. It was alleged that the clips had been broadcasted by otherSee details

11th Assize Court of Istanbul, PKK, No. 2007/842, April 3, 2007

Issuing a blocking order releted to the display of acts of violence and terrorism. The blocking order involved 67 videos depicting terrorist propaganda and attacks by PKK, and the orderSee details

1st Criminal Court of Peace of Istanbul, Ataturk Prosecution, March 2007

Ordering the blocking of access to the whole of www.youtube.com because of a single video involving defamatory statements about Ataturk and scenes disparaging the Turkish Flag. Those conducts are consideredSee details

District Court of Afyonkarahisar, Civil, Governor Muammer Dilek v Muhammet Tascilar (ISP) Urfa, 20003/119, March 12, 2004

Muammer Dilek, the ex governor of Sanliurfa, claimed that there were defamatory comments about him on the Sanliurfa.Com website. The Court ordered Muhammet Tascilar, the owner of the company hostingSee details

Istanbul Assize Court, Coskun Ak Prosecution, May 1999

Coskun Ak, a former moderator of various forums operated by Superonline, one of the largest ISPs in Turkey was sentenced to 40 months in prison due to a particular messageSee details

Ley de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión [Broadcasting and Telecommunications Act], July 17, 2014

( 1 ) The Telecommunications Act recently passed in Mexico (on July 17, 2014). Under Article 15, Section LXI , the Telecommunications Federal Institute of Telecommunications (FIT) has the powerSee details

Federal Law on Copyright, December 5, 1996, as amended on June 10, 2013

( 1 ) In Mexico there is no ad hoc legislation, such as the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Copyright Law contemplates provisions which accommodate concepts such asSee details

Civil Code, August 31, 1928, as amended on December 24, 2013

The concept of 'strict liability' is defined in Article 1913 of the Civil Code in the following manner: "When a person operates machines, any instrument or substance that is inherentlySee details

Ley Federal de Protección de Datos Personales en Posesión de los Particulares [Federal Law on Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties], April 27, 2010

The Law provides a set of rights called “ARCO rights”, that refer to the rights of Access, Rectification, Cancellation and Objection, that data owners can exercise against the processing ofSee details

Regulations to the Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data, December 19, 2011

The Regulations define the " Right of Cancellation " ("cancellation means stopping the processing of personal data by the data controller, starting from their blockage and subsequent supression") and theSee details

Trans Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Rights Chapter [confidential text leaked on August 30, 2013]

Mexico is partecipating in the negotiation of this international agreement including a section on Internet service provider liability, with countries lining up either in favour of a general notification obligationSee details

Copyright Amendment Bill, implementing a Three Strike System, introduced on April 27, 2010

( 1 ) On April 27, 2010, the Mexican Congress filed and published a bill to amend the Copyright Law based on the HADOPI model. The bill aimed to protectSee details

Séptimo Tribunal Colegiado de Circuito del Centro Auxiliar de la Primera Región, Amparo en Revisión 72/2012, August, 2016.

Séptimo Tribunal Colegiado de Circuito del Centro Auxiliar de la Primera Región, Amparo en Revisión 72/2012 , August, 2016. After the Mexican National Institute for the Access to Information (INAI)See details

National Institute for the Access to Information (INAI), Carlos Sánchez de la Peña v. Google México, S. de R.L., PPD.0094/14, January 2015

( 1 ) The Mexican National Institute for the Access to Information (INAI) ruled in favor of a transportation magnate, Carlos Sánchez de la Peña, who wanted three links removedSee details

Copyright Modernization Act, SC 2012, c 20.

Copyright Modernization Act , SC 2012, c 20. ( 1 ) This is an amending Act to the Copyright Act (see below). Section 31.1 expands the exemption granted by sectionSee details

Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42

( 1 ) The most pertinent parts of this Act for intermediaries are sections 2.4(1)(b), 27 and 29. Section 2.4(1)(b), known as the “ Common Carrier Exemption ”, states thatSee details

Trans Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Rights Chapter [confidential text leaked on August 30, 2013]

The dispute involved links to the website of a company that had been found to have stolen trade secrets from a competitor and used unfair competition tactics to lure customersSee details

Supreme Court of Canada, Google Inc. v. Equuestek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34, June 28, 2017

The dispute involved links to the website of a company that had been found to have stolen trade secrets from a competitor and used unfair competition tactics to lure customersSee details

Supreme Court of Canada, Douez v. Facebook Inc., 2017 SCC 33, June 23, 2017

Recognizing the unequal bargaining power between companies and consumers, the Supreme Court rejected a forum selection clause requiring that legal actions taken against Facebook should be taken in California. TheSee details

Supreme Court of Canada, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) v Bell Canada, 2012 SCC 36, July 12, 2012

Companies who allowed their subscribers to preview musical works via online streaming before making a purchase were found to not have infringed the copyright in those works. The Court heldSee details

Supreme Court of Canada, Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, October 19, 2011

This case involved hyperlinks in an online article that directed its readers to defamatory materials. The issue is whether this constituted a publication for the purposes of defamation law. ForSee details

Supreme Court of Canada, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) v Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers (CAIP), 2004 SCC 45, June 30, 2004

( 1 ) Also known as the Tariff 22 case, this is the leading decision on ISP liability and copyright infringement. The Court denied the claimants royalties for copyrighted materialsSee details

Supreme Court of Canada, CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), 2004 SCC 13, March 4, 2004

( 1 ) The LSUC operated a library, and was accused of copyright infringement by providing photocopying services to its patrons. The Supreme Court ruled that the LSUC did notSee details

Supreme Court of British Columbia, Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, 2014 BCSC 1063, June 13, 2014

The Supreme Court of British Columbia issued an order requiring Google to remove websites from its worldwide index. The dispute involved links to the website of a company that hadSee details

Federal Court of Canada, Voltage Pictures v Does, 2014 FC 161, February 20, 2014

( 1 ) This case is an application of the principles laid out in BMG Canada v John Doe (see below) with respect to disclosure orders. Here, the claimant soughtSee details

Ontario Superior Court, Morris v Johnson, 2011 ONSC 3996, July 20, 2011

This is another instance where the court applied the Warman factors (see above) to a case concerning online defamation. Here, the plaintiff brought an action against the host of aSee details

Ontario Superior Court, Warman v Fournier et al, 2010 ONSC 2126 (Div Ct)

( 1 ) The plaintiff sued the operator of a message board and eight anonymous participants who allegedly posted defamatory statements. In accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure (76.03),See details

Ontario Superior Court, York University v Bell Canada Enterprises, 2009 99 OR (3d) 695 (ONSC)

This case involves a defamatory email and web posting written by a faculty group at York University. The plaintiff was granted a Norwich order compelling two ISPs, Bell Canada EnterprisesSee details

Court of Appeal for British Clolumbia, Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Assn., 2005 BCCA 398, August 3, 2005

The court held an operator of a discussion forum liable for the defamatory remarks posted by its participants because he did not contact his ISP and remove them within aSee details

Federal Court of Canada, BMG Canada Inc v John Doe, 2004 FC 488, March 31, 2004

Representatives from the recording industry sought an order to compel various ISPs to disclose the identity of those who used P2P file-sharing networks (KaZaA and iMesh) to share and downloadSee details

Ontario Superior Court, Irwin Toy v Doe, 2000 OJ No 3318, September 8, 2000

This case demonstrates a successful application for a disclosure order under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure (30.10 and 31.10). Defamatory emails were sent to 75 employees working at theSee details

Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, 17 U.S.C. § 512

Creating safe harbors for ISPs against monetary liability for copyright infringing material posted or sent through an intermediary’s system. Unlike §230, DMCA safe harbors don’t prevent suit for injunctive reliefSee details

Communications Decency Act 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)

The Act provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.See details

Trademark Act 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2), §32(2)

Providing a safe harbor from trademark infringement for publishers, which is also extended to online providers of content written by another.See details

Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) of 2011, H.R. 3261, introduced in the House on October 26, 2011 (postponed)

( 1 ) This Bill was introduced to provide new tools to enforce online copyright infringment. These measures applied to "foreign infinging sites". This definition includes ( i ) U.S.-directedSee details

Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PROTECT IP Act or PIPA) of 2011, S. 968, introduced in the Senate on May 12, 2011 (postponed)

This Bill is the Senate version of SOPA and a rewrite of COICA (see below). The Bill would give the US government and copyright holders additional tools to enhance "enforcementSee details

Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) of 2010, S. 3804, introduced in the Senate on November 18, 2010 (withdrawn)

authorizing the Attorney General to bring an in rem action against any domain name "dedicated to infringing activities." Upon obtaining an order for relief, the registrar of, or registry affiliatedSee details

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961, 42 Med. L. Rptr. 1885 (U.S. 2014)

holding that “Aereo publicly performs copyrighted works, in violation of the Copyright Act’s Transmit Clause, when it sells its subscribers a technologically complex service that allows them to watch televisionSee details

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 125 S. Ct. 2764, 162 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2005)

Songwriters, music publishers, and motion studios brought copyright infringement action against distributors of a P2P file sharing computer networking software. The Supreme Court held that one who distributes a deviceSee details

Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

Universal brought an action against Sony alleging that video tape recorder (VTRs) consumers had been recording some of Universal’s copyrighted works that had been exhibited on commercially sponsored television andSee details

Capitol Records LLC et al v. Vimeo LLC et al, No. 14-1048 (2nd Cir. 2016)

Video-sharing website Vimeo LLC cannot be held liable for copyright infringement for unknowingly hosting older music (pre-1972) uploaded by its users. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in NewSee details

Stephanie Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 5:07-cv-03783-JF (9th Cir. 2015)

( 1 ) The Court gave some breathing space to creators of User-Generated Content (UGC) from bogus takedown notices in cases of blatant misrepresentation of fair use defences by copyrightSee details

Backpage.com, LLC v Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, No. 15-3047 (7th Cir. 2015)

( 1 ) The Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois in an attempt to shut down Backpage.com’s advertising of sexual services sent a letter to Visa and MasterCard, demanding the companiesSee details

Garcia v. Google, Inc., 743 F. 3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2014)

The footage of an actress' minor role in an unreleased adventure film titled “Desert Warrior”, was modified and incorporated into an anti-Islamic film titled the "Innocence of the Muslims", whichSee details

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013)

Music publisher brought action against operator of publicly accessible website, Veoh, which enabled users to share videos with other users and website’s investors, alleging direct and secondary copyright infringement. DistrictSee details

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F.Supp.2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

Capitol Records (CR), a record company, sued ReDigi, which operated an online marketplace for buying and selling pre-owned legally downloaded music, for copyright infringement regarding reproduction and distribution rights inSee details

Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012)

Viacom, owners of copyrighted videos field infringement action against owner and operator of website that allowed users to upload video files free of charge. Second circuit held that actual knowledgeSee details

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC, 821 F.Supp.2d 627 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

( 1 ) Capitol Records, which owns copyrights in sound recordings, musical compositions, and images of album cover art, sued MP3Tunes, an online music storage service provider whose website allowsSee details

Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008)

Social networking site, Myspace faced a claim for liability arising from an assault on a minor by a nineteen-year-old man whom she met through MySpace. Family of the girl suedSee details

Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)

Perfect 10, an adult entertainment magazine providing a subscription-only service online. Third party website publishers posted Perfect 10’s images on their own sites and were searchable on Google, violating PerfectSee details

RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services, 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2003)

Record Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) served, Verizon, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) with subpoena under DMCA 512(h), seeking to identify subscribers whom it believed had infringed their members’ copyrightsSee details

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)

Record companies and music publishers brought copyright infringement action against Napster, an Internet service that facilitated the transmission and retention of digital audio files by its users. Circuit judge heldSee details

JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD) & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. August, 24, 2017.

The Supreme Court of India recognized in August, 24, 2017, that privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed within article 21 of India's Constitution, that protects life and personal liberty. TheSee details

Supreme Court, Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental 403/2016, July 19, 2016.

First instance judges ordered the suspension of the instant messaging service WhatsApp in four different cases in Brazil, leading to an effective block in three cases. The suspensions (blocking ordersSee details

Google Inc., no. 399922, Conseil d'Etat. July 19, 2017.

This case refers to the geographical scope of delistings in "right to be forgotten" ( droit au déréférencement ) requests. Google filed a complaint on the Conseil d'Etat against theSee details

Mme C, M. F, M. H, M. D, F, Conseil d'Etat. February 24, 2017.

With this decision, the Conseil d'Etat refers to the ECJ questions about the implementation of the "right to be forgotten", based on four requests refused by Google, brought to CNILSee details

Deliberation No. 2016-054, CNIL, March 10, 2016

According to the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL), by the date of this deliberation Google has processed approximately 80,000 requests of French citizens to delist specific results from its searchSee details

General Resources - AFRICAN UNION

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), http://www.african-court.org/ African Declaration for Internet Rights and Freedoms, http://africaninternetrights.org See Section 9. Intermediary Liability African Union, http://www.au.int/en African Union, Cyberlegislation, http://au.int/en/cyberlegislationSee details

Nicolo Zingales, Internet intermediary liability: Identifying best practices for Africa (Association for Progressive Communications, November 2013)

Paper Abstract, extracted from https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/internet-intermediary-liability-identifying-best-p The role of intermediaries in global networked communication is ubiquitous. All producers of content on the internet have to rely on the action of someSee details

General Resources - Kenya

Center for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT) at Strathmore Law School in Nairobi, Kenya, http://www.cipit.org Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet), http://www.kictanet.or.keSee details

Alice Munyua, Grace Githaiga and Victor Kapiyo, Intermediary Liability in Kenya (Intermediary Liability in Africa Research Papers No. 2, 2013)

Intermediary Liability in Africa Research Papers No. 2 Independent research commissioned by the Association for Progressive Communications and supported by the Open Society Foundation and Google AfricaSee details

Marisella Ouma, Role and Responsibility of Internet Intermediaries in the Field of Copyright in Kenya (a paper presented at WIPO-ISOC, June 22, 2011)

Paper presented at WIPO-ISOC June 22, 2011See details

General Resources - Morocco

Moroccan Court of Cassation, www.courdecassation.maSee details

General Resources - Nigeria

Alex Comninos, The Liability of Internet Intermediaries in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda: An Uncertain Terrain (Association for Progressive Communications, Intermediary Liability In Africa Research Paper No. 3, OctoberSee details

Gbenga Sesan, Intermediary Liability in Nigeria (Association for Progressive Communications, Intermediary Liability In Africa Research Paper No. 3, October 2012)

Abstract extracted from APC website: https://www.apc.org/en/node/15598 Publication date: October 2012 Author: 'Gbenga Sesan Publisher: APC The rapid growth in internet access and use in Africa, particularly through the mobile internet,See details

General Resources - Rwanda

Supreme Court of Rwanda, http://www.judiciary.gov.rw/the-courts/ordinary-courts/supreme-courtSee details

Alex Comninos, Intermediary Liability in South Africa, APC Intermediary Liability in Africa Research Papers, No. 3 (2012)

This paper is part of a research project conducted on intermediary liability in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda. The paper draws on the independent research conducted by in-country researchers.See details

Nicolo Zingales, Internet Freedom in South Africa, Report for Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) (2014)

This report was produced by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) in the context of the OpenNet Africa initiative (www.opennetafrica.org) which monitors and promotesSee details

General Resources - China

Intellectual Property Protection in China, http://www.chinaipr.gov.cn/channel/newsindex.shtml PRC Government’s Website Stanford China Guiding Cases Project, http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/cgcp World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on Chinese IP Law, http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=CN 中华人民共和国国家知识产权局, http://www.sipo.gov.cn/zcfg/flfg State Intellectual PropertySee details

Jei Wang, Development of Hosting ISPs’ Secondary Liability for Primary Copyright Infringement in China - As Compared to the U.S. and German Routes, 46(3) IIC 275 (2015)

This article takes a comparative approach to studying the development of hosting ISPs’ secondary liability in China, namely by referring to relevant rules in the US and Germany as examples.See details

General Resources - Hong Kong

Intellectual Property Department of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/pub_press/publications/hk.htmSee details

General Resources - Japan

Daniel Sang, Comparative Analysis of National Approaches of the Liability of the Internet Intermediaries, VII. Japan (WIPO Study)See details

General Resources - Malaysia

Peter Leung, How Malaysia escaped the US IP Watch List, MANAGING INTELL. PROP. May 7, 2012 (pointing out that by introducing the immunity from secondary liability for copyright infringement underSee details

Malaysia International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) 2013 Special 301 Report on Copyright Protection and Enforcement, February 8, 2013

The report argues that (1) Malaysia’s safe harbor provisions can be improved if: (i) it will be made clear that the duties to cooperate are triggered by a compliant noticeSee details

Nor Saadah Abd Rahman, Copyright in the Internet with reference to Malaysia, Durham theses, Durham University (2004)

This thesis examines selected legal issues of copyright law in respect of the internet. The thesis focuses on Malaysian and UK Copyright law concerning; accessing web pages; linking; framing andSee details

General Resources - Philippines

Foundation for media Alternatives, http://fma.phSee details

General Resources - South Korea

Statutes of the Republic of Korea (English), http://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/main.do The Supreme Court of Korea (English), http://eng.scourt.go.kr/eng/main/Main.work The Constitutional Court of Korea (English), http://english.ccourt.go.kr/cckhome/eng/index.do The Korea Communications Standard Commission (English), http://www.kocsc.or.kr/eng/Message.php TheSee details

General Resources - Taiwan

The Judicial Yuan’s Database for Judicial Decisions (司法院法學資料檢索系統), http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/ Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (台灣智慧財產權局), http://www.tipo.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=1See details

General Resources - Albania

Albanian Authority on Electronic and Postal Communications, www.akep.alSee details

General Resources - Austria

Internet & Recht, http://internet4jurists.at/provider/index.htmSee details

General Resources - Belgium

KU Leuven Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and ICT, http://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/en University of Namur, Centre de Recherche Information, Droit et Société (CRIDS), http://www.crids.euSee details

General Resources - Bulgaria

Comparison between Intermediary Liability Legislation in Europe and Bulgaria by ILAC team, Nikola Penchev and Bianka Bikova International Legal Advice Center, www.ilac.euSee details

General Resources - Czech Republic

EU Study on ISP liability, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/slovak_republic_12nov2007_en.pdf European Information Society Institute, www.eisionline.org Hutko's Technology Law Blog, www.husovec.eu Blog priateľov EISi Blog of friends of EISi, www.blog.eisionline.orgSee details

R Polcak, The Legal Classification of ISPs - The Czech Perspective. The Legal Classification of ISPs - The Czech Perspective, 1 JIPITEC (2010)

This Article is a comprehension of the lecture held at at the International Conference on “Commons, Users, Service Providers – Internet (Self-) Regulation and Copyright” which took place in Hannover,See details

General Resources - EUROPEAN UNION

Curia, www.curia.europa.eu European Commission, Digital Agenda for Europe, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda European Commission, The EU Single Market, Online Services, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/index_en.htmSee details

Christina Angelopolous, Beyond the Safe Harbours: Harmonizing Substative Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringment in Europe (Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2013-72, 2013)

Angelopoulos, Christina, Beyond the Safe Harbours: Harmonising Substantive Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringement in Europe (November 28, 2013). Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2013-3, p. 253-274.; Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No.See details

General Resources - Finland

Honkasalo Pessi, Criminal Proceedings Against the Administrators of a BitTorrent Tracker: Finreactor KKO 2010:47 , 32 EIPR 591 (2010) Norrgård Marcus, Blocking Web Sites – Experiences from Finland in JohanSee details

General Resources - Germany

Internet & Recht, http://www.internet4jurists.at/provider/entsch2a.htmSee details

General Resources - Greece

Giovanni Maria Riccio, Study on the Liability of Internet Intermediaries - Country Report: Greece, Markt/2006/09/E, November 12, 2007 Dēmētrēs N. Maniōtēs and Ioannis Iglezakis, Cyber Law in Greece (Kluwer LawSee details

General Resources - Ireland

A Guide to the European Communities (Directive 2000/31/EC) Regulations 2003, http://www.djei.ie/publications/trade/2003/ecommercedirectiveguide.doc Data Protection Commissioner, www.dataprotection.ie Data Protection Commissioner, Final report of Audit of Facebook Ireland (2011) and Facebook Ireland AuditSee details

Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, Addressing the Growth of Social Media and Tackling Cyberbullying (2013), www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/Report-on-Social-Media-July-2013-Webs...

Report with recommendations to tackle cyberbulling prepared by the Joint Committee on Transport and CommunicationsSee details

General Resources - Italy

Autorita' per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM), Diritto d'Autore Italian Communication Authority, Copyright Nexa Center for Internet and Society, Observations on the Italian Communication Authority’s Regulatory Scheme Italian Only ForSee details

General Resources - Lithuania

Jason H. Peterson, Lydia Segal, and Anthony Eonas, Global Cyber Intermediary Liability: A Legal & Cultural Strategy , 34 PACE L. REV. 586 (2014), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol34/iss2/3 Karolis Vinciūnas, Civil Liability ofSee details

General Resources - Luxembourg

Luxembourg Ministry of Economy, Direction of E-commerce and Information Security, http://www.gouvernement.lu/3313559/minist-economieSee details

General Resources - Poland

Joanna Kulesza, Polish Supreme Court: All Electronic Press Must be Registered, EDRi, January 12, 2011, https://edri.org/edrigramnumber9-1polish-electronic-press-registration-compulsory Joanna Kulesza, Internet Service Providers Liability for Free Speech On-Line, in 5th Warsaw SeminarSee details

General Resources - Portugal

International Encyclopaedia of Laws for Cyber Law (ed. Prof. Dr. Jos Dumortier), National Monograph “Portugal” by Antonio Lourenço Martins, José Garcia Marques, Pedro Simões Dias, Kluwer Law International, http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/toc.php?pubcode=CYB&PHPSESSID=ff8vbauqvfpdoqe4d5dfld0ek4See details

General Resources - Russia

http://changecopyright.ru (Russian only, website for talking about copyright reform in Russia) Internet censorship in Russia - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Russia http://piratemedia.net (Russian only; website dedicated to piracy and digital news) http://rublacklist.net (RussianSee details

General Resources - Serbia

Serbian Government, http://www.srbija.gov.rs/ Serbian Business Registry Agency, http://www.apr.gov.rs/eng/Home.aspxSee details

General Resources - Slovakia

EU Study on ISP liability, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/slovak_republic_12nov2007_en.pdf European Information Society Institute, www.eisionline.org Hutko's Technology Law Blog, www.husovec.eu Lexforum.sk, www.lexforum.sk Blog priateľov EISi Blog of friends of EISi, www.blog.eisionline.orgSee details

General Resources - Slovenia

Law Yearbook, http://www.ipp-pf.si/pravni-letopis-2010See details

General Resources - Spain

A more comprehensive list of Spanish cases can be found at https://responsabilidadinternet.wordpress.com/ (in Spanish)See details

Miquel Peguera (2010), Internet Service Providers Liability in Spain, 1(3) JIPITEC, 2010

See the full abstract and download the article at JIPITEC website. This article presents the situation of Spanish case law on ISP liability in 2010.See details

Miquel Peguera (2015): In the Aftermath of Google Spain: How the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ is Being Shaped in Spain by Courts and the Data Protection Authority, International Journal of Law and Information Technology. Vol. 23(4), pp 325-347

Article examining how the so-called right to be forgotten is being applied in Spain.See details

Raquel Xalabarder (2012), Spanish Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Google Search Engine... and a Flexible Reading of Copyright Statutes?, 3(2) JIPITEC, 2012

See the full abstract and download the article at JIPITEC website. Article examining an important ruling in favour of the Google search engine: the case Sentencia n.172/2012, of 3 AprilSee details

General Resources - Sweden

Jan Rosén, Serve Copyright Liability - Notes on the Swedish Act on Liability for Intermediaries and Two Recent Decisions of the Swedish Supreme Court , 42 Scandinavian Stud. L. 147See details

General Resources - Iran

Freedom House, Iran, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2013/iran#.U-ymB_ldVEI Small Media, Iranian Internet Infrastucture and Policy Reports, http://smallmediafoundation.com/term/1/11See details

General Resources - Israel

Haifa Center for Law & Technology (HCLT), http://weblaw.haifa.ac.il/en/Research/ResearchCenters/techlaw/Pages/aboutUs.aspx Orit Fischman Afori, Contributory Infringement in Israeli Copyright Law , 52 HAPRAKLIT LAW JOURNAL (Lawyers Bar Law Journal) 3 (2012) (Hebrew) NivaSee details

Rami M. Olwan, Intellectual Property and Development: Theory and Practice (Springer 2013)

Book on the correlation of Intellectual Property Rights and DevelopmentSee details

General Resources - Turkey

Bianet.Org: Internet Related Court Decisions & Bans, http://www.bianet.org/konu/internet-censorship EFF.Org: Turkey, https://www.eff.org/search/site/Turkey Engelli Web.Com (Restricted Web Sites), http://engelliweb.com European Court of Human Rights: Turkish Page, http://echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Turkey_ENG.pdf Human Rights Watch: Turkish Page,See details

Akdeniz Y. and K. Altıparmak, Internet: Restricted Access, A Critical Assessment of Internet Content Regulation and Censorship in Turkey”, Cyber-Rights.Org

Research/Policy paper about content regulation and censorship in Turkey. The paper analyses different legislation, blocking orders issued agains service providers presents recommendations.See details

Akgul M. and M. Kirlidog, Internet Censorship in Turkey, 4(2) Internet Policy Review (June 3, 2015), http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/internet-censorship-turkey

Article providing an overview of internet censorship in Turkey and analysing blocking orders issued by local administrative regulator.See details

Gonenc Gurkaynak, İlay Yılmaz, Derya Durlu, Understanding Search Engines: A Legal Perspective on Liability in the Internet Law Vista (2013)

Paper discussing search engine liability in general and in a Turkish perspectiveSee details

General Resources - Canada

Center for Law Technology and Society, University of Ottawa, http://www.commonlaw.uottawa.ca/en/programs/technology-law/home.html Michael Geist, http://www.michaelgeist.caSee details

Other Resources - United States

Center for Democracy & Technology, Intermediary Liability, https://cdt.org/issue/free-expression/intermediary-liability Electronic Frontier Foundation, https://www.eff.org Eric Goldman's Technology and Marketing Law Blog, blog.ericgoldman.org including a discussion of all Section 230 cases so farSee details

General Resources - Argentina

Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC), ‘Challenges Facing Freedom of Expression: Intermediary Liability in Argentine Case Law’ Freedom House, ‘Freedom on the net 2011 A global assessment of Internet andSee details

Eduardo Bertoni. Elizabeth Compa. Derecho Comparado de la Información (UNAM), Emerging Patterns in Internet Freedom of Expression: Comparative Research Findings in Argentina and Abroad, No.16, 2010

Paper presents an analysis of two cases against search engines in ArgentinaSee details

General Resources - Bolivia

http://www.senapi.gob.bo/ http://www.gacetaoficialdebolivia.gob.bo/ http://www.cepal.org/publicaciones/xml/4/49394/EntreMitosyrealidades.pdfSee details

General Resources - Chile

Claudio Ruiz Gallardo and Juan Carlos Lara Gálvez, Liability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and the exercise of freedom of expression in Latin America (2011) Matías Hercovich Montalba, Responsabilidad deSee details

General Resources - Colombia

Redpatodos (civil society joint), Legal Comments on “Ley Lleras” Bill Redpatodos, Legal Comments for the First Debate of “Ley Lleras” BillSee details

Andrés Izquierdo, Fundación Karisma, “Intellectual Property Reform in Colombia: Future Colombian Copyright Legislation Must Not Place Overly Restrictive Burdens on Internet Service Providers that Unnecessarily Restrict Access to Information and Freedom of Expression of the People of Colombia (Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic, PIJIP Research Paper No. 2013-03, 2013)

Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic, in collaboration with Andrés Izquierdo and Fundación Karisma. 2013.Intellectual Property Reform in Colombia: Future Colombian Copyright Legislation Must Not Place Overly Restrictive Burdens on Internet ServiceSee details

Carlos Cortés (Karisma Foundation consultant), The Unresolved Debate in Colombia about Copyright Protection on the Internet. The case of ‘Lleras Law’ [Full text in Spanish] [Summary in English]

This article anlalyses the rejection of the Ley Lleras proposal in 2011. That proposal would implement domestically the terms of the FTA between Colombia and USA.See details

General Resources - Peru

Comisión de Derechos de Autor del Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y la Propiedad Intelectual Peruvian Copyright Administrative Authority at the National Institute for the Defense of CompetitionSee details

General Resources - Venezuela

Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones de Venezuela (Conatel) Venezuelan National Commission of Telecommunications, http://www.conatel.gob.ve Freedom House, Freedom on the Net, Venezuela, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2013/venezuela#.U9BdWkCTErMSee details

Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability

A key document in the literature of intermediary liability and human rights is the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability. Drafted and endorsed by civil society groups from around the world,See details

Procedimiento Sancionador PS/00149/2016. Resolución R/02232/2016. September 14, 2016.

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 contentSee details

Law No. 2/2011, on a Sustainable Economy, March 4, 2011

Law instituting an administrative body - the Second Section of the Copyright Commission - in charge of issuing orders against information society services hosting copyright infringing materials (Article 43, introducingSee details

Audiencia Nacional, Administrative Chamber, Google Inc v Spanish Data Protection Authority, May 11, 2017 (ES:AN:2017:2433)

The Spanish Data Protection Authority (AEDP) issued a decision ordering Google Inc to delist a search result pointing to negative comments about the professional conduct of a medical doctor; GoogleSee details

Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber, Youkioske.com, 920/2016, December 12, 2016 (ES:TS:2016:5309)

Holding two webmasters of a website liable for criminal copyright infringement; the website would offer links to access, via streaming, scanned full versions of newspapers, magazines and books; the filesSee details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, Meristation, 805/2013, Jan 7, 2014 (ES:TS:2014:68)

Holding the owner of a website liable for third party defamatory comments posted to website’s fora; the defendant had some control mechanisms in place what failed to prevent the postings;See details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, An individual v Google Spain, 210/2016, April 5, 2016 (ES:TS:2016:1280)

Holding Google Spain SL liable for damages for failing to remove links to personal information after a “right to be forgotten” request by the claimant; damages were awarded following art.See details

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, IU Colmenar Viejo, 297/2016, May 5, 2016 (ES:TS:2016:1885)

Holding the owner of a website – a political party’s local association – liable for third party defamatory comments posted to a website’s forum; the defendant carried out a moderationSee details

Juzgado Mercantil No 2 of La Coruña, Mediaproducción v Roja Directa, 247/2016, November 22, 2016 (ES:JMC:2016:4325)

Holding the owner of the website RojaDirecta liable of copyright infringement; the site would offer links to streams of sports events; the court found the site was engaging in anSee details

Law 1682 of 2001, regulating private information.

This law defines what kind of collection, storage, processing and publishing of personal data is allowed. The law also forbids the diffusion of “sensitive data” of individuals or identifiable persons,See details

Law 4868 of 2013, regulating the electronic commerce.

This is the main legislation concerning intermediary liability in Paraguay. The legislation defines the different types of intermediaries, the procedures they should respect to remove unlawful content from the internet,See details

Law 5653 of 2010, on the protection of children and adolescents against harmful content on the Internet.

This legislation focuses on various issues. It obligates Internet Service Providers (Access Providers) to develop and offer software that allow the detection, filtering, classification, deletion and blocking of content harmfulSee details

Monitoring Obligations

Extremist and violent content, repeated copyright infringement, and child abuse images are among the threats that have led courts and policymakers to push for intermediaries to proactively monitor and removeSee details

Administrative Authorities and Content Removal

A central question shaping the debate on intermediary liability and freedom of expression online concerns which decision-makers are empowered to impose restrictions on the flow of information on the Internet.See details

Copyright

As the Internet facilitates nearly costless and limitless reproduction of copyrighted works, policy makers and courts have struggled to find the right balance between competing goals. These include: 1) mitigatingSee details

Right to Be Forgotten

The expression "right to be forgotten" has been used to label a broad range of very different legal issues, from privacy claims requesting broadcasters and newspapers to remove news fromSee details