Hard Ones

Question 1

Comment on Newsbin 1

Answer 1

Its difficult to see how this judgement follows the (binding!) precedent in CBS v Amstrad.
Angelopoulos describes the Newsbin 1 decision as “unconvincing legal gymnastics”

Question 2

Advantage of three strikes and youre out rule?

Answer 2

These regimes educate users and allow them to amend their behaviour and mean rights holders avoid the negative publicity that accompanies pursuing individuals

Question 3

Should we impose intermediary liability?

Answer 3

Innovation is driven by users as well as by companies
It would discourage intermediaries from allowing free speech, which is crucial to free speech online
Intermediaries influence qnd determine access to and choice between online information, goods and services according to OECD so maybe should foot some costs

Question 4

How would imposing intermediary liability affect Internets structure

Answer 4

Lemley, levine and post have claimes that it could ‘break the internet’ as the DNS it would require would intrude on the Internets structure, and alters intermediaries role as ‘mere conduits’. This could affect adaptability and interoperability

Question 5

Comment on hosting

Answer 5

Van Eecke has claimed that Article 14 doesnt require a passive role for hosting provider for safe harbour to apply, as long as they have no knowledge or control.
This is known as the storage but no knowledge test
L’Oreal v eBay seemingly replaced neutrality with lack of knowledge

Question 6

L’oreal v ebay

Answer 6

Court seemingly replaced neutrality with lack of knowledge
Receiving renumeration, having terms and conditions and providing basic information to users werent enough to deny safe harbour protection