The European Harmonisation of Intermediairy Civil Liability for Online Copyright Infringement
With the adoption and subsequent national implementation of the E-Commerce Directive’s safe harbour regime, the architecture set up for intermediary liability in Europe has become two-tiered: at a first stage, it is necessary to examine whether a given intermediary attracts, in its pursuit of a certain activity, civil liability according to the standards ensconced in the Member States’ legislation and only then, in the second instance, must the inapplicability of any immunity be established. As a result, although it provides a veneer of approximation by immunising intermediaries under certain circumscribed conditions, the Directive does not harmonise the underlying substantive liability norms which determine whether the safe harbours will be necessary or redundant. This leaves ample room for national divergences, particularly as concerns new types of intermediaries whose eligibility for the existing safe harbours is uncertain.
This PhD research seeks to explore the liability in Europe of online intermediaries for secondary or indirect copyright infringement, i.e. where the material act of infringement is committed by a third party, regardless of the applicability of the safe harbour regime. It will therefore begin with an investigation of the current law relating to intermediary liability for copyright infringement in the legal jurisdictions of England, France and Germany, these three jurisdictions representing each of the three major European extra-contractual liability traditions. The relationship between these rules and national substantive tort principles in the selected countries will subsequently be examined. This shall be done with a view to uncovering common European tort principles that can potentially lead the way to a harmonised, clear and comprehensive European liability regime of intermediaries for copyright infringement.
Publications
Reda, J.; Keller, P.
European Commission back-tracks on user rights in Article 17 Guidance Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Reda2021,
title = {European Commission back-tracks on user rights in Article 17 Guidance},
author = {Reda, J. and Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/04/european-commission-back-tracks-on-user-rights-in-article-17-guidance/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-04},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 11 juni 2020 (Brompton Bicycle / Chedech/Get2Get Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (22), pp. 3136-3138, 2021.
@article{Hugenholtz2021,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 11 juni 2020 (Brompton Bicycle / Chedech/Get2Get},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_175.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-04},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {22},
pages = {3136-3138},
abstract = {Verzoek om een prejudici\"{e}le beslissing krachtens artikel 267 VWEU, ingediend door de tribunal de l’entreprise de Li\`{e}ge (ondernemingsrechtbank Luik, Belgi\"{e}) bij beslissing van 18 december 2018. Intellectuele en industri\"{e}le eigendom, auteursrecht en naburige rechten. Vouwfiets. Bescherming van werken op grond van het auteursrecht. Voor het bereiken van een technisch resultaat noodzakelijke vorm.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing krachtens artikel 267 VWEU, ingediend door de tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège (ondernemingsrechtbank Luik, België) bij beslissing van 18 december 2018. Intellectuele en industriële eigendom, auteursrecht en naburige rechten. Vouwfiets. Bescherming van werken op grond van het auteursrecht. Voor het bereiken van een technisch resultaat noodzakelijke vorm.
Dommering, E.
Annotatie Hof van Justitie EU 19 december 2019 (Airbnb Ireland / Hotelière Turenne) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2021 (20/21), pp. 2799-2802, 2021.
@article{Dommering2021bb,
title = {Annotatie Hof van Justitie EU 19 december 2019 (Airbnb Ireland / Hoteli\`{e}re Turenne)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_61.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-03},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
volume = {2021},
number = {20/21},
pages = {2799-2802},
abstract = {Deze zaak (beslist door de Grand Chamber van het Hof) gaat over Airbnb in Frankrijk en gaat over dezelfde problematiek als in de Uberzaken in Spanje en Frankrijk (HvJEU 20 december 2017, zaak C-434/15, NJ 2018, 361 m.nt. E.J. Dommering, resp. HvJEU 10 april 2018, zaak C-320/16, NJ 2019, 3). In die zaken werd beslist dat de Uberdienst weliswaar een ‘dienst in de informatiemaatschappij’ is, zodat de e-commerce richtlijn (richtlijn 2000/31) van toepassing kan zijn, maar toch meer kenmerken van een vervoersdienst heeft, hetgeen ruimte schept voor de lidstaten ze onder de regels voor taxidiensten te brengen. In deze zaak beslist het Hof anders.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Deze zaak (beslist door de Grand Chamber van het Hof) gaat over Airbnb in Frankrijk en gaat over dezelfde problematiek als in de Uberzaken in Spanje en Frankrijk (HvJEU 20 december 2017, zaak C-434/15, NJ 2018, 361 m.nt. E.J. Dommering, resp. HvJEU 10 april 2018, zaak C-320/16, NJ 2019, 3). In die zaken werd beslist dat de Uberdienst weliswaar een ‘dienst in de informatiemaatschappij’ is, zodat de e-commerce richtlijn (richtlijn 2000/31) van toepassing kan zijn, maar toch meer kenmerken van een vervoersdienst heeft, hetgeen ruimte schept voor de lidstaten ze onder de regels voor taxidiensten te brengen. In deze zaak beslist het Hof anders.
Quintais, J.
Book review: European Libraries and the Internet: Copyright and Extended Collective Licences, by Ran Tryggvadottir. Journal Article
In: Common Market Law Review, 58 (3), pp. 961 – 964, 2021.
@article{Quintais2021-COLA,
title = {Book review: European Libraries and the Internet: Copyright and Extended Collective Licences, by Ran Tryggvadottir. },
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/58.3/COLA2021061},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-01},
journal = {Common Market Law Review},
volume = {58},
number = {3},
pages = {961 \textendash 964},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Hoboken, J.; Fahy, R.
Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy Journal Article
In: UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, 6 (1), pp. 9-36, 2021.
@article{vanHoboken2021,
title = {Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy},
author = {van Hoboken, J. and Fahy, R.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Regulating-Disinformation-in-Europe.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-01},
journal = {UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law},
volume = {6},
number = {1},
pages = {9-36},
abstract = {This Article examines the ongoing dynamics in the regulation of disinformation in Europe, focusing on the intersection between the right to
freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Importantly, there has been a recent wave of regulatory measures and other forms of pressure on online platforms to tackle disinformation in Europe. These measures play out in different ways at the intersection of the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Crucially, as governments, journalists, and researchers seek greater transparency and access to information from online platforms to evaluate their impact on the health of their democracies, these measures raise acute issues related to user privacy. Indeed, platforms that once refused to cooperate with governments in identifying users allegedly responsible for disseminating illegal or harmful content are now expanding cooperation. However, while platforms are increasingly facilitating government access to user data, platforms are also invoking data protection law concerns as a shield in response to recent efforts at increased platform transparency. At
the same time, data protection law provides for one of the main systemic regulatory safeguards in Europe. It protects user autonomy concerning datadriven campaigns, requiring transparency for internet audiences about targeting and data subject rights in relation to audience platforms, such as social media companies.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This Article examines the ongoing dynamics in the regulation of disinformation in Europe, focusing on the intersection between the right to
freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Importantly, there has been a recent wave of regulatory measures and other forms of pressure on online platforms to tackle disinformation in Europe. These measures play out in different ways at the intersection of the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Crucially, as governments, journalists, and researchers seek greater transparency and access to information from online platforms to evaluate their impact on the health of their democracies, these measures raise acute issues related to user privacy. Indeed, platforms that once refused to cooperate with governments in identifying users allegedly responsible for disseminating illegal or harmful content are now expanding cooperation. However, while platforms are increasingly facilitating government access to user data, platforms are also invoking data protection law concerns as a shield in response to recent efforts at increased platform transparency. At
the same time, data protection law provides for one of the main systemic regulatory safeguards in Europe. It protects user autonomy concerning datadriven campaigns, requiring transparency for internet audiences about targeting and data subject rights in relation to audience platforms, such as social media companies.
freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Importantly, there has been a recent wave of regulatory measures and other forms of pressure on online platforms to tackle disinformation in Europe. These measures play out in different ways at the intersection of the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Crucially, as governments, journalists, and researchers seek greater transparency and access to information from online platforms to evaluate their impact on the health of their democracies, these measures raise acute issues related to user privacy. Indeed, platforms that once refused to cooperate with governments in identifying users allegedly responsible for disseminating illegal or harmful content are now expanding cooperation. However, while platforms are increasingly facilitating government access to user data, platforms are also invoking data protection law concerns as a shield in response to recent efforts at increased platform transparency. At
the same time, data protection law provides for one of the main systemic regulatory safeguards in Europe. It protects user autonomy concerning datadriven campaigns, requiring transparency for internet audiences about targeting and data subject rights in relation to audience platforms, such as social media companies.
Quintais, J.; Appelman, N.; Fahy, R.
DSA Observatory 2021.
@online{Quintais2021f,
title = {Article 12 DSA: Will platforms be required to apply EU fundamental rights in content moderation decisions? },
author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},
url = {https://dsa-observatory.eu/2021/05/31/article-12-dsa-will-platforms-be-required-to-apply-eu-fundamental-rights-in-content-moderation-decisions/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-31},
organization = {DSA Observatory},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Dommering, E.
In: pp. 59-69, 2021, (Hoofdstuk in 'Plagiaat in onderzoek en onderwijs', red. J. Soeharno & K. Algra, VSNU: Den Haag 2021. Ook beschikbaar in het Engels, zie link hieronder, ''Standing on the shoulders of giants'. Truthful citation is the social responsibility of academics.').
@inbook{Dommering2021e,
title = {'Staan op de schouders van reuzen'. Waarheidsgetrouw citeren als maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheid van de wetenschapper},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Staan-op-de-schouders-van-reuzen.pdf
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Plagiarism-in-Academic-Research-and-Education.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-28},
pages = {59-69},
note = {Hoofdstuk in 'Plagiaat in onderzoek en onderwijs', red. J. Soeharno & K. Algra, VSNU: Den Haag 2021. Ook beschikbaar in het Engels, zie link hieronder, ''Standing on the shoulders of giants'. Truthful citation is the social responsibility of academics.'},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Leerssen, P.
Platform ad archives in Article 30 DSA Journal Article
In: DSA Observatory blog, 2021.
@article{Leerssen2021,
title = {Platform ad archives in Article 30 DSA},
author = {Leerssen, P.},
url = {https://dsa-observatory.eu/2021/05/25/platform-ad-archives-in-article-30-dsa/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-25},
journal = {DSA Observatory blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Bostyn, S.
Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy Journal Article
In: 2021.
@article{Bostyn2021,
title = {Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy},
author = {Bostyn, S.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3843327},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-17},
abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.
Bodó, B.
The commodification of trust Journal Article
In: Blockchain & Society Policy Research Lab Research Nodes, (1), 2021.
@article{Bod\'{o}2021,
title = {The commodification of trust},
author = {Bod\'{o}, B.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3843707},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-17},
journal = {Blockchain & Society Policy Research Lab Research Nodes},
number = {1},
abstract = {Fundamental, wide-ranging, and highly consequential transformations take place in interpersonal, and systemic trust relations due to the rapid adoption of complex, planetary-scale digital technological innovations. Trust is remediated by planetary scale techno-social systems, which leads to the privatization of trust production in society, and the ultimate commodification of trust itself.
Modern societies rely on communal, public and private logics of trust production. Communal logics produce trust by the group for the group, and are based on familiar, ethnic, religious or tribal relations, professional associations epistemic or value communities, groups with shared location or shared past. Public trust logics developed in the context of the modern state, and produce trust as a free public service. Abstract, institutionalized frameworks, institutions, such as the press, or public education, science, various arms of the bureaucratic state create familiarity, control, and insurance in social, political, and economic relations. Finally, private trust producers sell confidence as a product: lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, insurers, but also commercial brands offer trust for a fee.
With the emergence of the internet and digitization, a new class of private trust producers emerged. Online reputation management services, distributed ledgers, and AI-based predictive systems are widely adopted technological infrastructures, which are designed to facilitate trust-necessitating social, economic interactions by controlling the past, the present and the future, respectively. These systems enjoy immense economic success, and they are adopted en masse by individuals and institutional actors alike.
The emergence of the private, technical means of trust production paves the way towards the widescale commodification of trust, where trust is produced as a commercial activity, conducted by private parties, for economic gain, often far removed from the loci where trust-necessitating social interactions take place. The remediation and consequent privatization and commodification of trust production has a number of potentially adverse social effects: it may decontextualize trust relationships; it removes trust from the local social, cultural relational contexts; it changes the calculus of interpersonal trust relations. Maybe more importantly as more and more social and economic relations are conditional upon having access to, and good standing in private trust infrastructures, commodification turns trust into the question of continuous labor, or devastating exclusion. By invoking Karl Polanyi’s work on fictious commodities, I argue that the privatization, and commodification of trust may have a catastrophic impact on the most fundamental layers of the social fabric.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Fundamental, wide-ranging, and highly consequential transformations take place in interpersonal, and systemic trust relations due to the rapid adoption of complex, planetary-scale digital technological innovations. Trust is remediated by planetary scale techno-social systems, which leads to the privatization of trust production in society, and the ultimate commodification of trust itself.
Modern societies rely on communal, public and private logics of trust production. Communal logics produce trust by the group for the group, and are based on familiar, ethnic, religious or tribal relations, professional associations epistemic or value communities, groups with shared location or shared past. Public trust logics developed in the context of the modern state, and produce trust as a free public service. Abstract, institutionalized frameworks, institutions, such as the press, or public education, science, various arms of the bureaucratic state create familiarity, control, and insurance in social, political, and economic relations. Finally, private trust producers sell confidence as a product: lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, insurers, but also commercial brands offer trust for a fee.
With the emergence of the internet and digitization, a new class of private trust producers emerged. Online reputation management services, distributed ledgers, and AI-based predictive systems are widely adopted technological infrastructures, which are designed to facilitate trust-necessitating social, economic interactions by controlling the past, the present and the future, respectively. These systems enjoy immense economic success, and they are adopted en masse by individuals and institutional actors alike.
The emergence of the private, technical means of trust production paves the way towards the widescale commodification of trust, where trust is produced as a commercial activity, conducted by private parties, for economic gain, often far removed from the loci where trust-necessitating social interactions take place. The remediation and consequent privatization and commodification of trust production has a number of potentially adverse social effects: it may decontextualize trust relationships; it removes trust from the local social, cultural relational contexts; it changes the calculus of interpersonal trust relations. Maybe more importantly as more and more social and economic relations are conditional upon having access to, and good standing in private trust infrastructures, commodification turns trust into the question of continuous labor, or devastating exclusion. By invoking Karl Polanyi’s work on fictious commodities, I argue that the privatization, and commodification of trust may have a catastrophic impact on the most fundamental layers of the social fabric.
Modern societies rely on communal, public and private logics of trust production. Communal logics produce trust by the group for the group, and are based on familiar, ethnic, religious or tribal relations, professional associations epistemic or value communities, groups with shared location or shared past. Public trust logics developed in the context of the modern state, and produce trust as a free public service. Abstract, institutionalized frameworks, institutions, such as the press, or public education, science, various arms of the bureaucratic state create familiarity, control, and insurance in social, political, and economic relations. Finally, private trust producers sell confidence as a product: lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, insurers, but also commercial brands offer trust for a fee.
With the emergence of the internet and digitization, a new class of private trust producers emerged. Online reputation management services, distributed ledgers, and AI-based predictive systems are widely adopted technological infrastructures, which are designed to facilitate trust-necessitating social, economic interactions by controlling the past, the present and the future, respectively. These systems enjoy immense economic success, and they are adopted en masse by individuals and institutional actors alike.
The emergence of the private, technical means of trust production paves the way towards the widescale commodification of trust, where trust is produced as a commercial activity, conducted by private parties, for economic gain, often far removed from the loci where trust-necessitating social interactions take place. The remediation and consequent privatization and commodification of trust production has a number of potentially adverse social effects: it may decontextualize trust relationships; it removes trust from the local social, cultural relational contexts; it changes the calculus of interpersonal trust relations. Maybe more importantly as more and more social and economic relations are conditional upon having access to, and good standing in private trust infrastructures, commodification turns trust into the question of continuous labor, or devastating exclusion. By invoking Karl Polanyi’s work on fictious commodities, I argue that the privatization, and commodification of trust may have a catastrophic impact on the most fundamental layers of the social fabric.
van Eechoud, M.; as part of ILA Committee:,
Annex Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”) Journal Article
In: JIPITEC, 12 (1), pp. 86-93, 2021.
@article{onProperty2021,
title = {Annex Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”)},
author = {van Eechoud, M. and as part of ILA Committee:},
url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-1-2021/5252},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-11},
journal = {JIPITEC},
volume = {12},
number = {1},
pages = {86-93},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Ancel, M-E.; Binctin, N.; Drexl, J.; van Eechoud, M.; Ginsburg, J. C.; Kono, T.; Lee, G.; Matulionyte, R.; Treppoz, E.; Moura Vicente, D.
International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”): Applicable Law Journal Article
In: JIPITEC, 12 (1), pp. 44-73, 2021.
@article{Ancel2021,
title = {International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”): Applicable Law},
author = {Ancel, M-E. and Binctin, N. and Drexl, J. and van Eechoud, M. and Ginsburg, J.C. and Kono, T. and Lee, G. and Matulionyte, R. and Treppoz, E. and Moura Vicente, D.},
url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-1-2021/5247/jipitec%20-12_1_2021_applicable_law.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-11},
journal = {JIPITEC},
volume = {12},
number = {1},
pages = {44-73},
abstract = {The chapter “Applicable Law” of the International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”) provides principles on the choice of law in international intellectual property matters. The Guidelines confirm the traditional principle of the lex loci protection is for the existence, transferability, scope and infringement of intellectual property rights. The law applicable to the initial ownership of registered rights is governed by the lex loci protection is whereas the law of the closest connection is applied to determine the ownership of copyright. For contracts, freedom of choice is acknowledged. With regard to ubiquitous or multi-state infringement and collective rights management in the field of copyright, the Guidelines suggest innovative solutions. Finally, the chapter contains a Guideline on the law applicable to the arbitrability of disputes.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The chapter “Applicable Law” of the International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”) provides principles on the choice of law in international intellectual property matters. The Guidelines confirm the traditional principle of the lex loci protection is for the existence, transferability, scope and infringement of intellectual property rights. The law applicable to the initial ownership of registered rights is governed by the lex loci protection is whereas the law of the closest connection is applied to determine the ownership of copyright. For contracts, freedom of choice is acknowledged. With regard to ubiquitous or multi-state infringement and collective rights management in the field of copyright, the Guidelines suggest innovative solutions. Finally, the chapter contains a Guideline on the law applicable to the arbitrability of disputes.
Quintais, J.; Schwemer, S.
The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright? Journal Article
In: Working Paper, 2021.
@article{Quintais2021e,
title = {The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright?},
author = {Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S. },
url = {https://privpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3841606},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-10},
journal = {Working Paper},
abstract = {On 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the 21-year- old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services.
Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter.
From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the 21-year- old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services.
Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter.
From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal.
Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter.
From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal.
Voorhoof, D.; McGonagle, T.
Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights Journal Article
In: 2021, ISBN: 9789287184351, (IRIS Themes, vol. III, 6th edition, April 2021).
@article{Voorhoof2021,
title = {Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights},
author = {Voorhoof, D. and McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-2020-edition-en-28-april-2021-/1680a24eee},
isbn = {9789287184351},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-06},
abstract = {This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020) have proved hugely successful. The new sixth edition summarises over 339 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). },
note = {IRIS Themes, vol. III, 6th edition, April 2021},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020) have proved hugely successful. The new sixth edition summarises over 339 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database).
Volgenant, O.; McGonagle, T.
Persvrijheidsmonitor 2020 Journal Article
In: 2021.
@article{Volgenant2021,
title = {Persvrijheidsmonitor 2020},
author = {Volgenant, O. and McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Persvrijheidsmonitor-2020.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-03},
abstract = {Op maandag 3 mei wordt de Internationale Dag van de Persvrijheid gehouden. Op deze dag wordt de jaarlijkse Persvrijheidsmonitor gepresenteerd met een overzicht van de ontwikkelingen op het gebied van de persvrijheid in Nederland.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Op maandag 3 mei wordt de Internationale Dag van de Persvrijheid gehouden. Op deze dag wordt de jaarlijkse Persvrijheidsmonitor gepresenteerd met een overzicht van de ontwikkelingen op het gebied van de persvrijheid in Nederland.
van Gompel, S.
Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 10 september 2020 (Left Lane c.s. / Sony Music) Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, (1), pp. 40-42, 2021.
@article{vanGompel2021b,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 10 september 2020 (Left Lane c.s. / Sony Music)},
author = {van Gompel, S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Auteursrecht_2021-1.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-29},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
number = {1},
pages = {40-42},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Gompel, S.
‘Non, non, rien n’a changé’: Over vergoedingsaanspraken voor makers uit hoofde van exploitatiecontracten Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, 2021 (1), pp. 3-9, 2021.
@article{vanGompel2021,
title = {‘Non, non, rien n’a chang\'{e}’: Over vergoedingsaanspraken voor makers uit hoofde van exploitatiecontracten},
author = {van Gompel, S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht-2021-1.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-29},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
volume = {2021},
number = {1},
pages = {3-9},
abstract = {‘Auteurs en artiesten profiteren nog weinig van Wet Auteurscontractenrecht’, zo luidt de titel van het persbericht van het WODC bij de publicatie van het evaluatierapport van genoemde wet in oktober 2020. Makers geven onder meer aan dat zij hun aanspraak op een billijke vergoeding (art. 25c lid 1 Aw) of de aanvullende billijke vergoeding bij exploitatiesucces (art. 25d Aw) niet durven in te roepen of te handhaven jegens exploitanten. Het is daarom de vraag of de vergoeding die makers van exploitanten ontvangen voor de contractueel verleende exploitatiebevoegdheid van hun werken wel altijd ‘billijk’ is. Mede in het licht van art. 18 e.v. DSM-richtlijn, die eveneens beogen een passende en evenredige vergoeding voor auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars in exploitatiecontracten te waarborgen, bespreekt dit artikel juridische en praktische maatregelen om makers makkelijker in staat te stellen hun vergoedingsaanspraken uit exploitatiecontracten te effectueren.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
‘Auteurs en artiesten profiteren nog weinig van Wet Auteurscontractenrecht’, zo luidt de titel van het persbericht van het WODC bij de publicatie van het evaluatierapport van genoemde wet in oktober 2020. Makers geven onder meer aan dat zij hun aanspraak op een billijke vergoeding (art. 25c lid 1 Aw) of de aanvullende billijke vergoeding bij exploitatiesucces (art. 25d Aw) niet durven in te roepen of te handhaven jegens exploitanten. Het is daarom de vraag of de vergoeding die makers van exploitanten ontvangen voor de contractueel verleende exploitatiebevoegdheid van hun werken wel altijd ‘billijk’ is. Mede in het licht van art. 18 e.v. DSM-richtlijn, die eveneens beogen een passende en evenredige vergoeding voor auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars in exploitatiecontracten te waarborgen, bespreekt dit artikel juridische en praktische maatregelen om makers makkelijker in staat te stellen hun vergoedingsaanspraken uit exploitatiecontracten te effectueren.
Husovec, M.; Quintais, J.
Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders Book Chapter
In: Mylly, Tuomas; Griffiths, Jonathan (Ed.): Oxford University Press, 2021.
@inbook{HusovecQuintais2021-2,
title = {Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders},
author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
editor = {Tuomas Mylly and Jonathan Griffiths},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3835930},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-29},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
abstract = {Copyright law is about recognising the author’s material and non-material interests and setting the incentives for creativity right. The legislative changes in this area increasingly look as if simple linearity governs the world: what we take away from some, we automatically give away in equal part to others. The idea of redistribution is noticeable in recent legislative developments. Art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive) is the latest policy intervention to prove this point. According to its logic, imposing stricter liability on some online gatekeepers will automatically improve the position and revenues for all right-holders. This chapter explores the flaws in such an approach by highlighting how the excessive focus of Art. 17 on big right-holders neglects and harms smaller creators.
EU copyright law often uses a technical term of ‘right-holders’ to refer to a wide range of players with legal entitlements in the copyright ecosystem: authors, performers, phonogram producers, film producers, broadcasting organisations and (most recently) press publishers. Obviously, not all right-holders are created equal nor do their legal entitlements flow from identical normative justifications. We argue in this chapter that even the use of this seemingly neutral term can, due to the design of underlying legal solutions, lead to stark inequality between right-holders. Our broader goal is to demonstrate that maximising enforcement by means of Art. 17 of the DSM Directive does not simply maximise the position of every right-holder at the expense of platforms but does so disproportionality for big right-holders. Besides, we show that blind use of ‘right-holder’ and ‘user’ distinction harms the very creators that provision is supposed to protect. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Copyright law is about recognising the author’s material and non-material interests and setting the incentives for creativity right. The legislative changes in this area increasingly look as if simple linearity governs the world: what we take away from some, we automatically give away in equal part to others. The idea of redistribution is noticeable in recent legislative developments. Art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive) is the latest policy intervention to prove this point. According to its logic, imposing stricter liability on some online gatekeepers will automatically improve the position and revenues for all right-holders. This chapter explores the flaws in such an approach by highlighting how the excessive focus of Art. 17 on big right-holders neglects and harms smaller creators.
EU copyright law often uses a technical term of ‘right-holders’ to refer to a wide range of players with legal entitlements in the copyright ecosystem: authors, performers, phonogram producers, film producers, broadcasting organisations and (most recently) press publishers. Obviously, not all right-holders are created equal nor do their legal entitlements flow from identical normative justifications. We argue in this chapter that even the use of this seemingly neutral term can, due to the design of underlying legal solutions, lead to stark inequality between right-holders. Our broader goal is to demonstrate that maximising enforcement by means of Art. 17 of the DSM Directive does not simply maximise the position of every right-holder at the expense of platforms but does so disproportionality for big right-holders. Besides, we show that blind use of ‘right-holder’ and ‘user’ distinction harms the very creators that provision is supposed to protect.
EU copyright law often uses a technical term of ‘right-holders’ to refer to a wide range of players with legal entitlements in the copyright ecosystem: authors, performers, phonogram producers, film producers, broadcasting organisations and (most recently) press publishers. Obviously, not all right-holders are created equal nor do their legal entitlements flow from identical normative justifications. We argue in this chapter that even the use of this seemingly neutral term can, due to the design of underlying legal solutions, lead to stark inequality between right-holders. Our broader goal is to demonstrate that maximising enforcement by means of Art. 17 of the DSM Directive does not simply maximise the position of every right-holder at the expense of platforms but does so disproportionality for big right-holders. Besides, we show that blind use of ‘right-holder’ and ‘user’ distinction harms the very creators that provision is supposed to protect.
(Ed.)
Opinie: Beleid voor CoronaCheck-app ontbreekt jammerlijk Periodical
2021.
@periodical{Sax2021bb,
title = {Opinie: Beleid voor CoronaCheck-app ontbreekt jammerlijk},
author = {Sax, M. and Helberger, N. and Strycharz, J.},
url = {https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/04/25/beleid-voor-coronacheck-apps-ontbreekt-jammerlijk-a4041219},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-23},
journal = {NRC Handelsblad},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {periodical}
}
Keller, P.
It’s 23 April 2021, so where is the Advocate General opinion in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council? Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Keller2021,
title = {It’s 23 April 2021, so where is the Advocate General opinion in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council?},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/23/its-23-april-2021-so-where-is-the-advocate-general-opinion-in-case-c-401-19-poland-v-parliament-and-council/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-23},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Quintais, J.; Bodó, B.; Giannopoulou, A.; Mezei, P.
The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part II Online
Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021.
@online{Quintais2021c,
title = {The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law \textendash Part II},
author = {Quintais, J. and Bod\'{o}, B. and Giannopoulou, A. and Mezei, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/22/the-rise-of-non-fungible-tokens-nfts-and-the-role-of-copyright-law-part-ii/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-22},
organization = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
van Eechoud, M.
A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data Directive Journal Article
In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , 52 (4), pp. 375-378, 2021, (Editorial).
@article{vanEechoud2021b,
title = {A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data Directive},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IIC_2021.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01049-7},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-14},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {52},
number = {4},
pages = {375-378},
abstract = {As part of its broader digital strategy, the European Commission has articulated a data strategy. Its aim is to help grow “the use of, and demand for, data and data-enabled products and services throughout the Single Market”. In the eyes of the EC, promoting wider availability and use of data would stimulate not just “greater productivity and competitive markets, but also improvements in health and well-being, environment, transparent governance and convenient public services”. That is quite a shopping list. The data strategy has ramifications for intellectual property law, especially for the sui generis database right enshrined in the 1996 Database Directive.},
note = {Editorial},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
As part of its broader digital strategy, the European Commission has articulated a data strategy. Its aim is to help grow “the use of, and demand for, data and data-enabled products and services throughout the Single Market”. In the eyes of the EC, promoting wider availability and use of data would stimulate not just “greater productivity and competitive markets, but also improvements in health and well-being, environment, transparent governance and convenient public services”. That is quite a shopping list. The data strategy has ramifications for intellectual property law, especially for the sui generis database right enshrined in the 1996 Database Directive.
Quintais, J.; Bodó, B.; Giannopoulou, A.; Mezei, P.
The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part I Online
Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021.
@online{QuintaisetalNFTPartI,
title = {The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law \textendash Part I},
author = {Quintais, J. and Bod\'{o}, B. and Giannopoulou, A. and Mezei, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/14/the-rise-of-non-fungible-tokens-nfts-and-the-role-of-copyright-law-part-i/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-14},
organization = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Trapova, A.; Quintais, J.
EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2021 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Trapova2021b,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash first trimester of 2021},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/06/eu-copyright-law-round-up-first-trimester-of-2021/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-07},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Eechoud, M.
Nieuws in de platformeconomie Journal Article
In: De Hofvijver, 11 (118), 2021.
@article{vanEechoud2021,
title = {Nieuws in de platformeconomie},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.montesquieu-instituut.nl/id/vlhef5g0pisa/nieuws/nieuws_in_de_platformeconomie},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-29},
journal = {De Hofvijver},
volume = {11},
number = {118},
abstract = {De media stond de afgelopen weken bol van het nieuws dat Google en Facebook op grond van een nieuwe Australische wet moeten gaan betalen voor het gebruik van ‘news content’. In de EU hebben we al een paar jaar zo’n wet, in de vorm van een richtlijn (2019/790) die inmiddels in de Wet op de naburige rechten is ge\"{i}mplementeerd. Deze zomer treed de herziene wet in werking en hebben uitgevers van perspublicaties aan het auteursrecht vergelijkbare exclusieve rechten ten aanzien van het online (commercieel) gebruik van hun digitale uitgaven. Net als in Australi\"{e} gebeurde, ging de totstandkoming van de Europese wet gepaard met groot retorisch geweld van zowel de kant van traditionele media als van platformen. Digitale platforms zouden advertentie-inkomsten stelen van kranten en rijk worden over de rug van traditionele media. Persuitgevers zouden voorstander zijn van een de-facto belasting op hyperlinks, gebrek aan innovatiekracht tonen en miskennen hoezeer sociale media en zoekmachines hun bereik exponentieel vergroten, en dat gratis.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
De media stond de afgelopen weken bol van het nieuws dat Google en Facebook op grond van een nieuwe Australische wet moeten gaan betalen voor het gebruik van ‘news content’. In de EU hebben we al een paar jaar zo’n wet, in de vorm van een richtlijn (2019/790) die inmiddels in de Wet op de naburige rechten is geïmplementeerd. Deze zomer treed de herziene wet in werking en hebben uitgevers van perspublicaties aan het auteursrecht vergelijkbare exclusieve rechten ten aanzien van het online (commercieel) gebruik van hun digitale uitgaven. Net als in Australië gebeurde, ging de totstandkoming van de Europese wet gepaard met groot retorisch geweld van zowel de kant van traditionele media als van platformen. Digitale platforms zouden advertentie-inkomsten stelen van kranten en rijk worden over de rug van traditionele media. Persuitgevers zouden voorstander zijn van een de-facto belasting op hyperlinks, gebrek aan innovatiekracht tonen en miskennen hoezeer sociale media en zoekmachines hun bereik exponentieel vergroten, en dat gratis.
Bellanova, R.; Irion, K.; Lindskov Jacobsen, K.; Ragazzi, F.; Saugmann, R.; Suchman, L.
Toward a Critique of Algorithmic Violence Journal Article
In: International Political Sociology, 15 (1), pp. 121–150, 2021.
@article{Bellanova2021,
title = {Toward a Critique of Algorithmic Violence},
author = {Bellanova, R. and Irion, K. and Lindskov Jacobsen, K. and Ragazzi, F. and Saugmann, R. and Suchman, L.},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olab003},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-29},
journal = {International Political Sociology},
volume = {15},
number = {1},
pages = {121\textendash150},
abstract = {Questions about how algorithms contribute to (in)security are under discussion across international political sociology. Building upon and adding to these debates, our collective discussion foregrounds questions about algorithmic violence. We argue that it is important to examine how algorithmic systems feed (into) specific forms of violence, and how they justify violent actions or redefine what forms of violence are deemed legitimate. Bringing together different disciplinary and conceptual vantage points, this collective discussion opens a conversation about algorithmic violence focusing both on its specific instances and on the challenges that arise in conceptualizing and studying it. Overall, the discussion converges on three areas of concern\textemdashthe violence undergirding the creation and feeding of data infrastructures; the translation processes at play in the use of computer/machine vision across diverse security practices; and the institutional governing of algorithmic violence, especially its organization, limitation, and legitimation.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Questions about how algorithms contribute to (in)security are under discussion across international political sociology. Building upon and adding to these debates, our collective discussion foregrounds questions about algorithmic violence. We argue that it is important to examine how algorithmic systems feed (into) specific forms of violence, and how they justify violent actions or redefine what forms of violence are deemed legitimate. Bringing together different disciplinary and conceptual vantage points, this collective discussion opens a conversation about algorithmic violence focusing both on its specific instances and on the challenges that arise in conceptualizing and studying it. Overall, the discussion converges on three areas of concern—the violence undergirding the creation and feeding of data infrastructures; the translation processes at play in the use of computer/machine vision across diverse security practices; and the institutional governing of algorithmic violence, especially its organization, limitation, and legitimation.
Sax, M.
Between Empowerment and Manipulation: The Ethics and Regulation of For-Profit Health Apps PhD Thesis
2021.
@phdthesis{Sax2021bb,
title = {Between Empowerment and Manipulation: The Ethics and Regulation of For-Profit Health Apps},
author = {Sax, M.},
url = {https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=52225d37-e7e1-4883-9dab-a3f5d3a063d8},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-26},
abstract = {In the digital society, many of our everyday activities take place within digital choice architectures that become increasingly good at understanding and shaping our behavior. Health apps are a perfect example of this trend: they are easy to download and use and promise user empowerment. By collecting and analyzing user data, health apps promise to be able to ‘get to know’ their users and deliver personalized feedback and suggestions for better health outcomes. But this promise of user empowerment also comes with a risk of user manipulation. Most of the popular health apps are for-profit services. To monetize their userbase, they can rely on the very same user data collection, data analysis, and targeting techniques to shape the behavior of health app users in ways that benefit the health app provider, rather than the users themselves. As it turns out, the very conditions for empowerment largely overlap with the conditions for manipulation.
This dissertation offers an ethical and legal analysis of the tension between empowerment and manipulation in for-profit health apps, and digital choice architectures more generally. Building on ethical theories of personal autonomy and manipulation, the dissertation develops an ethical framework to evaluate the design and commercial practices of health apps. This ethical framework is then used to develop novel interpretations of key concepts in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). Based on these novel interpretations of key concepts, it is argued that the UCPD has an important role to play in addressing consumer manipulation. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {phdthesis}
}
In the digital society, many of our everyday activities take place within digital choice architectures that become increasingly good at understanding and shaping our behavior. Health apps are a perfect example of this trend: they are easy to download and use and promise user empowerment. By collecting and analyzing user data, health apps promise to be able to ‘get to know’ their users and deliver personalized feedback and suggestions for better health outcomes. But this promise of user empowerment also comes with a risk of user manipulation. Most of the popular health apps are for-profit services. To monetize their userbase, they can rely on the very same user data collection, data analysis, and targeting techniques to shape the behavior of health app users in ways that benefit the health app provider, rather than the users themselves. As it turns out, the very conditions for empowerment largely overlap with the conditions for manipulation.
This dissertation offers an ethical and legal analysis of the tension between empowerment and manipulation in for-profit health apps, and digital choice architectures more generally. Building on ethical theories of personal autonomy and manipulation, the dissertation develops an ethical framework to evaluate the design and commercial practices of health apps. This ethical framework is then used to develop novel interpretations of key concepts in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). Based on these novel interpretations of key concepts, it is argued that the UCPD has an important role to play in addressing consumer manipulation.
This dissertation offers an ethical and legal analysis of the tension between empowerment and manipulation in for-profit health apps, and digital choice architectures more generally. Building on ethical theories of personal autonomy and manipulation, the dissertation develops an ethical framework to evaluate the design and commercial practices of health apps. This ethical framework is then used to develop novel interpretations of key concepts in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). Based on these novel interpretations of key concepts, it is argued that the UCPD has an important role to play in addressing consumer manipulation.
Senftleben, M.; Margoni, T.; Antal, D.; Bodó, B.; van Gompel, S.; Handke, C. W.; Kretschmer, M.; Poort, J.; Quintais, J.; Schwemer, S.
In: 2021.
@article{Senftleben2021,
title = {Ensuring the Visibility and Accessibility of European Creative Content on the World Market: The Need for Copyright Data Improvement in the Light of New Technologies},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Margoni, T. and Antal, D. and Bod\'{o}, B. and van Gompel, S. and Handke, C.W. and Kretschmer, M. and Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3785272},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-23},
abstract = {In the European Strategy for Data, the European Commission highlighted the EU’s ambition to acquire a leading role in the data economy. At the same time, the Commission conceded that the EU would have to increase its pools of quality data available for use and re-use. In the creative industries, this need for enhanced data quality and interoperability is particularly strong. Without data improvement, unprecedented opportunities for monetising the wide variety of EU creative and making this content available for new technologies, such as artificial intelligence training systems, will most probably be lost. The problem has a worldwide dimension. While the US have already taken steps to provide an integrated data space for music as of 1 January 2021, the EU is facing major obstacles not only in the field of music but also in other creative industry sectors. Weighing costs and benefits, there can be little doubt that new data improvement initiatives and sufficient investment in a better copyright data infrastructure should play a central role in EU copyright policy. A trade-off between data harmonisation and interoperability on the one hand, and transparency and accountability of content recommender systems on the other, could pave the way for successful new initiatives.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In the European Strategy for Data, the European Commission highlighted the EU’s ambition to acquire a leading role in the data economy. At the same time, the Commission conceded that the EU would have to increase its pools of quality data available for use and re-use. In the creative industries, this need for enhanced data quality and interoperability is particularly strong. Without data improvement, unprecedented opportunities for monetising the wide variety of EU creative and making this content available for new technologies, such as artificial intelligence training systems, will most probably be lost. The problem has a worldwide dimension. While the US have already taken steps to provide an integrated data space for music as of 1 January 2021, the EU is facing major obstacles not only in the field of music but also in other creative industry sectors. Weighing costs and benefits, there can be little doubt that new data improvement initiatives and sufficient investment in a better copyright data infrastructure should play a central role in EU copyright policy. A trade-off between data harmonisation and interoperability on the one hand, and transparency and accountability of content recommender systems on the other, could pave the way for successful new initiatives.
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 1 oktober 2019 (nr. 17/01305) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2021 (5/6), pp. 550-551, 2021.
@article{Dommering2021d,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 1 oktober 2019 (nr. 17/01305)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_29.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-12},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
volume = {2021},
number = {5/6},
pages = {550-551},
abstract = {Schending geheimhoudingsplicht lid Antilliaanse parlement.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Schending geheimhoudingsplicht lid Antilliaanse parlement.
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 16 juli 2020 (Data Protection Commissioner / Facebook Ireland & Schrems)(Schrems II) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2021 (5/6), pp. 455-458, 2021.
@article{Dommering2021c,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 16 juli 2020 (Data Protection Commissioner / Facebook Ireland & Schrems)(Schrems II)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_24.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-12},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
volume = {2021},
number = {5/6},
pages = {455-458},
abstract = {Uitlevering persoonsgegevens Ierland/VS in strijd met de AVG omdat veiligheidsdiensten in VS ongecontroleerd toegang hebben tot serviceproviders die deze persoonsgegevens ontvangen.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Uitlevering persoonsgegevens Ierland/VS in strijd met de AVG omdat veiligheidsdiensten in VS ongecontroleerd toegang hebben tot serviceproviders die deze persoonsgegevens ontvangen.
Irion, K.
Formal meeting (oral evidence session): Digital trade and data Online
2021.
@online{Irion2021b,
title = {Formal meeting (oral evidence session): Digital trade and data},
author = {Irion, K.},
url = {https://committees.parliament.uk/event/3859/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-12},
abstract = {Oral testimony on the UK House of Commons International Trade Committee. The Committee has launched an inquiry into digital trade and data. Digital trade refers to digitally enabled, or digitally delivered, trade in goods and services. Such trade involves the movement of data.
The Committee’s inquiry will explore a range of issues, including:
• Digital trade and data provisions in Free Trade Agreements
• Concerns around the security and privacy of data
• The environmental impact of digital trade
• Relevant legal frameworks},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Oral testimony on the UK House of Commons International Trade Committee. The Committee has launched an inquiry into digital trade and data. Digital trade refers to digitally enabled, or digitally delivered, trade in goods and services. Such trade involves the movement of data.
The Committee’s inquiry will explore a range of issues, including:
• Digital trade and data provisions in Free Trade Agreements
• Concerns around the security and privacy of data
• The environmental impact of digital trade
• Relevant legal frameworks
The Committee’s inquiry will explore a range of issues, including:
• Digital trade and data provisions in Free Trade Agreements
• Concerns around the security and privacy of data
• The environmental impact of digital trade
• Relevant legal frameworks
Jones-Bos, R. V. M.; Bot, Th. P. L.; Dommering, E.; van den Herik, L. J.; Jacobs, B. P. F.; Nagtegaal, W.; Zijlstra, S. E. (Evaluatiecommissie Wiv 2017)
Evaluatie 2020: Wet op de Inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten 2017 Technical Report
2021, (Den Haag: Ministeries BDZK en Defensie, 2021, 180 pp.).
@techreport{Jones-Bos2021,
title = {Evaluatie 2020: Wet op de Inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten 2017},
author = {Jones-Bos, R.V.M. and Bot, Th. P.L. and Dommering, E. and van den Herik, L.J. and Jacobs, B.P.F. and Nagtegaal, W. and Zijlstra, S.E. (Evaluatiecommissie Wiv 2017)},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_Evaluatie_2020_Wet_op_de_inlichtingen-_en_veiligheidsdiensten_2017.pdf
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2021Z01039&did=2021D02502},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-11},
note = {Den Haag: Ministeries BDZK en Defensie, 2021, 180 pp.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij EHRM 8 oktober 2019 (Szurovecz / Hongarije) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2021 (4), pp. 230-231, 2021.
@article{Dommering2021b,
title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 8 oktober 2019 (Szurovecz / Hongarije)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_13.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-11},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
volume = {2021},
number = {4},
pages = {230-231},
abstract = {Deze zaak gaat over de vrijheid van nieuwsgaring. Een journalist kreeg geen toegang tot vreemdelingencentra in Hongarije. Het EHRM achtte dat in de gegeven omstandigheden in strijd met artikel 10 EVRM. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Deze zaak gaat over de vrijheid van nieuwsgaring. Een journalist kreeg geen toegang tot vreemdelingencentra in Hongarije. Het EHRM achtte dat in de gegeven omstandigheden in strijd met artikel 10 EVRM.
Irion, K.
Front-running legislatures can foster AI that empowers users of digital technologies Book Chapter
In: (ed.), Nadia El-Imam (Ed.): pp. 114-15, 2021.
@inbook{Irion2021c,
title = {Front-running legislatures can foster AI that empowers users of digital technologies},
author = {Irion, K.},
editor = {Nadia El-Imam (ed.)},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/ki-front-running-legislatures-can-foster-ai-that-empowers-users-of-digital-technologies-2/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-05},
pages = {114-15},
organization = {NGI Forward},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Helberger, N.; Lynskey, O.; Micklitz, H. -W.; Rott, P.; Sax, M.; Strycharz, J.
EU Consumer Protection 2.0: Structural Asymmetries in Digital Consumer Markets Technical Report
2021.
@techreport{Helberger2021,
title = {EU Consumer Protection 2.0: Structural Asymmetries in Digital Consumer Markets},
author = {Helberger, N. and Lynskey, O. and Micklitz, H.-W. and Rott, P. and Sax, M. and Strycharz, J.},
url = {https://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2021-018_eu_consumer_protection.0_0.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-05},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij EHRM 30 januari 2020 (Breyer/ Duitsland) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (51/52), pp. 7926-7929, 2021.
@article{Dommering2021,
title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 30 januari 2020 (Breyer/ Duitsland)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_431.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-05},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {51/52},
pages = {7926-7929},
abstract = {In deze uit Duitsland afkomstige zaak staat centraal de uitleg die het Bundesverfassungsgericht (hierna: BVerfG) aan de Duitse telecommunicatiewetgeving heeft gegeven met betrekking tot de opslag van persoonlijke communicatiegegevens. Het gaat om het opslaan van persoonsgegevens op Simkaarten. De zaak vertoont daarom verwantschap met de uitspraak van het HvJEU in de Spaanse zaak Ministerio Fiscal (HvJEU 2 oktober 2018, NJ 2020, nr 232 m. nt. E.J. Dommering), die het EHRM ook onder het relevante recht vermeldt.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In deze uit Duitsland afkomstige zaak staat centraal de uitleg die het Bundesverfassungsgericht (hierna: BVerfG) aan de Duitse telecommunicatiewetgeving heeft gegeven met betrekking tot de opslag van persoonlijke communicatiegegevens. Het gaat om het opslaan van persoonsgegevens op Simkaarten. De zaak vertoont daarom verwantschap met de uitspraak van het HvJEU in de Spaanse zaak Ministerio Fiscal (HvJEU 2 oktober 2018, NJ 2020, nr 232 m. nt. E.J. Dommering), die het EHRM ook onder het relevante recht vermeldt.
Poort, J.; Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.
Personalised pricing: The demise of the fixed price? Journal Article
In: 2021, (Forthcoming as chapter 10 in: Kohl, U., & Eisler, J. (eds.), Data-Driven Personalisation in Markets, Politics and Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.).
@article{Poort2021,
title = {Personalised pricing: The demise of the fixed price?},
author = {Poort, J. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/The-Demise-of-the-Fixed-Price.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-04},
abstract = {An online seller or platform is technically able to offer every consumer a different price for the same product, based on information it has about the customers. Such online price discrimination exacerbates concerns regarding the fairness and morality of price discrimination, and the possible need for regulation. In this chapter, we discuss the underlying basis of price discrimination in economic theory, and its popular perception. Our surveys show that consumers are critical and suspicious of online price discrimination. A majority consider it unacceptable and unfair, and are in favour of a ban. When stores apply online price discrimination, most consumers think they should be informed about it. We argue that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to the most controversial forms of online price discrimination, and not only requires companies to disclose their use of price discrimination, but also requires companies to ask customers for their prior consent. Industry practice, however, does not show any adoption of these two principles.},
note = {Forthcoming as chapter 10 in: Kohl, U., & Eisler, J. (eds.), Data-Driven Personalisation in Markets, Politics and Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
An online seller or platform is technically able to offer every consumer a different price for the same product, based on information it has about the customers. Such online price discrimination exacerbates concerns regarding the fairness and morality of price discrimination, and the possible need for regulation. In this chapter, we discuss the underlying basis of price discrimination in economic theory, and its popular perception. Our surveys show that consumers are critical and suspicious of online price discrimination. A majority consider it unacceptable and unfair, and are in favour of a ban. When stores apply online price discrimination, most consumers think they should be informed about it. We argue that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to the most controversial forms of online price discrimination, and not only requires companies to disclose their use of price discrimination, but also requires companies to ask customers for their prior consent. Industry practice, however, does not show any adoption of these two principles.
Sax, M.; Ausloos, J.
In: Interactive Entertainment Law Review, 4 (1), 2021.
@article{SaxAusloos2021,
title = {Getting under your skin(s): A legal-ethical exploration of Fortnite’s transformation into a content delivery platform and its manipulative potential},
author = {Sax, M. and Ausloos, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3764489},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-01},
journal = {Interactive Entertainment Law Review},
volume = {4},
number = {1},
abstract = {This paper investigates the ethical and legal implications of increasingly manipulative practices in the gaming industry by looking at one of the currently most popular and profitable video games in the world. Fortnite has morphed from an online game into a quasi-social network and an important cultural reference point in the lifeworld of many (young) people. The game is also emblematic of the freemium business model, with strong incentives to design the game in a manner which maximises microtransactions. This article suggests that to properly understand Fortnite’s practices \textendash which we predict will become more widely adopted in the video game industry in the near future \textendash we need an additional perspective. Fortnite is not only designed for hyper-engagement; its search for continued growth and sustained relevance is driving its transformation from being a mere video game into a content delivery platform. This means that third parties can offer non game-related services to players within Fortnite’s immersive game experience. In this paper, we draw on an ethical theory of manipulation (which defines manipulation as an ethically problematic influence on a person’s behaviour) to explore whether the gaming experience offered by Fortnite harbours manipulative potential. To legally address the manipulative potential of commercial video game practices such as the ones found in Fortnite, we turn to European data protection and consumer protection law. More specifically, we explore how the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive can provide regulators with tools to address Fortnite’s manipulative potential and to make Fortnite (more) forthright.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This paper investigates the ethical and legal implications of increasingly manipulative practices in the gaming industry by looking at one of the currently most popular and profitable video games in the world. Fortnite has morphed from an online game into a quasi-social network and an important cultural reference point in the lifeworld of many (young) people. The game is also emblematic of the freemium business model, with strong incentives to design the game in a manner which maximises microtransactions. This article suggests that to properly understand Fortnite’s practices – which we predict will become more widely adopted in the video game industry in the near future – we need an additional perspective. Fortnite is not only designed for hyper-engagement; its search for continued growth and sustained relevance is driving its transformation from being a mere video game into a content delivery platform. This means that third parties can offer non game-related services to players within Fortnite’s immersive game experience. In this paper, we draw on an ethical theory of manipulation (which defines manipulation as an ethically problematic influence on a person’s behaviour) to explore whether the gaming experience offered by Fortnite harbours manipulative potential. To legally address the manipulative potential of commercial video game practices such as the ones found in Fortnite, we turn to European data protection and consumer protection law. More specifically, we explore how the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive can provide regulators with tools to address Fortnite’s manipulative potential and to make Fortnite (more) forthright.
Helberger, N.; Drunen, M. van; Vrijenhoek, S.; Möller, J.
Regulation of news recommenders in the Digital Services Act: empowering David against the Very Large Online Goliath Journal Article
In: Internet Policy Review, 2021, (Opinion).
@article{Helberger2021b,
title = {Regulation of news recommenders in the Digital Services Act: empowering David against the Very Large Online Goliath},
author = {Helberger, N. and Drunen, M. van and Vrijenhoek, S. and M\"{o}ller, J.},
url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/news/regulation-news-recommenders-digital-services-act-empowering-david-against-very-large},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-02-26},
journal = {Internet Policy Review},
note = {Opinion},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Quintais, J.; Jutte, B. J.
The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights Journal Article
In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16 (3), pp. 213-225, 2021.
@article{QuintaisJutte2021,
title = {The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights},
author = {Quintais, J. and Jutte, B.J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3775599},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab040},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-02-18},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice},
volume = {16},
number = {3},
pages = {213-225},
abstract = {On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.
This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.
This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6). },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.
This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.
This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6).
This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.
This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6).
Quintais, J.; Husovec, M.
In: GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law, 70 (4), pp. 325-348, 2021.
@article{Quintais2021GRURInt,
title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive},
author = {Quintais, J. and Husovec, M.},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200
},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-02-18},
journal = {GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law},
volume = {70},
number = {4},
pages = {325-348},
abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of Article 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in Article 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that Article 17 introduces either a ‘special’ or a ‘new’ sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of Article 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in Article 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that Article 17 introduces either a ‘special’ or a ‘new’ sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.
Hilty, R. M.; Köklü, K.; Moscon, V.; Correa, C.; Dusollier, S.; Geiger, C.; Griffiths, J.; Grosse Ruse-Khan, H.; Kur, A.; Lin, X.; Markiewics, R.; Nérisson, S.; Peukert, A.; Senftleben, M.; Xalabarder, R.
Opinion: International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law Journal Article
In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , 52 , pp. 62-67, 2021.
@article{Hilty2021,
title = {Opinion: International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law},
author = {Hilty, R.M. and K\"{o}kl\"{u}, K. and Moscon, V. and Correa, C. and Dusollier, S. and Geiger, C. and Griffiths, J. and Grosse Ruse-Khan, H. and Kur, A. and Lin, X. and Markiewics, R. and N\'{e}risson, S. and Peukert, A. and Senftleben, M. and Xalabarder, R. },
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IIC_2021_opinion.pdf},
doi = {10.1007/s40319-020-00999-8},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-02-04},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {52},
pages = {62-67},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
Article 17: (Mis)understanding the intent of the legislator Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Keller2021b,
title = {Article 17: (Mis)understanding the intent of the legislator},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/28/article-17-misunderstanding-the-intent-of-the-legislator/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-28},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Quintais, J.; Gervais, D. J.; Hugenholtz, P. B.
Trends And Developments In Artificial Intelligence: Challenges To Patent Law Online
Kluwer Patent Blog 2021.
@online{Quintais2021KPB,
title = {Trends And Developments In Artificial Intelligence: Challenges To Patent Law},
author = {Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J. and P.B. Hugenholtz},
url = {http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/27/trends-and-developments-in-artificial-intelligence-challenges-to-patent-law/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-27},
organization = {Kluwer Patent Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Irion, K.
2021.
@misc{Irion2021,
title = {AI Regulation in the European Union and Trade Law: How can accountability of AI and a high level of consumer protection prevail over a trade law discipline on source code?, study commissioned by the Vzbv, Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law, 2021},
author = {Irion, K.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/irion_study_ai_and_trade_21-01-26-2/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-26},
abstract = {The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bun-desverband \textendash vzbv) has commissioned this study from the Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the University of Amsterdam, in order to shed light on the cross-border supply of AI technology and its impact on EU consumer rights. In the current negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU supports the introduction \textendash in the legal text \textendash of a clause which prohibits the participating countries to introduce \textendash in their national laws \textendash measures that require access to, or transfer of, the source code of software, with some exceptions. This is a cause for concern for experts and rights advocates, as such a clause \textendash if not carefully conditioned \textendash can prevent future EU regulation of AI that may be harmful to consumers. This study concludes that the source code clause within trade law indeed restricts the EU’s right to regulate in the field of AI governance in several important ways.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bun-desverband – vzbv) has commissioned this study from the Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the University of Amsterdam, in order to shed light on the cross-border supply of AI technology and its impact on EU consumer rights. In the current negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU supports the introduction – in the legal text – of a clause which prohibits the participating countries to introduce – in their national laws – measures that require access to, or transfer of, the source code of software, with some exceptions. This is a cause for concern for experts and rights advocates, as such a clause – if not carefully conditioned – can prevent future EU regulation of AI that may be harmful to consumers. This study concludes that the source code clause within trade law indeed restricts the EU’s right to regulate in the field of AI governance in several important ways.
Keller, P.
Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 – Part 2 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Keller2021bb,
title = {Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 \textendash Part 2},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/22/divergence-instead-of-guidance-the-article-17-implementation-discussion-in-2020-part-2/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-22},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 – Part 1 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Keller2021bb,
title = {Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 \textendash Part 1},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/21/divergence-instead-of-guidance-the-article-17-implementation-discussion-in-2020-part-1/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-21},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Janssen, H.; Cobbe, J.; Singh, J.
Personal Data Stores: a user-centric privacy utopia? Journal Article Forthcoming
In: Internet Policy Review, Forthcoming.
@article{Janssen2021b,
title = {Personal Data Stores: a user-centric privacy utopia?},
author = {Janssen, H. and Cobbe, J. and Singh, J.},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-04},
journal = {Internet Policy Review},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Janssen, H.; Cobbe, J.; Norval, C.; Singh, J.
Decentralised Data Processing: Personal Data Stores and the GDPR Journal Article
In: International Data Privacy Law, 10 (4), pp. 356-384, 2021.
@article{Janssen2021,
title = {Decentralised Data Processing: Personal Data Stores and the GDPR},
author = {Janssen, H. and Cobbe, J. and Norval, C. and Singh, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3570895
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IDPL-2021-4.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipaa016},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-04},
journal = {International Data Privacy Law},
volume = {10},
number = {4},
pages = {356-384},
abstract = {When it comes to online services, users have limited control over how their personal data is processed. This is partly due to the nature of the business models of those services, where data is typically stored and aggregated in data centres. This has recently led to the development of technologies aiming at leveraging user control over the processing of their personal data.
Personal Data Stores (“PDSs”) represent a class of these technologies; PDSs provide users with a device, enabling them to capture, aggregate and manage their personal data. The device provides tools for users to control and monitor access, sharing and computation over data on their device. The motivation for PDSs are described as (i) to assist users with their confidentiality and privacy concerns, and/or (ii) to provide opportunities for users to transact with or otherwise monetise their data.
While PDSs potentially might enable some degree of user empowerment, they raise interesting considerations and uncertainties in relation to the responsibilities under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). More specifically, the designations of responsibilities among key parties involved in PDS ecosystems are unclear. Further, the technical architecture of PDSs appears to restrict certain lawful grounds for processing, while technical means to identify certain category data, as proposed by some, may remain theoretical.
We explore the considerations, uncertainties, and limitations of PDSs with respect to some key obligations under the GDPR. As PDS technologies continue to develop and proliferate, potentially providing an alternative to centralised approaches to data processing, we identify issues which require consideration by regulators, PDS platform providers and technologists.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
When it comes to online services, users have limited control over how their personal data is processed. This is partly due to the nature of the business models of those services, where data is typically stored and aggregated in data centres. This has recently led to the development of technologies aiming at leveraging user control over the processing of their personal data.
Personal Data Stores (“PDSs”) represent a class of these technologies; PDSs provide users with a device, enabling them to capture, aggregate and manage their personal data. The device provides tools for users to control and monitor access, sharing and computation over data on their device. The motivation for PDSs are described as (i) to assist users with their confidentiality and privacy concerns, and/or (ii) to provide opportunities for users to transact with or otherwise monetise their data.
While PDSs potentially might enable some degree of user empowerment, they raise interesting considerations and uncertainties in relation to the responsibilities under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). More specifically, the designations of responsibilities among key parties involved in PDS ecosystems are unclear. Further, the technical architecture of PDSs appears to restrict certain lawful grounds for processing, while technical means to identify certain category data, as proposed by some, may remain theoretical.
We explore the considerations, uncertainties, and limitations of PDSs with respect to some key obligations under the GDPR. As PDS technologies continue to develop and proliferate, potentially providing an alternative to centralised approaches to data processing, we identify issues which require consideration by regulators, PDS platform providers and technologists.
Personal Data Stores (“PDSs”) represent a class of these technologies; PDSs provide users with a device, enabling them to capture, aggregate and manage their personal data. The device provides tools for users to control and monitor access, sharing and computation over data on their device. The motivation for PDSs are described as (i) to assist users with their confidentiality and privacy concerns, and/or (ii) to provide opportunities for users to transact with or otherwise monetise their data.
While PDSs potentially might enable some degree of user empowerment, they raise interesting considerations and uncertainties in relation to the responsibilities under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). More specifically, the designations of responsibilities among key parties involved in PDS ecosystems are unclear. Further, the technical architecture of PDSs appears to restrict certain lawful grounds for processing, while technical means to identify certain category data, as proposed by some, may remain theoretical.
We explore the considerations, uncertainties, and limitations of PDSs with respect to some key obligations under the GDPR. As PDS technologies continue to develop and proliferate, potentially providing an alternative to centralised approaches to data processing, we identify issues which require consideration by regulators, PDS platform providers and technologists.
Sax, M.
Optimization of what? For-profit health apps as manipulative digital environments Journal Article
In: Ethics and Information Technology, 23 (3), pp. 345-361, 2021, (Preprint available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3752597).
@article{Sax2021,
title = {Optimization of what? For-profit health apps as manipulative digital environments},
author = {Sax, M.},
url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-020-09576-6},
doi = {10.1007/s10676-020-09576-6},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-03},
urldate = {2021-01-03},
journal = {Ethics and Information Technology},
volume = {23},
number = {3},
pages = {345-361},
abstract = {Mobile health applications (‘health apps’) that promise the user to help her with some aspect of her health are very popular: for-profit apps such as MyFitnessPal, Fitbit, or Headspace have tens of millions of users each. For-profit health apps are designed and run as optimization systems. One would expect that these health apps aim to optimize the health of the user, but in reality they aim to optimize user engagement and, in effect, conversion. This is problematic, I argue, because digital health environments that aim to optimize user engagement risk being manipulative. To develop this argument, I first provide a brief analysis of the underlying business models and the resulting designs of the digital environments provided by popular for-profit health apps. In a second step, I present a concept of manipulation that can help analyze digital environments such as health apps. In the last part of the article, I use my concept of manipulation to analyze the manipulative potential of for-profit health apps. Although for-profit health can certainly empower their users, the conditions for empowerment also largely overlap with the conditions for manipulation. As a result, we should be cautious when embracing the empowerment discourse surrounding health apps. An additional aim of this article is to contribute to the rapidly growing literature on digital choice architectures and the ethics of influencing behavior through such choice architectures. I take health apps to be a paradigmatic example of digital choice architectures that give rise to ethical questions, so my analysis of the manipulative potential of health apps can also inform the larger literature on digital choice architectures.},
note = {Preprint available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3752597},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Mobile health applications (‘health apps’) that promise the user to help her with some aspect of her health are very popular: for-profit apps such as MyFitnessPal, Fitbit, or Headspace have tens of millions of users each. For-profit health apps are designed and run as optimization systems. One would expect that these health apps aim to optimize the health of the user, but in reality they aim to optimize user engagement and, in effect, conversion. This is problematic, I argue, because digital health environments that aim to optimize user engagement risk being manipulative. To develop this argument, I first provide a brief analysis of the underlying business models and the resulting designs of the digital environments provided by popular for-profit health apps. In a second step, I present a concept of manipulation that can help analyze digital environments such as health apps. In the last part of the article, I use my concept of manipulation to analyze the manipulative potential of for-profit health apps. Although for-profit health can certainly empower their users, the conditions for empowerment also largely overlap with the conditions for manipulation. As a result, we should be cautious when embracing the empowerment discourse surrounding health apps. An additional aim of this article is to contribute to the rapidly growing literature on digital choice architectures and the ethics of influencing behavior through such choice architectures. I take health apps to be a paradigmatic example of digital choice architectures that give rise to ethical questions, so my analysis of the manipulative potential of health apps can also inform the larger literature on digital choice architectures.