348

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

  • Web Address
  • DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.26739/2181-9130-2019-3-5
  • Date of creation in the UzSCI system10-12-2019
  • Read count0
  • Date of publication26-06-2019
  • Main LanguageIngliz
  • Pages42-48
English

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

Ўзбек

Onlayn vositachi javobgarligi so'nggi o'n yilda katta bahs-munozaralarga sabab bo'ldi, vositachilarni aloqa vositachi paradigmasiga zid bo'lgan gatekeeper yondashuvlar qo`llanildi. Onlayn platformasida joylashgan kontentni, platforma tomonidan nazorat va monitoring olib borilmagan taqdirda, vositachisi uchun javobgarlikni olib tashlash yo'li bilan hal qilindi. Bu Yevropa Ittifoqidagi “Ma'lumot Jamiyati” Direktivasining 5-moddasi va AQSh DMCAning 512-moddasi orqali amalga oshirildi. Lekin majburiyatlarning aniqlash qiyinchilik yaratdi, va onlayn platformaning muayyan huquqbuzarlik holatlari to'g'risidagi maxsus bilimlarga ega bo'lmasa ham, vositachilar uning xizmatidan foydalangan holda, nazorat qilish orqali hali ham umumiy bilimga ega bo'lishi mumkin edi. Bundan tashqari, onlayn platformani faoliyati tijoriy maqsadlarda olib borilgan holda, jarayonning avtomatlashtirilganligi sababli, himoya berilmasligi e'tiborsiz qoldirilgan.

Русский

Проблема ответственности онлайн посредников была предметом серьезных споров в последнем десятилетии, и подкреплен подходами размещения посредника в позиции гейткиперов, что противоречила парадигме коммуникационного посредника. Решение было принято Европейским Союзом в Статье 5 Директивы Информационного Общества и Статье 512 Закона США об Авторском Праве в Цифровом Тысячелетии, об исключении ответственности при отсутствии модерации и мониторинга контента. Тем не менее, наличие ответственности не представляется однозначным, так как при отсутствии сведений о конкретных случаях нарушений, посредник все также может иметь о них общее представление. Кроме того, коммерческая цель деятельности, исключающая защиту, часто пренебрегается, в силу автоматического характера процесса.

№ Author name position Name of organisation
1 Ismanjanov A.A. katta o`qituvchisi Toshkent Xalqaro Vestminster Universiteti
№ Name of reference
1 1. Andrew Murray, Information Technology Law (3rd edn, 2016 OUP) 99
2 2. Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB)
3 3. Case C236/08, Google France, Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier, 2008 O.J. (C 209)
4 4. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
5 5. Case C-5/08 Infopaq International v Danskie Dagblades Firebubg [2009] ECR I-6569
6 6. Charlotte Waelde, Copyright and the Internet: Closing the Gates on the Public Domain, Faculty of Law, University of Edinburgh 2002.
7 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 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 9. Diane Rowland, Uta Kohl, Andrew Charlesworth, Information Technology Law, 4th edn, 2012 Routledge – 531
10 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 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 12. Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2012] EWCA Civ 1708
13 13. FA Premier League v GC Leisure [2008] EWHC 1411 (Ch)
14 14. Godfrey v Demon Internet Service [2001] QB 201
15 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 16. Joanna Kulesza, International Internet Law (Routledge 2012) 225 - 62.
17 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 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 19. Tobias Mc Fadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany Gmbh Case C-484/14 [2016] E.C.D.R. 21
20 20. The Newspaper Licensing Agency and ors v Meltwater Holding BV and ors [2011] EWCA Civ 890
21 21. Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. 2010 WL 2532404 (S.D.N.Y 2010)
Waiting