Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Online Service Providers’ Liability, Copyright Infringement, and Freedom of Expression: Could Europe Learn from Canada?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 31))

  • 2070 Accesses

Abstract

Imposing a high level of liability to Online Service Providers may result in over-enforcement against allegedly infringing conducts, with a “chilling-effect” on freedom of speech.

The regime for OSPs’ liability under Dir. 2000/31 was conceived as a well balanced approach. However, the interpretation of the European Court of Justice and of some national courts has raised the bar on providers’ duties. The absence in Dir. 2000/31 of a notification system of infringing activities is surely one of the reasons why this scenario has come into existence. As a result, the Commission has been considering the adoption of a new regime of “notice & action”.

An interesting approach is the Canadian one, based on the so-called “notice and notice” system. Upon receiving notification from the copyright owner, the OSP is not obliged to remove the content; it must only forward that notification to the alleged infringer. Furthermore, non-compliance leads only to the payment of statutory damages.

“Notice and notice” has proved an efficient and effective tool that correctly balances freedom of expression and providers’ needs. In this paper, I compare the European and Canadian regulatory frameworks for OSPs’ liability, and investigate whether the Canadian approach could offer a solution to some of the persisting problems of the European one.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an economic analysis of providers’ liability: Schruers 2002, pp. 231 ff.

  2. 2.

    Sometimes OSPs were considered as publishers; see, for instance, in UK: Godfrey v Demon Internet Service [2001] Queen’s Bench (QB) 201; in Italy: Trib. Naples, 9.8.1997, in Riv. Dir. Industriale 1999, II, 38; in USA: Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).

  3. 3.

    The Agreed Statements in Art. 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty could be considered as a first step towards consensus for OSP protection (Margoni, Perry 2013, pp. 1202–1203).

  4. 4.

    De Beer, Clemmer 2009.

  5. 5.

    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 [2000] Official Journal (OJ) L 178, 17.7.2000, 1–16. For comments: Julià-Barceló, Koelman 2000; Baistrocchi 2003; Verbiest et al. 2007.

  6. 6.

    Pub. L. 105–304, 112 Stat. 2860 (Title 17 U.S.C. § 512).

  7. 7.

    For an overview: Patten 2007; Brown 2008; Reese 2009. For a comparison between the EU and USA approaches: Julià-Barceló 2000; Peguera 2009.

  8. 8.

    Pub. Law 104–104; 110 Stat. 56. For an overview: Cannon, 1996. For a comparison between CDA and DMCA: Band, Schruers 2002; Gasser, Schulz 2015.

  9. 9.

    Lemley 2007, pp. 105–107.

  10. 10.

    Julià-Barceló 2000, pp. 111–118.

  11. 11.

    Van Eecke 2011, pp. 1468–1472; Elkin-Koren 2014, p. 29; Gasser, Schulz, 2015, passim.

  12. 12.

    Scholars notice the tendency of national courts to apply national laws instead of the European ones: Margoni, Perry 2013, p. 1204; Van Eecke 2011, p. 1460.

  13. 13.

    See Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v. Telefónica de España SAU, C-275/06, January 29, 2008; LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH v. Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH, C-557/07, February 19, 2009. More recently, on the same issue: Bonnier Audio AB et al. v. Perfect Communication Sweden AB, C-461/10, April 19, 2012.

  14. 14.

    Directive 2004/48/EC Of The European Parliament Aand of The Council of 29 April 2004 on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights [2004] Official Journal (OJ) L 195, 2.6.2004, 16–25. See spec. art. 8.

  15. 15.

    Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM), C-70/10, November 24, 2011; Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v. Netlog NV, C-260/10, February 6, 2012.

  16. 16.

    UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH e Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH, C-314/12, March 27, 2014.

  17. 17.

    Scarlet v. SABAM, par. 28.

  18. 18.

    UPC Telekabel Wien v. Constantin, par. 17.

  19. 19.

    Consider also the seminal and much criticized decision of the CJEU in “Google Spain”: Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), C-131/12, May 13, 2014.

  20. 20.

    Joined cases C-236/08 (Louis Vuitton Mallettier SA v. Google France SARL), C-237/08 (Viaticum SA e Luteciel SARL v. Google France SARL), C-238/08 (Google France SARL v. Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL, Pierre-Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger SARL), March 23, 2010.

  21. 21.

    The same issue was at the base of the other joined cases.

  22. 22.

    Louis Vuitton v. Google, cit., par. 110; Opinion of the Advocate General, Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08, September 22, 2009, pars. 134–135.

  23. 23.

    Opinion of the Advocate General, Joined Cases C-236/08, C-237/08 and C-238/08, cit., pars. 137 – 146.

  24. 24.

    L’Oréal SA v. eBay International AG, C-324/09, July 12, 2011.

  25. 25.

    Opinion of the Advocate General, C-236/08, C-324/09, December 9, 2010, pars. 138 – 151.

  26. 26.

    L’Oréal v. eBay, cit., par. 120.

  27. 27.

    L’Oréal v. eBay, cit., par. 122.

  28. 28.

    L’Oréal v. eBay, cit., par. 122. Emphasis added.

  29. 29.

    Opinion of the Advocate General, C-236/08, C-324/09, pars. 154 – 168.

  30. 30.

    Opinion of the Advocate General, C-236/08, C-324/09, pars. 162 – 163. Emphasis added.

  31. 31.

    Van Eecke 2011, pp. 1481–1482.

  32. 32.

    Some national implementations do not even ask for “actual knowledge” but introduced different requirements. See: European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, 2012, pp. 32 ff. Knowledge is an even more critical factor with reference to juridical persons: Van Eecke 2011, p. 1475; Burk 2011.

  33. 33.

    For instance: Juzgado de lo Mercantil n. 7 of Madrid, 23.7.2008, n. 320; Trib. Turin, 5.5.2014 (unpublished).

  34. 34.

    See e.g. Trib. Rome, 16.12.2009, Dir. Informatica, 2010, 268. See also Commission Staff Working Document on Online services, cit., 32 ff.

  35. 35.

    Mantelero 2014, 796.

  36. 36.

    Trib. Rome, 16.12.2009, cit.; Trib. Milan, 7.6.2011, in Dir. Informatica, 2011, 660; Trib. Milan, 9.9.2011, in Riv. Dir. industriale, 2011, II, 364; Trib. Milan, 25.5.2013, in Resp. Civ. Prev., 2013, 1996. Contra: Court of Appeal Milan, 7.1.2015, in Resp. Civ. Prev., 2015, 1245.

  37. 37.

    Van Eecke 2011, pp. 1483–1484. See also: Regional Court of Hamburg, 5.3.2010, ref. no. 324 O 565/08. In the eBay case, the fact that filters had been installed to detect information that might contravene the terms of use of the site and implemented a notice and take-down system (Cf. L’Oréal v. eBay, cit., par. 46), might have weighed in favor of the applicability of exemptions to the provider.

  38. 38.

    § 512(f).

  39. 39.

    Art. 21, par. 2, Dir. 2000/31.

  40. 40.

    “Notice and take down” is the name given to the notification system under the DMCA, § 512(c)(3).

  41. 41.

    Commission of the European Communities 2003, pp. 14 ff.

  42. 42.

    Verbiest et al. 2007, p. 15.

  43. 43.

    Belgian Internet Service Providers Association Code of Conduct at: http://www.ispa.be/code-conduct-fr/

  44. 44.

    Marini Balestra, Tremolada 2014; Tosi 2015, pp. 125 ff.

  45. 45.

    European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, 2012a, b, pp. 40–44. See also Annex II of the same document.

  46. 46.

    Memorandum of Understanding on the Sale of Counterfeit Goods on the Internet, May 4, 2011, at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/memorandum_04052011_en.pdf

  47. 47.

    European Commission, Communication, 2012a, b, p. 13.

  48. 48.

    Summary of the results of the Public Consultation on the future of electronic commerce in the Internal Market and the implementation of the Directive on electronic commerce (2000/31/EC), 2010, pp. 10 ff., at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2010/e-commerce/summary_report_en.pdf

  49. 49.

    Public consultation on the future of electronic commerce in the internal market and the implementation of the Directive on electronic commerce (2000/31/EC), at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2010/e-commerce_en.htm; A clean and open Internet: Public consultation on procedures for notifying and acting on illegal content hosted by online intermediaries, at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/clean-and-open-internet_en.htm

  50. 50.

    European Commission, Communication, 2012a, b, p.13 fn. 49.

  51. 51.

    European Commission, Communication, 2012a, b, p. 15. See Kuczerawy 2015.

  52. 52.

    European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document 2013, pp. 17 ff.

  53. 53.

    CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339.

  54. 54.

    CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, cit., par. 38.

  55. 55.

    Citing Muzak Corp. v. Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, Ltd., [1953] 2 S.C.R. 182, 193.

  56. 56.

    CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, cit., parr. 39–45.

  57. 57.

    2 S.C.R. 427 (2004).

  58. 58.

    SOCAN v. CAIP, cit., par. 127.

  59. 59.

    SOCAN v. CAIP, cit., passim.

  60. 60.

    On this matter, the Supreme Court referred to the Canadian Association of ISPs’ Code of Conduct. Cf. SOCAN v. CAIP, cit., par. 110.

  61. 61.

    Section 2.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act.

  62. 62.

    SOCAN v. CAIP, cit., parr. 32–33. The Court (par. 96) compared ISPs to the owners of telephone wires citing the old case Electric Despatch Co. v. Bell Telephone Co., 20 S.C.R. 83 (1891).

  63. 63.

    Scassa, Deturbide 2012, p. 428.

  64. 64.

    SOCAN v. CAIP, cit., par. 127.

  65. 65.

    Hagen 2010, p. 377.

  66. 66.

    This definition is consistent with the interpretation given by the Copyright Board in SOCAN Statement of Royalties, Public Performance of Musical Works 1996, 1997, 1998, (Re) 1 C.P.R. (4th) 417, par. 32.

  67. 67.

    The provision does not apply to “off-line” devices (cf. H agen, 2010, p. 380). S. 27(2.4) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors that courts can take into account to determine whether there was copyright infringement under S. 27(2.3).

  68. 68.

    SS. 41.25, 41.26, 41.27(3).

  69. 69.

    S. 41.26(1)(b).

  70. 70.

    S. 41.26(c).

  71. 71.

    S. 41.27.

  72. 72.

    Hamilton 2005, p. 393.

  73. 73.

    CAIP “Code of Conduct”, at: http://www.cata.ca/Communities/caip/codeofconduct/CodeConduct.html. See Bernstein, Ramchandani 2002; Nesbitt 2003; Chwelos 2006.

  74. 74.

    Hamilton 2005, p. 296.

  75. 75.

    Van Eecke 2011, p. 1485.

  76. 76.

    S. 41.26 (2).

  77. 77.

    See Art. 5.5 CETA, version published on September 26, 2014; TTP, Section I, Leaked Version of October 5, 2015, at: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf

References

  • Baistrocchi, P. (2003). Liability of intermediary service providers in the EU directive on electronic commerce. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 19, 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Band, J., & Schruers, M. (2002). Safe harbors against the liability hurricane: The communications decency act and the digital millennium copyright act. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 20, 295–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, A., & Ramchandani, R. (2002). Don’t shoot the messenger! A discussion of ISP liability. Canadian Journal of Law & Technology, 1, 77–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. (2008). Fortifying the safe harbors: Reevaluating the DMCA in a Web 2.0 world. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23, 437–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burk, D. L. (2011). Toward an epistemology of ISP secondary liability. Philosophy & Technology, 24, 437–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, R. (1996). The legislative history of Senator Exon’s communications decency act: Regulating barbarians on the information superhighway. Federal Communications Law Journal, 49, 51–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chwelos, P. (2006). Internet service providers report. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/vwapj/ISP_Report_2006_01_20.pdf/$file/ISP_Report_2006_01_20.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities. (2003). First report on the application of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on the directive on electronic commerce. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2003/0702/COM_COM(2003)0702_EN.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beer, J., & Clemmer, C. D. (2009). Global trends in online copyright enforcement: A non-neutral role for network intermediaries? Jurimetrics, 49, 375–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkin-Koren, N. (2014). After twenty years: Revisiting copyright liability of online intermediaries. In S. Frankel & J. G. Daniel (Eds.), The evolution and equilibrium if copyright in the digital age (pp. 29–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012a). A coherent framework for building trust in the digital single market for e-commerce and online services. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:87375c7c-1bd0-445d-b251-60599af8c73b.0009.03/DOC_1&format=PDF

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012b). Commission staff working document: Online services, including e-Commerce in single market. Accompanying the document: A coherent framework for building trust in the digital single market for e-commerce and online services. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/communication2012/SEC2011_1641_en.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2013). E-commerce action plan 2012–2015. State of play 2013. http://ec.europa. eu/ internal_market/e-commerce/docs/communications/130423_report-ecommerce-action-plan_en.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasser, U., & Schulz, W. (2015). Governance of online intermediaries: Observations from a series of national case studies. The Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publication Series. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2015/online_intermediaries

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, G. R. (2010). “Modernizing” ISP copyright liability. In M. Geist (Ed.), From “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copyright”. Canadian copyright and the digital agenda (pp. 361–394). Toronto: Irwin Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, S. N. (2005). Made in Canada: A unique approach to internet service provider liability and copyright infringement. In M. Geist (Ed.), In the public interest: The future of canadian copyright law (pp. 285–308). Toronto: Irwin Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julià-Barceló, R. (2000). On-line intermediary liability issues: Comparing E.U. and U.S. Legal Frameworks. E.I.P.R. 22: 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julià-Barceló, R., & Koelman, J. K. (2000). Intermediary liability: Intermediary liability in the E-Commerce directive: So far so good, but it’s not enough. Computer Law & Security Review, 16, 231–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuczerawy, A. (2015). Intermediary liability & freedom of expression: Recent developments in the EU notice & action initiative. Computer Law & Security Reviews, 31, 46–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantelero, A. (2014). Responsabilità aquiliana per uso della Rete e responsabilità del provider. In F. Delfini & F. Giusella (Eds.), Diritto privato dell’informatica (pp. 785–828). Torino: UTET.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margoni, T., & Perry, M. (2013). Deep pockets, packets, and harbors. Ohio State Law Journal, 74, 1195–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marini Balestra, F., & Tremolada, R. (2014). Enforcement of online copyright in Italy: The new regulation adopted by the Italian communications authority. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 143–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesbitt, S. (2003). Rescuing the balance? An assessment of Canada’s proposal to limit ISP liability for online copyright infringement. Canadian Journal of Law & Technology, 2, 115–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, L. B. (2007). From safe harbor to choppy waters: YouTube, the digital millennium copyright act, and a much needed change of course. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 10, 179–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peguera, M. (2009). The DMCA safe harbors and their European counterparts: A comparative analysis of some common problems. Columbia JL & Arts, 32, 481–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reese, A. R. (2009). The relationship between the ISP safe harbors and ordinary rules of copyright liability. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 32, 427–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scassa, T., & Deturbide, M. (2012). Electronic commerce and internet law in Canada. Toronto: CCH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schruers, M. (2002). The history and economics of ISP liability for third party content. Virginia Law Review, 88, 205–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tosi, E. (2015). High tech law: The digital legal frame in Italy. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eecke, P. (2011). Online service providers and liability: A plea for a balanced approach. Common Market Law Review, 48, 1455–1402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbiest, T., et al. (2007). Study on the liability of internet intermediaries. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/final_report_en.pdf

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Post-doc Fellow in Comparative Private Law, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Federica Giovanella

Authors
  1. Federica Giovanella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federica Giovanella .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Mariarosaria Taddeo

  2. Alan Turing Institute, London, United Kingdom

    Luciano Floridi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Giovanella, F. (2017). Online Service Providers’ Liability, Copyright Infringement, and Freedom of Expression: Could Europe Learn from Canada?. In: Taddeo, M., Floridi, L. (eds) The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47851-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47852-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation