Main Content

Content from the following sources has been used in the creation of this casebook:

    • 1: Course Plan and Presentation original
    • 1.1: Internet Platforms, GDPR and IP Enforcement CEIPI Training Program original
    • 2: Module 1 - Internet Jurisdiction and Safe Harbours original
    • 2.1: World Intermediary Liability Map (WILMap) (a project led by Giancarlo Frosio at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School) original
    • 2.2: Urs Gasser and Wolfgang Schulz, Governance Of Online Intermediaries: Observations From a Series Of National Case Studies (February 2015) original
    • 2.3: Theory original
    • 2.3.1: Reiner H Kraakman, Gatekeepers: The Anatomy of a Third-Party Enforcement Strategy, 2 (1) Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 53 (1986) original
    • 2.3.2: Giancarlo Frosio, Why Keep a Dog and Bark Yourself? From Intermediary Liability to Responsibility, 25 Oxford Int'l J. Law & Inf. Tech. 1 (2017) original
    • 2.3.3: Giancarlo Frosio, Welcome to the Manila Intermediary Liability Principles!, CIS Blog, March 27, 2015 original
    • 2.4: Internet Jurisdiction original
    • 2.4.1: Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (Australia) original
    • 2.4.2: Bangoura v. Washington Post, C41379 (Court of Appeal of Ontario 2005) (Canada) original
    • 2.4.3: Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'antisemitisme original
    • 2.4.4: Jonathan Zittrain, "I. AN OVERVIEW OF JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN CYBERSPACE," Internet Law Jurisdiction, Foundation Press (2005) original
    • 2.4.5: French Privacy Authority Orders Google to Delist RTBF Infringing Results Worldwide, Stanford CIS Blog, June 23, 2015 original
    • 2.4.6: Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34 original
    • 2.4.7: Google LLC v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 WL 5000834 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2017) original
    • 2.4.8: Additional Readings original
    • 2.4.8.1: Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001) original
    • 2.4.8.2: Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com Inc. original
    • 2.4.8.3: Jonathan Zittrain, думBe Careful What You Ask For: Reconciling a Global Internet and Local Law,дуќ WHO RULES THE NET?, Cato Institute (2003) original
    • 2.4.8.4: Governance of Online Intermediaries: Study by the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers (February 2015) original
    • 2.5: Safe Harbors original
    • 2.5.1: e-Commerce Directive, Articles 12-15 original
    • 2.5.2: Communications Decency Act, Section 230 original
    • 2.5.3: DMCA, Section 512 original
    • 2.5.4: Marco Civil da Internet - Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights," Federal Law no. 12.965, April 23, 2014 original
    • 2.5.5: James Boyle, Intellectual Property? Two Pasts and One Future, Information Influx International Conference, Amsterdam (July 2-4, 2014) original
    • 3: Module 2 - Copyright Infringement: Secondary Liability and Linking original
    • 3.1: William Fisher, Secondary Liability and Dual-Use Technologies (CopyrightX Lecture) original
    • 3.2: BOP Consulting with DotEcon, International Comparison of Approaches to Online Copyright Infringement (report commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office, February 9, 2015) original
    • 3.3: European Union original
    • 3.3.1: Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 22, 2001 on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, 2001 O.J. (L 167) original
    • 3.3.2: Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and XS4All Internet BV, Case C-610/15 (14 June 2017) original
    • 3.3.3: Christina Angelopoulos, Beyond the Safe Harbours: Harmonising Substantive Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringement in Europe, 3 IPQ 253 (2013) original
    • 3.3.4: Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou, Intermediaries' liability for online copyright infringement in the EU: Evolutions and confusions, 31(1) CLS Rev. 57 (2015) original
    • 3.3.5: Matthias Leistner, Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe, 9(1) JIPLP 76 (2014) original
    • 3.3.6: Additional Readings original
    • 3.3.6.1: Petteri Gunther and Marcus Norrgard, Websites: Copyright Enforcement Online and Responsibilities of Internet Intermediaries in Europe, 3 JFT 97дус131 (2014) original
    • 3.4: United Kingdom original
    • 3.4.1: CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc [1988] UKHL 15 (12 May 1988) original
    • 3.4.2: Richard Arnold and Paul S. Davies, Accessory liability for intellectual property infringement: the case of authorisation, LQR 442 (2017) original
    • 3.5: Unites States original
    • 3.5.1: Vicarious Liability original
    • 3.5.1.1: Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F. 3d 259 (9th Cir.1996) original
    • 3.5.1.2: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. original
    • 3.5.2: Contributory Liability original
    • 3.5.2.1: Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. original
    • 3.5.2.2: Wendy J. Gordon, Fair Use As Market Failure: A Structural And Economic Analysis of the Betamax Case And Its Predecessors, 82 Columbia L. Rev. 1600 (1982) original
    • 3.5.3: Inducement Liability original
    • 3.5.3.1: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Grokster original
    • 3.5.3.2: Jane C. Ginsburg and Sam Ricketson, Inducers and Authorisers: A Comparison of the US Supreme Courtду»s Grokster Decision and the Australian Federal Courtду»s KaZaa Ruling (Columbia Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers No. 0698, 2006 original
    • 3.6: Nicolo Zingales, Internet intermediary liability: Identifying best practices for Africa, APC 2013 original
    • 4: Module 2 - Copyright Infringement: Communication to the Public and Linking original
    • 4.1: European Union original
    • 4.1.1: European Commission Communication, Towards a modern, more European copyright framework, 9 December 2015, COM(2015) 626 final original
    • 4.1.2: Communication and Making Available to the Public original
    • 4.1.2.1: Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SA, C-306/05, December 7, 2006 (ECJ) (communication to the public) (OPTIONAL) original
    • 4.1.2.2: Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited v Ireland, Attorney General, C-162/10, March 15, 2012 (ECJ) (communication to the public) original
    • 4.1.2.3: Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v Marco Del Corso, C-135/10, March 15, 2012 (ECJ) (communication to the public) original
    • 4.1.2.4: ITV Broadcasting et al v TV Catchup, C-607/11, March 7, 2013 (ECJ) (live streaming) (OPTIONAL) original
    • 4.1.2.5: VCAST Limited v. RTI SpA, Case C265/16 (29 November 2017) original
    • 4.1.3: Linking original
    • 4.1.3.1: Nils Svensson et al v Retriever Sverige AB, C-466/12, February 13, 2014 (ECJ) (communication to the public, linking) original
    • 4.1.3.2: Svensson (SUMMARY) - Giancarlo F. Frosio, Freedom of Linking in Europe?, CIS Blog, March 10, 2014 original
    • 4.1.3.3: ECS, Opinion on the Reference to the CJEU in Case C-466/12 Svensson (15 February 2013) original
    • 4.1.3.4: Svensson (SUMMARY) original
    • 4.1.3.5: ALAI, Opinion on the criterion думNew Publicдуќ, developed CJEU, put in the context of making available and communication to the public (17 September 2014) original
    • 4.1.3.6: GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others, C-160/15, 8 September 2016 original
    • 4.1.3.7: C More Entertainment AB v. Linus Sandberg, C-279/12, March 26, 2015 (OPTIONAL) original
    • 4.1.3.8: C More Entertainment (SUMMARY) - Giancarlo F. Frosio, (C) More Entertainment for Broadcasters: The European Court of Justice on Linking to Live Streams of Sport Events, CIS Blog, March 31, 2015 original
    • 4.1.3.9: Stichting Brein v Jack Frederik Wullems, Case C-527/15 (26 April 2017) original
    • 4.1.3.10: Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and XS4All Internet BV, Case C-610/15 (14 June 2017) original
    • 4.2: United States original
    • 4.2.1: Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com original
    • 4.2.2: Flava Works v. Gunter (7th Cir. 2012) original
    • 4.2.3: Jane C. Ginsburg, U.S. Compliance With the International Right of Communication to the Public After Aereo: Who Is the Public? (Columbia University School of Law, August 21, 2014) original
    • 5: Module 3-4 - Secondary Liability for Trademark Infringement original
    • 5.1: Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Secondary Liability for Online Trademark Infringement: The International Landscape, 37 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 463 (2014), original
    • 5.4.2: Google France SARL and Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, C-236/08, Google France SARL v. Viaticum SA and Luteciel SARL (C-237/08) and Google France SARL v. Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and Others, C-238/08, joined cases (ECJ, March 23, 2010) (Europe) original
    • 5.4.3: L'Oreal SA and Others v. eBay International AG and Others, C-324/09 (ECJ, July 12, 2011) (Europe) original
    • 5.6.3: Barton Beebe, Tiffany and Rosetta Stone - Intermediary Liability in U.S. Trademark Law, 41 CIPA Journal 192 (2012) original
    • 5.7: Additional Readings original
    • 5.7.3: Eric Goldman, Attempted Trademark Workaround to 47 USC 230 Immunity Fails Badly Ascentive v. PissedConsumer, Technology and Marketing Law Blog, January 15, 2012 original
    • 5.7.4: Ascentive v. Opinion Corp., 2011 WL 6181452 (EDNY 2010) original
    • 6: Module 5-6 - Privacy Obligations original
    • 6.1: General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) original
    • 6.1.1: EU GDPR Portal original
    • 6.1.5: Is There A "Right To Explanation" for Machine Learning in the GDPR? original
    • 6.2: Right to Be Forgotten original
    • 6.2.1: Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Espaн±ola de Protecciн_n de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja Gonzнзlez, C-131/12, May 13, 2014 (ECJ) original
    • 6.2.2: Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González original
    • 6.2.3: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the CJEU Judgment on Google Spain v. Costeja, 14/EN WP 225 (November 26, 2014) original
    • 6.2.4: French Privacy Authority Orders Google to Delist RTBF Infringing Results Worldwide, Stanford CIS Blog, June 23, 2015 original
    • 6.2.6: Giancarlo Frosio, Right to Be Forgotten: Much Ado About Nothing 15(2) Colorado Tech. Law J. 307 (2017) original
    • 6.2.8: Robert Lee Bolton, The Right to Be Forgotten, Forced Amnesia in a Technological Age, 31 J. MARSHALL J. INFO. TECH. & PRIVACY L. 133 (2015) original
    • 6.2.9: Additional Readings original
    • 6.2.9.1: Cambridge Code, Academic Commentary: Google Spain - Compiled by Julia Powles and Rebekah Larsen (Database dedicated to the RTBF) original
    • 6.2.9.2: "Fact Sheet on the 'Right to Be Forgotten' Ruling (C-131/12)," European Commission (2014) original
    • 6.2.9.3: Jonathan Zittrain, "The Right to be Forgotten Ruling Leaves Nagging Doubts," Financial Times (Jul 13, 2014) original
    • 6.2.9.4: Jonathan Zittrain, "The Ten Things that Define You," The Future of the Internet Blog (May 15, 2014) original
    • 6.2.9.5: Jonathan Zittrain, "Donду»t Force Google to Forget," New York Times (May 14, 2014) original
    • 6.2.9.6: Jeffery Rosen, "The Right to be Forgotten," Stanford Law Review Online (Feb 13, 2012) original
    • 6.4: Anonimity original
    • 6.4.1: David Kaye, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Report on Encryption, Anonymity, and the Human Rights Framework, A/HRC/29/32 (UNHR, May 22, 2015) original
    • 6.4.2: Nicolo Zingales, Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden? 5 JIPITEC (2014) original
    • 6.5: Right of Information original
    • 6.5.1: LSG v. Tele2, C-557/07 (ECJ, February 19, 2009) (Europe) original
    • 6.5.2: Productores de MМјsica de EspaМ±a (Promusicae) v TelefМ_nica de EspaМ±a SAU, July 16, 2009 (Case C-275/06) (ISPs‰ЫЄ Right of Information) original
    • 6.5.3: Promusicae (SUMMARY) original
    • 6.5.4: RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services, 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2003) original
    • 8: Module 9 - Free Speech: Defamation, Hate and Dangerous Speech original
    • 8.1: Delfi AS v. Estonia, No. 64569/09 (European Court of Human Rights, October 10 2013) (referred to the Grand Chamber on February 17, 2014) original
    • 8.2: Delfi AS v. Estonia, No. 64569/09 (European Court of Human Rights, June 16, 2015) (Grand Chamber) original
    • 8.3: Giancarlo Frosio, The European Court Of Human Rights Holds Delfi.ee Liable For Anonymous Defamation, CIS Blog, October 25, 2013 original
    • 8.4: PIHL v. Sweden, No 74742/14 (9 March 2017) original
    • 8.5: Magyar Tartalomszolgнзltatн_k Egyesн_lete and Index.Hu v Hungary N 22947/13 (ECHR, 2 May 2016) original
    • 8.6: Anchayil Anjali and Arun Mattamana, Intermediary Liability and Child Pornography A Comparative Analysis, 5 J. INT'L COMM. L. TECH. 48 (2010) original
    • 9: Module 10 & 11 - Enforcement Strategies original
    • 9.1: Voluntary/Private Enforcement original
    • 9.1.1: European Commission Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, COM(2016)288 final (25 May 2016) original
    • 9.1.2: European Commission Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, COM(2017)555 final (28 September 2017) original
    • 9.1.3: U.S. Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, Supporting Innovation, Creativity, and Enterprise: Charting a Path Ahead (12 December 2016) original
    • 9.1.4: Graduated Response original
    • 9.1.4.1: Sony Music Entertainment (Ireland) v. UPC Communications Ireland [2016] IECA 231 original
    • 9.1.4.2: Rebecca Giblin, Evaluating Graduated Response, 37 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 147 (2014) original
    • 9.1.4.3: Nicolas Suzor and B Fitzgerald, The Legitimacy of Graduated Response Schemes in Copyright Law, 34 University of New South Wales Journal of Law 1 (2011) original
    • 9.2: Injunctions original
    • 9.2.1: Martin Husovec, Accountable, Not Liable: Injunctions Against Intermediaries, in TILEC Discussion Paper 2016-012, 2016 original
    • 9.2.2: Callamard Agnes, Are Courts Re-inventing Internet Regulation (Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University Discussion Paper, May 6, 2014) original
    • 9.2.3: Blocking Orders original
    • 9.2.3.1: UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproducktionsgesellschaft mbH, March 27, 2014 (Case C-314/12) (ECJ) (blocking orders) original
    • 9.2.3.2: Telekabel (SUMMARY) original
    • 9.2.4: 17 U.S.C. 501-506 original
    • 9.2.5: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, No. 167/2012 (Supreme Court, March 24, 2015) (India) original
    • 9.3: Notice and Take Down original
    • 9.3.1: UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital, 667 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2011) original
    • 9.3.2: Viacom Intern., Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. original
    • 9.3.3: Stephanie Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 5:07-cv-03783-JF (9th Cir. 2015) original
    • 9.4.1: Scarlet Extended v SABAM, November 24, 2011 (Case C-70/10) (ECJ) (monitoring) original
    • 9.4.2: SABAM v. Netlog NV, Case C-360/10 (16 February 2012) original
    • 9.4.3: Cour de cassation, Urt. v. 6.7.2017 (Nr. 909; SFR, Orange, Free, Bouygues et al. / Union des producteurs de cinema et al.) (Allostreaming decision) original
    • 9.4.4: GEMA v RapidShare I ZR 79/12 (Bundesgerichtshof, August 15, 2013) (summary) original
    • 9.4.5: Google Brazil v. Dafra, Special Appeal No. 1306157/SP (Superior Court of Justice, March 24, 2014) (Brazil) original
    • 9.4.6: Rodriguez M. Belen v. Google, R.522.XLIX. (Supreme Court, October 29, 2014 (Argentina) original
    • 9.4.7: Google v. Mosley ( TGI Paris, November 6, 2013) (France) original
    • 9.4.8: Giancarlo Frosio, The Death of No Monitoring Obligations»: A Story of Untameable Monsters, 8(3) JIPITEC 199 (2017) original
    • 9.5: Licencing Obligations and DSM Reform original
    • 9.5.1: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, 6 May 2015, COM(2015) 192 final original
    • 9.5.2: European Commission Communication, Towards a modern, more European copyright framework, 9 December 2015, COM(2015) 626 final original
    • 9.5.3: European Commission Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, COM(2017)555 final (28 September 2017) original
    • 9.5.4: Proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market, COM(2016) 593 final (14 September 2016), Artt. 11-13 original
    • 9.5.5: European Commission Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, COM(2016)288 final (25 May 2016) original
    • 9.5.6: Giancarlo Frosio, Reforming Intermediary Liability in the Platform Economy: A European Digital Single Market Strategy, 112 Northwestern University Law Review 19 (2017) original
    • 9.5.7: Giancarlo Frosio, From Horizontal to Vertical: An Intermediary Liability Earthquake in Europe 12 Oxford JIPLP 565 (2017) original
    • 9.5.8: Giancarlo Frosio, To Filter or Not to Filter? That Is the Question in EU Copyright Reform, 36(2) Cardozo Arts & Entert. Law J. (forthcoming, 2017 ) original
    • 9.6: Administrative Enforcement original
    • 9.7: Extra-Territorial Application original
    • 9.7.1: Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34 original
    • 9.7.2: Google LLC v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 WL 5000834 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2017) original
    • 9.7.3: Dan Svantesson, A Jurisprudential Justification for Extraterritoriality in (Private) International Law, 13 Santa Clara J. Int'l L. (2015) original
    • 9.7.4: Dan Svantesson, Between a Rock and an Hard Place - An Int'l Law Perspective of the Difficult Position of Globally Active Internet Internmediaries, 30 Comp. L. Sec. Rev. 348 (2014) original