Estudio De Derecho Comparado Sobre La Responsabilidad De Los Intermediarios En Internet Por Violaciones De Derechos De Autor
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON NATIONAL APPROACHES TO THE LIABILITY OF INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS Ignacio GARROTE FERNÁNDEZ-DÍEZ1 Associate Professor of Civil Law Autonomous University of Madrid 1 The author would like to thank Prof. Juan José Marín López, Professor of Civil Law at the University of Castile-La Mancha (Spain), for his generosity when it came to providing a good part of the material used in the research that led to the drafting of this paper. Thanks for their collaboration must also go to Carlos Castro (Colombia), Adriana Mauleón (Mexico), Anastasia Amosova (Russia) and Federico Mastrolilli (Italy). Any possible errors committed in this paper are the author's exclusive responsibility. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 3 II. ARGENTINA ......................................................................... 5 III. BELGIUM ......................................................................... 7 IV. BRAZIL ......................................................................... 14 V. CHILE ......................................................................... 17 VI. FINLAND ......................................................................... 21 VII. FRANCE ......................................................................... 24 VIII. GERMANY ......................................................................... 32 IX. ITALY ......................................................................... 41 X. MEXICO ......................................................................... 46 XI. MOROCCO ......................................................................... 47 XII. COLOMBIA ......................................................................... 51 XIII. RUSSIA ......................................................................... 54 XIV. RWANDA ......................................................................... 59 XV. SENEGAL ......................................................................... 60 XVI. SPAIN . ......................................................................... 62 XVII. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 67 2 I. INTRODUCTION This study set out to analyse the liability of Internet intermediaries in cases of copyright and related rights infringement in fifteen different jurisdictions. For the purposes of achieving this goal, it should be borne in mind that the concept of "intermediary" used in this study encompasses different economic activities. Firstly, the term includes internet service providers2 (ISPs),3 as defined and regulated by different statutory instruments in force, including, in particular, the European Union Directive on Electronic Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the DEC) and the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (hereinafter referred to as the DMCA). One is thus speaking here of enterprises that provide services of "mere conduit" or "caching", and "hosting", with this last term strictly referring to those who confine themselves to allocating server space to third parties, without providing additional services. However, the concept of "intermediary" used in this paper also includes other cases in which there is an activity of direct or indirect collaboration with infringement of intellectual property rights by online end-users. Hence, the concept of intermediation in the widest sense also extends to those who design, maintain and commercially exploit electronic platforms or social networks adapted to Web 2.0. In cases such as these (take, for example, the Facebook, Dailymotion, Myspace, Twitter, YouTube or Ebay services), the work of the electronic- platform owner consists of providing technological and/or economic support to enable the exchange of content matter or its dissemination by third parties. These activities will be generally referred to as "Web 2.0 intermediation activities" or "Web 2.0 platforms", on analysing whether they are entitled to benefit from the exemption established for hosting by many jurisdictions. Likewise included in this study are cases such as web pages which contain directories or lists of hyperlinks that direct the end-user to external digital storage sites, or which launch peer-to-peer (P2P) applications that allow end-users to accomplish the exchange of files.4 These are cases that will be generically classed under the category of "link-listing websites". This paper will also include another intermediation activity in the broad sense, namely that of Internet search engines which locate and facilitate access to online content via hyperlinks, thereby posing the problem of what happens when such linked material infringes intellectual property rights. In this case, reference will be made to the blanket term, "Internet search engines". 2 For these purposes, it is pertinent to recall the distinction between publishers and intermediary providers (of mere transmission or access, proxy caching, and hosting). In the former case, the ISP has control over the content that it posts online. If, by its conduct, it violates the owners' exclusive rights, it will be held answerable for this in the manner envisaged by the respective enactments and does not enjoy the exemptions from liability (safe harbour) which many such enactments envisage for intermediaries. Where, in contrast, an ISP is carrying out intermediation activities, the safe harbours provided for in the various enactments are applicable, along with the specific requirements and conditions in said laws. 3 Internet Service Providers. 4 These pages contain a great number of hyperlinks on which users can click to initiate the file download process by means of P2P programmes. 3 Lastly, persons who provide online software designed to enable end-users to exchange files by means of P2P technology could also be regarded as "intermediaries", though in this particular case one would have to analyse whether their contribution to the infringement of rights committed by such users indeed sufficed to warrant the description of "intermediary". Apart from a brief overview, however, this study does not include a detailed analysis of the different "graduated response" systems which some countries have in place against end-users in cases of direct infringement of intellectual property rights (e.g., as envisaged by France's "Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur internet " (HADOPI) Act or Britain's Digital Economy Act). The reason is that, in such cases, while the ISP has a relevant role in interrupting or blocking the end-user's connection, normally its job is merely instrumental with respect to action against the direct offender, being confined to collaborating with the competent national (judicial or administrative) authority in identifying infringers and disabling service access in the case of repeat infringers.5 For this same reason (incidental role of ISPs), no analysis has been made of the conceivable implications of the eventual entry into force of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, (ACTA)6,7 for some of the signatory countries targeted by this study. It should be borne in mind, moreover, that this study has focused on infringements suffered by the holders of copyright and related rights, without prejudice to the fact that the conclusions drawn may often be valid where other interests are at a stake, e.g., industrial property rights (trademarks in particular) or even personal rights (good name, privacy, image), a case in which the same enactment is occasionally applied (i.e., the European Union Directive on Electronic Commence); or, that the conclusions reached in cases of copyright infringement may be applicable mutatis mutandis to other sectors of the legal system. At an international level, the specific problem of ISP liability was the subject of intense lobbying at the Diplomatic Conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in December 1996, which concluded with the adoption of the WIPO Copyright Treaty8 (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty9 (WPPT). 5 Even so, an Internet intermediary (an access or hosting provider in particular) may sometimes incur liability for not having correctly implemented an injunction for cessation or for not having complied with the detection and removal procedure applicable to the case. 6 The EU and 22 of its Member States have signed the treaty, though it has not yet been ratified by the European Parliament. Other countries that have also signed the ACTA are Australia, United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and, insofar as this study is concerned, Morocco and Singapore. 7 Section 5 of the ACTA contains a series of rules governing observance of intellectual property rights in the digital environment. Insofar as ISPs are concerned, Article 27.2 states somewhat ambiguously that the procedures for the observance of intellectual property include infringements of copyright and related rights, and that such infringements could include the illegal use of means of widespread distribution for infringing purposes. The article goes on to state that the procedures for preventing these widespread infringements must preserve fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy, though the footnote to this paragraph adds, confusingly and slightly cryptically, that this can be achieved, for example, by adopting or maintaining a regime providing for limitations on the liability