Recent European Litigation on the Legality of Internet Filtering for Copyright Reasons
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•599 views
Darius Whelan University College Cork Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest American University Washington College of Law Washington, DC, August 2011
![E-Commerce Directive ,[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (8)
Similar to Recent European Litigation on the Legality of Internet Filtering for Copyright Reasons
Similar to Recent European Litigation on the Legality of Internet Filtering for Copyright Reasons (20)
More from Darius Whelan
More from Darius Whelan (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Recent European Litigation on the Legality of Internet Filtering for Copyright Reasons
- 1. Recent European Litigation on the Legality of Internet Filtering for Copyright Reasons Darius Whelan, University College Cork Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, Washington, August 2011
- 3. Art. 15 – no general obligation to monitor
- 6. Due Process / judicial review 2
- 7. EMI v UPC (2010) Internet Piracy devastating music business Privacy – not infringed. IP addresses just a set of numbers. Copyright is private property right Irish Act (2000) only permitted orders re “removal” but UPC is mere conduit Art.15 no general obligation to monitor not relevant Did not grant order due to wording of Irish Act Previous Irish “three strikes” settlement still in place 3
- 8. 4
- 9. Scarlet v Sabam (2011) 5 Opinion of Advocate General. Not binding Very wide Belgian court order in issue Order unduly restricts privacy / personal data Law should be accessible, clear and predictable Filtering and blocking not accompanied by adequate safeguards
- 10. 6
- 11. R. (BT and TalkTalk) v SS BIS (2011) Digital Economy Act 2010 Role of ISPs “passive” Mere conduit issue – ISPs were not being made liable for the info. transmitted Proportionality? Parliament had struck balance Code could deal with library hot-spots, etc. IP addresses are personal data Derogation under E-Privacy Directive – right to property No reference of questions to ECJ 7
- 12. 8
- 13. Newzbin 2 case (2011) 9 Order to block access to Newzbin site Contrasted with Scarlet v Sabam Art. 1 First Protocol ECHR – property rights Art. 10 ECHR – freedom of expression Apply copyright legislation in manner which accommodates freedom of expression Deference to Parliament Claimants’ property rights clearly outweighed FoE rights of newzbin users, and even more clearly outweighed FoE rights of operators of newzbin
- 14. 10
- 15. Conclusion Lack of clarity re some key issues in European law, e.g. ambiguity about due process in Framework Directive; Promusicae balance unclear Due Process arguments have potential. Also art.6 ECHR. Note relationship property rights Art.1 First protocol and other rights such as privacy and FoE. More nuance in newzbin 2 case on this – apply legislation in manner which accommodates FoE Can internet users waive fundamental rights? Is it proportionate? Are customers aware of click-wrap terms? Couldn’t files have been downloaded by person not a party to contract? 11
- 16. 12 Courts’ approaches affected by attitudes. EMI v UPC – anger at copyright violations. Scarlet – More concern about internet users’ rights Scarlet case very successful from human rights perspective, but very much affected by facts of case Orders against ISPs inherently questionable – result in over blocking and under blocking; users can circumvent blocking systems; orders interfere with net neutrality