File #2447: "2018_Book_RegulatingHostingISPsResponsib.pdf"
Testo
1|Acknowledgements|5
1|Contents|7
1|1 Introduction|12
2|1.1 Background|13
3|1.1.1 Liability Privileges to Ensure the Freedom to Operate of Hosting ISPs|15
3|1.1.2 Justification of Imposing Restriction on the Freedom to Operate of Hosting ISPs|18
3|1.1.3 Operating Challenges for Hosting ISPs in the US, EU and China|21
2|1.2 Definition of the Problem|23
2|1.3 Methodology and Outline of the Book|25
2|References|28
1|2 Responsibility Rules of Copyright Enforcement on Hosting Platforms|30
2|2.1 Secondary Liability Rules in the US, EU and China|30
3|2.1.1 Secondary Liability Rules in the US|31
3|2.1.2 Secondary Liability Rules in the EU|34
4|2.1.2.1 German Laws|35
4|2.1.2.2 French Laws|37
4|2.1.2.3 Italy Laws|38
4|2.1.2.4 UK Laws|39
3|2.1.3 Indirect Infringement Rules in China|42
2|2.2 “Safe Harbor” Provisions|44
3|2.2.1 US DMCA §512|45
3|2.2.2 The EU E-Commerce Directive|47
3|2.2.3 Internet Regulation in China|50
2|2.3 Conclusion|55
2|References|56
1|3 Active or Passive: A Threshold for Hosting ISPs to Enter a “Safe Harbor”|58
2|3.1 China|60
3|3.1.1 Displaying Hosting ISPs’ Logo|60
3|3.1.2 Inserting the Advertisements|61
3|3.1.3 Generating a Collection of Uploaded Content|61
2|3.2 European Union|63
3|3.2.1 France|63
3|3.2.2 Italy|64
3|3.2.3 Germany|65
4|3.2.3.1 Photo Platform Pixum—OLG Hamburg|65
4|3.2.3.2 Platform for Photos Exchange—KG Berlin|66
4|3.2.3.3 YouTube—LG Hamburg|67
4|3.2.3.4 Chefkoch.de—BGH|67
3|3.2.4 UK|68
2|3.3 United States|70
2|3.4 Analysis on the Factors Involved in Deciding Hosting ISPs’ “Passivity”|73
3|3.4.1 Commercial Exploitation of Uploaded Content|73
3|3.4.2 Editing of Uploaded Content|75
3|3.4.3 Displaying Logos with Uploaded Contents|76
3|3.4.4 Requiring of Right Transfer|76
3|3.4.5 Uploading Contents by Itself|77
2|3.5 How to Define “Passivity” in Post Web 2.0|78
2|3.6 Conclusion|81
2|References|81
1|4 Hosting ISPs’ Secondary Liability Under the Roof of “Safe Harbor” Provisions|83
2|4.1 Monitoring Responsibility and General Knowledge of Infringements|84
3|4.1.1 “No Monitoring Responsibility” Clause in the US|84
3|4.1.2 “No General Obligation to Monitor” Clause in the EU|86
3|4.1.3 From “Uncertainty” to “No General Monitoring” in China|87
2|4.2 Specific Knowledge of Infringements|88
3|4.2.1 “Red Flag” Standard in US|89
3|4.2.2 Hosting ISPs’ Specific Knowledge in the EU|92
4|4.2.2.1 Positive Knowledge in Germany|93
4|4.2.2.2 Actual Knowledge in France|95
4|4.2.2.3 Knowledge in the UK|96
4|4.2.2.4 Actual Knowledge in Italy|97
3|4.2.3 “Should Know” in China|98
2|4.3 Repeating Infringements|101
3|4.3.1 Repeat Infringer Policy in US|101
3|4.3.2 Repeat Infringement in the EU|104
4|4.3.2.1 Störerhaftung—Disturber’s Liability in Germany|105
4|4.3.2.2 Stay-Down in France|107
4|4.3.2.3 Stay-Down in Italy|108
4|4.3.2.4 Injunction in the UK|109
3|4.3.3 Repeat Infringement from the Same Internet User in China|111
2|4.4 Benefit from Infringements|114
3|4.4.1 Direct Benefit in US|114
3|4.4.2 Benefit in the EU|118
4|4.4.2.1 Germany|119
4|4.4.2.2 France|120
4|4.4.2.3 Italy|121
3|4.4.3 Direct Benefit in China|122
2|4.5 Inducement Liability|125
3|4.5.1 Inducement Liability in the US|125
3|4.5.2 Inducing Infringement in China|128
3|4.5.3 Intent to Facilitate Infringement in the EU|129
4|4.5.3.1 Germany|129
4|4.5.3.2 France|130
4|4.5.3.3 UK|131
2|4.6 Chinese Approaches to Decide Hosting ISPs’ Liability|134
3|4.6.1 Setting a Channel for Users to Upload Movies and Television Series|135
3|4.6.2 Famous Works and Hot-Playing Audio-Video Works|136
3|4.6.3 Higher Duty of Care on the Works Being Viewed Over a Certain Number of Times|138
2|4.7 Analysis on the Imputed Factors Evaluated in Case Law|139
3|4.7.1 Intent and Business Model|140
3|4.7.2 Repeat Infringement and Specific Monitoring|143
3|4.7.3 Better Protection for the Highly Valuable Content|146
2|4.8 Conclusions|147
2|References|149
1|5 Notice-and-Takedown Procedures in the US, the EU and China|151
2|5.1 Notice-and-Takedown Procedure in the US|152
3|5.1.1 Setting a Designated Agent|153
3|5.1.2 Elements of Notification|153
3|5.1.3 Counter Notification|156
3|5.1.4 Limitation on Liability|156
3|5.1.5 Misrepresentations|157
2|5.2 Notice-and-Takedown Procedures in the EU|157
3|5.2.1 Entity in Charge of the Notice|158
3|5.2.2 Formal Requirement on Notices|159
3|5.2.3 Precise Location of Alleged Infringing Materials|161
3|5.2.4 Evidence to Prove the Illegality of Alleged Infringing Materials|163
3|5.2.5 Expeditiously Remove Infringing Materials|165
3|5.2.6 Other Issues About Notice-and-Takedown Procedures|166
2|5.3 Notice-and-Takedown Procedure in China|167
2|5.4 Comparison Between the US, the EU and China|173
3|5.4.1 The Locations of Infringing Materials|174
3|5.4.2 Expeditiously Remove|176
3|5.4.3 Substantially Comply or Fully Comply|176
3|5.4.4 Wrong Deletion|178
3|5.4.5 The Validity of Ex Ante Notices|179
2|5.5 Rethinking of Notice-and-Takedown Procedures|179
3|5.5.1 Wrong Deletion Resulting from Current Notice-and-Takedown Procedures|180
3|5.5.2 How to Reduce Wrong Deletion|184
2|5.6 Conclusion|185
2|References|187
1|6 Disclosure of Internet Users’ Identities in the US, EU and China|189
2|6.1 Disclosure of Identities in the US|190
2|6.2 Disclosure of Identities in the EU|192
3|6.2.1 Identity Disclosure—Civil Proceeding or Only Criminal Proceeding|193
3|6.2.2 The Retention of Personal Data|195
3|6.2.3 Ordering the Disclosure of Personal Identity|196
3|6.2.4 Summary in the EU|197
2|6.3 Disclosure of Identities in China|198
3|6.3.1 Disclosure upon the Order of Courts or Request of Copyright Owners|199
3|6.3.2 To What Extent Hosting ISPs Ought to Conduct Identity Disclosure|200
3|6.3.3 Summary in China|202
2|6.4 Comparison of Hosting ISPs’ Duties in Identity Disclosure Mechanisms|203
3|6.4.1 The Pre-conditions of Identity Disclosure|203
3|6.4.2 Disclosing Obligations of Hosting ISPs|205
2|6.5 Conclusion|206
2|References|206
1|7 Self-regulation of Copyright Enforcement on Hosting Platforms|208
2|7.1 Codes of Conduct|210
3|7.1.1 NT Code of Conduct|210
4|7.1.1.1 Requirement of Notice|211
4|7.1.1.2 Evaluation of Notice|212
4|7.1.1.3 Measures to Be Taken|212
4|7.1.1.4 Assessment|213
3|7.1.2 Principles for User Generated Content Services|213
3|7.1.3 Self-discipline Code in China|217
4|7.1.3.1 Self-discipline Treaty|217
4|7.1.3.2 Self-discipline Declaration|218
3|7.1.4 The Evaluation of the Codes of Conduct|220
4|7.1.4.1 A New “Safe Harbor”|220
4|7.1.4.2 Better Legal Certainty|222
4|7.1.4.3 Drawbacks of Codes of Conduct|223
2|7.2 Second Level Agreements|225
3|7.2.1 The Substantial Content of Second Level Agreements|226
3|7.2.2 The Advantages of Second Level Agreements|228
3|7.2.3 Disadvantages of Second Level Agreements|231
2|7.3 Conclusion|233
2|References|235
1|8 Summary and Conclusion|237
2|8.1 Responsibility Rules of Copyright Enforcement on Hosting Platforms|238
2|8.2 Hosting ISPs’ Freedom to Operate and Their Liability for Copyright Infringement|239
2|8.3 Hosting ISPs’ Duties to Facilitate Copyright Enforcement|243
2|8.4 Duties Under Self-Regulation|246
2|8.5 Conclusions and Recommendations|248
2|8.6 Closing Remark|250
2|References|252
1|Summary|253
1|Bibliography|257
1|Articles and Books|257
1|European Union Legislation and Materials|261
1|Member States Legislation|261
1|The United States of America Legislation and Materials|262
1|China Legislation and Materials|262
1|International Legal Materials|263
1|Cases|263
1|Internet Materials|266
1|Contents|7
1|1 Introduction|12
2|1.1 Background|13
3|1.1.1 Liability Privileges to Ensure the Freedom to Operate of Hosting ISPs|15
3|1.1.2 Justification of Imposing Restriction on the Freedom to Operate of Hosting ISPs|18
3|1.1.3 Operating Challenges for Hosting ISPs in the US, EU and China|21
2|1.2 Definition of the Problem|23
2|1.3 Methodology and Outline of the Book|25
2|References|28
1|2 Responsibility Rules of Copyright Enforcement on Hosting Platforms|30
2|2.1 Secondary Liability Rules in the US, EU and China|30
3|2.1.1 Secondary Liability Rules in the US|31
3|2.1.2 Secondary Liability Rules in the EU|34
4|2.1.2.1 German Laws|35
4|2.1.2.2 French Laws|37
4|2.1.2.3 Italy Laws|38
4|2.1.2.4 UK Laws|39
3|2.1.3 Indirect Infringement Rules in China|42
2|2.2 “Safe Harbor” Provisions|44
3|2.2.1 US DMCA §512|45
3|2.2.2 The EU E-Commerce Directive|47
3|2.2.3 Internet Regulation in China|50
2|2.3 Conclusion|55
2|References|56
1|3 Active or Passive: A Threshold for Hosting ISPs to Enter a “Safe Harbor”|58
2|3.1 China|60
3|3.1.1 Displaying Hosting ISPs’ Logo|60
3|3.1.2 Inserting the Advertisements|61
3|3.1.3 Generating a Collection of Uploaded Content|61
2|3.2 European Union|63
3|3.2.1 France|63
3|3.2.2 Italy|64
3|3.2.3 Germany|65
4|3.2.3.1 Photo Platform Pixum—OLG Hamburg|65
4|3.2.3.2 Platform for Photos Exchange—KG Berlin|66
4|3.2.3.3 YouTube—LG Hamburg|67
4|3.2.3.4 Chefkoch.de—BGH|67
3|3.2.4 UK|68
2|3.3 United States|70
2|3.4 Analysis on the Factors Involved in Deciding Hosting ISPs’ “Passivity”|73
3|3.4.1 Commercial Exploitation of Uploaded Content|73
3|3.4.2 Editing of Uploaded Content|75
3|3.4.3 Displaying Logos with Uploaded Contents|76
3|3.4.4 Requiring of Right Transfer|76
3|3.4.5 Uploading Contents by Itself|77
2|3.5 How to Define “Passivity” in Post Web 2.0|78
2|3.6 Conclusion|81
2|References|81
1|4 Hosting ISPs’ Secondary Liability Under the Roof of “Safe Harbor” Provisions|83
2|4.1 Monitoring Responsibility and General Knowledge of Infringements|84
3|4.1.1 “No Monitoring Responsibility” Clause in the US|84
3|4.1.2 “No General Obligation to Monitor” Clause in the EU|86
3|4.1.3 From “Uncertainty” to “No General Monitoring” in China|87
2|4.2 Specific Knowledge of Infringements|88
3|4.2.1 “Red Flag” Standard in US|89
3|4.2.2 Hosting ISPs’ Specific Knowledge in the EU|92
4|4.2.2.1 Positive Knowledge in Germany|93
4|4.2.2.2 Actual Knowledge in France|95
4|4.2.2.3 Knowledge in the UK|96
4|4.2.2.4 Actual Knowledge in Italy|97
3|4.2.3 “Should Know” in China|98
2|4.3 Repeating Infringements|101
3|4.3.1 Repeat Infringer Policy in US|101
3|4.3.2 Repeat Infringement in the EU|104
4|4.3.2.1 Störerhaftung—Disturber’s Liability in Germany|105
4|4.3.2.2 Stay-Down in France|107
4|4.3.2.3 Stay-Down in Italy|108
4|4.3.2.4 Injunction in the UK|109
3|4.3.3 Repeat Infringement from the Same Internet User in China|111
2|4.4 Benefit from Infringements|114
3|4.4.1 Direct Benefit in US|114
3|4.4.2 Benefit in the EU|118
4|4.4.2.1 Germany|119
4|4.4.2.2 France|120
4|4.4.2.3 Italy|121
3|4.4.3 Direct Benefit in China|122
2|4.5 Inducement Liability|125
3|4.5.1 Inducement Liability in the US|125
3|4.5.2 Inducing Infringement in China|128
3|4.5.3 Intent to Facilitate Infringement in the EU|129
4|4.5.3.1 Germany|129
4|4.5.3.2 France|130
4|4.5.3.3 UK|131
2|4.6 Chinese Approaches to Decide Hosting ISPs’ Liability|134
3|4.6.1 Setting a Channel for Users to Upload Movies and Television Series|135
3|4.6.2 Famous Works and Hot-Playing Audio-Video Works|136
3|4.6.3 Higher Duty of Care on the Works Being Viewed Over a Certain Number of Times|138
2|4.7 Analysis on the Imputed Factors Evaluated in Case Law|139
3|4.7.1 Intent and Business Model|140
3|4.7.2 Repeat Infringement and Specific Monitoring|143
3|4.7.3 Better Protection for the Highly Valuable Content|146
2|4.8 Conclusions|147
2|References|149
1|5 Notice-and-Takedown Procedures in the US, the EU and China|151
2|5.1 Notice-and-Takedown Procedure in the US|152
3|5.1.1 Setting a Designated Agent|153
3|5.1.2 Elements of Notification|153
3|5.1.3 Counter Notification|156
3|5.1.4 Limitation on Liability|156
3|5.1.5 Misrepresentations|157
2|5.2 Notice-and-Takedown Procedures in the EU|157
3|5.2.1 Entity in Charge of the Notice|158
3|5.2.2 Formal Requirement on Notices|159
3|5.2.3 Precise Location of Alleged Infringing Materials|161
3|5.2.4 Evidence to Prove the Illegality of Alleged Infringing Materials|163
3|5.2.5 Expeditiously Remove Infringing Materials|165
3|5.2.6 Other Issues About Notice-and-Takedown Procedures|166
2|5.3 Notice-and-Takedown Procedure in China|167
2|5.4 Comparison Between the US, the EU and China|173
3|5.4.1 The Locations of Infringing Materials|174
3|5.4.2 Expeditiously Remove|176
3|5.4.3 Substantially Comply or Fully Comply|176
3|5.4.4 Wrong Deletion|178
3|5.4.5 The Validity of Ex Ante Notices|179
2|5.5 Rethinking of Notice-and-Takedown Procedures|179
3|5.5.1 Wrong Deletion Resulting from Current Notice-and-Takedown Procedures|180
3|5.5.2 How to Reduce Wrong Deletion|184
2|5.6 Conclusion|185
2|References|187
1|6 Disclosure of Internet Users’ Identities in the US, EU and China|189
2|6.1 Disclosure of Identities in the US|190
2|6.2 Disclosure of Identities in the EU|192
3|6.2.1 Identity Disclosure—Civil Proceeding or Only Criminal Proceeding|193
3|6.2.2 The Retention of Personal Data|195
3|6.2.3 Ordering the Disclosure of Personal Identity|196
3|6.2.4 Summary in the EU|197
2|6.3 Disclosure of Identities in China|198
3|6.3.1 Disclosure upon the Order of Courts or Request of Copyright Owners|199
3|6.3.2 To What Extent Hosting ISPs Ought to Conduct Identity Disclosure|200
3|6.3.3 Summary in China|202
2|6.4 Comparison of Hosting ISPs’ Duties in Identity Disclosure Mechanisms|203
3|6.4.1 The Pre-conditions of Identity Disclosure|203
3|6.4.2 Disclosing Obligations of Hosting ISPs|205
2|6.5 Conclusion|206
2|References|206
1|7 Self-regulation of Copyright Enforcement on Hosting Platforms|208
2|7.1 Codes of Conduct|210
3|7.1.1 NT Code of Conduct|210
4|7.1.1.1 Requirement of Notice|211
4|7.1.1.2 Evaluation of Notice|212
4|7.1.1.3 Measures to Be Taken|212
4|7.1.1.4 Assessment|213
3|7.1.2 Principles for User Generated Content Services|213
3|7.1.3 Self-discipline Code in China|217
4|7.1.3.1 Self-discipline Treaty|217
4|7.1.3.2 Self-discipline Declaration|218
3|7.1.4 The Evaluation of the Codes of Conduct|220
4|7.1.4.1 A New “Safe Harbor”|220
4|7.1.4.2 Better Legal Certainty|222
4|7.1.4.3 Drawbacks of Codes of Conduct|223
2|7.2 Second Level Agreements|225
3|7.2.1 The Substantial Content of Second Level Agreements|226
3|7.2.2 The Advantages of Second Level Agreements|228
3|7.2.3 Disadvantages of Second Level Agreements|231
2|7.3 Conclusion|233
2|References|235
1|8 Summary and Conclusion|237
2|8.1 Responsibility Rules of Copyright Enforcement on Hosting Platforms|238
2|8.2 Hosting ISPs’ Freedom to Operate and Their Liability for Copyright Infringement|239
2|8.3 Hosting ISPs’ Duties to Facilitate Copyright Enforcement|243
2|8.4 Duties Under Self-Regulation|246
2|8.5 Conclusions and Recommendations|248
2|8.6 Closing Remark|250
2|References|252
1|Summary|253
1|Bibliography|257
1|Articles and Books|257
1|European Union Legislation and Materials|261
1|Member States Legislation|261
1|The United States of America Legislation and Materials|262
1|China Legislation and Materials|262
1|International Legal Materials|263
1|Cases|263
1|Internet Materials|266