logo
calendar10 Dekabr 2019
view37
Main language:English

INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY OF ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR COPYRIGHTED OBJECTS

Field of Science:
pdf

file.pdf

PDF

Ҳуқуқий тадқиқотлар электрон журнали

Ҳуқуқий тадқиқотлар электрон журнали

Publish Articlesee more

ARTICLE ANNOTATION

quote
The problem of online intermediary liability was subject of considerable debate in the recent decade, reinforced by the approaches placing intermediary in a position of gatekeepers that was contradictory to the paradigm of communication intermediary. A solution was brought by reserving the legitimate defense for intermediary for the content located in their platforms, in the case of non-moderation and non-monitoring, brought by Art 5 of Information Society Directive in European Union and Art 512 of DMCA in U.S. However the presence of liability does not appear straightforward, as, in the absence of knowledge about specific cases of infringement, the intermediary may still have general knowledge by virtue of control it exercises over its service. Moreover, the commercial purpose of the activity that disqualifies from the protection was often neglected because of the lack of control exercised by intermediary over the content online and the automated nature of the process

AUTHORS

A.Ismanjanov

Toshkent Xalqaro Vestminster Universiteti

Tags

# intermediary liability# DMCA Art 512# safe harbor defense# InfoSoc Directive# mere conduit defense# general knowledge and specific k# DMCA 512moddasi# “Safe Harbor” mudofaasi# InfoSoc Direktivasi# “Mere Conduit” himoyasi# umumiy bilim va aniq ma'lumot# информационная посредническая от# DMCA ст. 512# защита “Safe Harbour”# директива InfoSoc# защита “Mere Conduit”# общие знания и специальные знани

OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS JOURNAL

Rate Article

0
0 ratings
5
4
3
2
1

Article Identifiers

ROI:

https://eroi.uz/11.0037/A1219-0026

DOI:

Not Available

References

1. Andrew Murray, Information Technology Law (3rd edn, 2016 OUP) 99

2. Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB)

3. Case C236/08, Google France, Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier, 2008 O.J. (C 209)

4. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

5. Case C-5/08 Infopaq International v Danskie Dagblades Firebubg [2009] ECR I-6569

6. Charlotte Waelde, Copyright and the Internet: Closing the Gates on the Public Domain, Faculty of Law, University of Edinburgh 2002.

7. Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society [2001] OJ L 167/10

8. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178).

9. Diane Rowland, Uta Kohl, Andrew Charlesworth, Information Technology Law, 4th edn, 2012 Routledge – 531

10. Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access OJ L 320, 28.11.1998, p.54

11. Digital Millennium Copyright Act Library of Congress. 1998. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998: U.S. Copyright Office summary. [Washington, D.C.]: [Copyright Office, Library of Congress].

12. Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2012] EWCA Civ 1708

13. FA Premier League v GC Leisure [2008] EWHC 1411 (Ch)

14. Godfrey v Demon Internet Service [2001] QB 201

15. Google France SARL v Viaticum SA, Google France SARL v Centre National de Rechercheen Relations Humaines (CNRRH) SARL Joined cases C-236-238/08 [2011] All ER (EC) 411

16. Joanna Kulesza, International Internet Law (Routledge 2012) 225 - 62.

17. Jeremy Kirk, ‘Irish ISP: We won’t block the Pirate Bay’ (2009) PC World, 24 February, available online at www.pcworld.com/article/160114/irish_isp_we_wont_block_the_pirate_bay.htm)

18. Jean Nicolas Druey, Information Cannot be Owned Research Publication No. 2004-05 4/2004, https://cyber.harvard.edu/wg_home/uploads/339/Druey.pdf

19. Tobias Mc Fadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany Gmbh Case C-484/14 [2016] E.C.D.R. 21

20. The Newspaper Licensing Agency and ors v Meltwater Holding BV and ors [2011] EWCA Civ 890

21. Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. 2010 WL 2532404 (S.D.N.Y 2010)