Much Ado about Little -Privately Litigated Internet Disconnection Injunctions
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Martin Husovec ; Miquel Peguera
- 关键词：ISP liability ; Injunctions against intermediaries ; Secondary liability ; Internet disconnection injunctions ; Graduated response ; Three strikes
- 刊名：IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
- 出版年：2015
- 出版时间：February 2015
- 年：2015
- 卷：46
- 期：1
- 页码：10-37
- 全文大小：309 KB
- 参考文献：1. Angelopolous Ch (2009) Filtering the internet for copyright content in Europe. IRIS Plus, p 5
2. Bridy A (2012) Graduated response American style: “six strikes-measured against five norms. Fordham Intellect Prop Media Entertain Law J 23(1):1-6
3. Czychowski Ch, Nordemann J (2013) Grenzenloses Internet: entgrenzte Haftung? GRUR. 986
4. Dinwoodie G (2014) Secondary liability for online trademark infringement: the international landscape. Columbia J Law Arts: vol. 36; Oxford legal studies research paper no. 23/2014, p 16
5. Feiler L (2012) Website blocking injunctions under EU and US Copyright law: slow death of the global internet or emergence of the rule of national copyright law? TTLF working paper no 13
6. Garrote I (2007) La suspension cautelar o cesación definitive de los servicios a los usuarios infractores de derechos de propiedad intellectual, 27 pe.i. / Revista de propiedad intelectual 13-5
7. Giblin R (2014) Evaluating graduated response. Columbia J Law Arts 37:147-10
8. Gilles S (1992) Negligence, strict liability, and the cheapest cost-avoider. Virginia Law Rev 78(6):1295 CrossRef
9. Grabenwarter Ch (2014) / European Convention on Human Rights -Commentary. C.H.Beck, Hart, Nomos, Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, Munich, p 111
10. Grabenwarter Ch, Vranes E (2013) Kooperation der Gerichte im europ?ischen Verfassungsverbund: Grundfragen und neuste Entwicklungen. Manzsche Verlags- und Universit?tsbuchhandlung, Vienna, p 15
11. Halldórsdóttir H (2004) Enforcement of copyright. Scand Stud Law 47:168
12. Husovec M (2013) Injunctions against innocent third parties: the case of website blocking. JIPITEC 2:116-29
13. Husovec M (2014) CJEU allowed website blocking injunctions with some reservations. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 9(7):631-34 CrossRef
14. Jakobsen S (2011a) Injunctions against mere conduit of information protected by copyright: a Scandinavian perspective. Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law (IIC) 42:151-80
15. Jakobsen S (2011b) Mobile commerce and ISP liability in the EU. Int J Law Inf Technol 1:46
16. JHR and LB (2013) After ?kerberg Fransson and Melloni. Eur Const Law Rev 9:170-72
17. Koziol H (2012) “Providerhaftung nach ECG und MedienG-in: Berka W, Grabenwarter Ch, Holoubek M (eds.) / Pers?nlichkeitsschutz in elektronischen Massenmedien Manz Verlag
18. Laffranque J (2012) Who has the last word on the protection of human rights in Europe? Juridica International. vol XIX
19. Leistner M (2014) Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 9(1):75-0 CrossRef
20. Mayr S (2013) Putting a leash on the Court of Justice? Preconceptions in national methodology v effet utile as a meta-rule. Eur J Legal Stud 5(2):8-1
21. Meale D (2011) NewzBin2: the first section?97A injunction against an ISP. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 6:854-57 CrossRef
22. Peguera M (2010) Internet service providers-liability in Spain: recent case law and future perspectives. J Intellect Prop Inf Technol E-Commerce Law (JIPITEC) 1:154
23. Savola P (2013) Internet-operaattori ja perusoikeudet. In: Tapani L (edw), / Oikeustiede- / Jurisprudentia XLVI, pp 131-21
24. Savola P (2014) The ultimate copyright shopping opportunity: jurisdiction and choice of law in website blocking injunctions. IIC 45(3)
25. Seifert A (2011) Die horizontale Wirkung von Grundrechten. Europarechtliche und rechtsvergleichende überlegungen. Europ?ische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW): 18:697
26. Strowel A (2009) Internet piracy as a wake-up call for copyright law makers: is the ‘graduated response-a good reply? WIPO J 1:75-6
27. Wei? W (2013) Grundrechtssutz durch den EuGH: Tendenzen seit Lissabon. Europ?ische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW), p 289-90
28. Yu PK (2010) The graduated response. Florida Law Rev 62:1374-430 - 刊物主题：International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law;
- 出版者：Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- ISSN：2195-0237
文摘
In this article we examine the legal framework of the European Union for injunctions against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right, as set forth in the InfoSoc Directive and the Enforcement Directive. In particular, we consider the conditions to apply for the injunctions, taking into account how those conditions have been construed by the CJEU. We explore which is the minimum floor of injunctive relief Member States are obliged to provide under the Directives, as well as the maximum ceiling allowed, beyond which the protection granted would infringe upon the limits imposed by EU law. Next, we move on to consider particular types of injunctions that right holders may apply for against intermediaries on the basis of Art. 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive, namely those that would consist of enjoining an ISP from providing Internet access to one of its users allegedly engaging in copyright infringement. A case already decided in Spain, Promusicae et al. v. R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, granting such an injunction serves us as a study case to assess the problems these remedies face. On the one hand, these privately litigated Internet disconnection injunctions may be seen by right holders as a promising tool to fight online copyright infringement -perhaps an alternative to unsuccessful graduate response schemes. However, as we show in this article, these injunctions raise serious issues regarding their compatibility with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Indeed, the possibility of effective injunctions of this kind which conform with human rights turns out to be very narrow. In other words, the Directive’s provisions promise much, but if applied correctly, they deliver little.