From Encryption to Quantum Computing – The Governance of Information Security and Human Rights external link

T.M.C. Asser Press, 2024, Series: Information Technology and Law (IT&Law) Series, Edition: 38, ISBN: 978-94-6265-634-5

encryption, Human rights, Information security

Bibtex

Book{nokey, title = {From Encryption to Quantum Computing – The Governance of Information Security and Human Rights}, author = {van Daalen, O.}, url = {https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-6265-635-2}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-09-10}, keywords = {encryption, Human rights, Information security}, }

Brave New World: Out-Of-Court Dispute Settlement Bodies and the Struggle to Adjudicate Platforms in Europe external link

Ruschemeier, H., Quintais, J., Nenadić, I., De Gregorio, G. & Eder, N.
Verfassungsblog, 2024

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {Brave New World: Out-Of-Court Dispute Settlement Bodies and the Struggle to Adjudicate Platforms in Europe}, author = {Ruschemeier, H. and Quintais, J. and Nenadić, I. and De Gregorio, G. and Eder, N.}, url = {https://verfassungsblog.de/ods-dsa-user-rights-content-moderatin-out-of-court-dispute-settlement/}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.59704/46b8611eb2d96a84}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-09-10}, journal = {Verfassungsblog}, }

Prompts tussen vorm en inhoud: de eerste rechtspraak over generatieve AI en het werk download

Auteursrecht, iss. : 3, pp: 129-134, 2024

Abstract

Kan het gebruik van generatieve AI-systemen een auteursrechtelijk beschermd werk opleveren? Twee jaar na de introductie van Dall-E en ChatGPT begint zich enige jurisprudentie te vormen. Daarbij is de kernvraag of het aansturen van dergelijke systemen door middel van prompts (instructies) voldoende is om de output als ‘werk’ te kwalificeren. Dit artikel gaat, mede aan de hand van de vroegste rechtspraak in de Verenigde Staten, China en Europa, dieper in op deze lastige kwestie.

ai, Copyright

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Prompts tussen vorm en inhoud: de eerste rechtspraak over generatieve AI en het werk}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/prompts-tussen-vorm-en-inhoud-de-eerste-rechtspraak-over-generatieve-ai-en-het-werk/auteursrecht2024_3/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-08-30}, journal = {Auteursrecht}, issue = {3}, abstract = {Kan het gebruik van generatieve AI-systemen een auteursrechtelijk beschermd werk opleveren? Twee jaar na de introductie van Dall-E en ChatGPT begint zich enige jurisprudentie te vormen. Daarbij is de kernvraag of het aansturen van dergelijke systemen door middel van prompts (instructies) voldoende is om de output als ‘werk’ te kwalificeren. Dit artikel gaat, mede aan de hand van de vroegste rechtspraak in de Verenigde Staten, China en Europa, dieper in op deze lastige kwestie.}, keywords = {ai, Copyright}, }

Private copying levies, broadcasters and the principle of equal treatment – C-260/22 Seven.One Entertainment Group v Corint Media external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2024

Copyright

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {Private copying levies, broadcasters and the principle of equal treatment – C-260/22 Seven.One Entertainment Group v Corint Media}, author = {Szkalej, K.}, url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/07/29/private-copying-levies-broadcasters-and-the-principle-of-equal-treatment-c-260-22-seven-one-entertainment-group-v-corint-media/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-07-29}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Copyright}, }

Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act external link

Abstract

This paper examines the copyright-relevant rules of the recently published Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act for the EU copyright acquis. The aim of the paper is to provide a critical overview of the relationship between the AI Act and EU copyright law, while highlighting potential gray areas and blind spots for legal interpretation and future policy-making. The paper proceeds as follows. After a short introduction, Section 2 outlines the basic copyright issues of generative AI and the relevant copyright acquis rules that interface with the AI Act. It mentions potential copyright issues with the input or training stage, the model, and outputs. The AI Act rules are mostly relevant for the training of AI models, and the Regulation primarily interfaces with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions in Articles 3 and 4 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD). Section 3 then briefly explains the AI Act’s structure and core definitions as they pertain to copyright law. Section 4 is the heart of the paper. It covers in some detail the interface between the AI Act and EU copyright law, namely: the clarification that TDM is involved in training AI models (4.1); the outline of the key copyright obligations in the AI Act (4.2); the obligation to put in place policies to respect copyright law, especially regarding TDM opt-outs (4.3); the projected extraterritorial effect of such obligations (4.4); the transparency obligations (4.5); how the AI Act envisions compliance with such obligations (4.6); and potential enforcement and remedies (4.7). Section 5 offers some concluding remarks, focusing on the inadequacy of the current regime to address one of its main concerns: the fair remuneration of authors and performers.

AI Act, Content moderation, Copyright, DSA, Generative AI, text and data mining, Transparency

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey, title = {Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act}, author = {Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4912701}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-08-01}, abstract = {This paper examines the copyright-relevant rules of the recently published Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act for the EU copyright acquis. The aim of the paper is to provide a critical overview of the relationship between the AI Act and EU copyright law, while highlighting potential gray areas and blind spots for legal interpretation and future policy-making. The paper proceeds as follows. After a short introduction, Section 2 outlines the basic copyright issues of generative AI and the relevant copyright acquis rules that interface with the AI Act. It mentions potential copyright issues with the input or training stage, the model, and outputs. The AI Act rules are mostly relevant for the training of AI models, and the Regulation primarily interfaces with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions in Articles 3 and 4 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD). Section 3 then briefly explains the AI Act’s structure and core definitions as they pertain to copyright law. Section 4 is the heart of the paper. It covers in some detail the interface between the AI Act and EU copyright law, namely: the clarification that TDM is involved in training AI models (4.1); the outline of the key copyright obligations in the AI Act (4.2); the obligation to put in place policies to respect copyright law, especially regarding TDM opt-outs (4.3); the projected extraterritorial effect of such obligations (4.4); the transparency obligations (4.5); how the AI Act envisions compliance with such obligations (4.6); and potential enforcement and remedies (4.7). Section 5 offers some concluding remarks, focusing on the inadequacy of the current regime to address one of its main concerns: the fair remuneration of authors and performers.}, keywords = {AI Act, Content moderation, Copyright, DSA, Generative AI, text and data mining, Transparency}, }

Algorithmic propagation: How the data-platform regulatory framework may increase bias in content moderation external link

Margoni, T., Quintais, J. & Schwemer, S.
Forthcoming in: Caterina Sganga & Tatiana Eleni Synodinou (Eds), Flexibilities in Copyright Law, Routledge, 2025,

Abstract

This chapter offers a reflection on the topic of content moderation and bias mitigation measures in copyright law. It explores the possible links between conditional data access regimes and content moderation performed through data-intensive technologies such as fingerprinting and machine learning algorithms. In recent years, various pressing questions surrounding automated decision-making and their legal implications materialised. In European Union (EU) law, answers were provided through different regulatory interventions often based on specific legal categories, rights, and foundations contributing to the increasing complexity of interacting frameworks. Within this broader background, the chapter discusses whether current EU copyright rules may have the effect of favouring what we call the propagation of bias present in input data to the output algorithmic tools employed for content moderation. The chapter shows that a reduced availability and transparency of training data often leads to negative effects on access, verification and replication of results. These are ideal conditions for the development of bias and other types of systematic errors to the detriment of users' rights. The chapter discusses a number of options that could be employed to mitigate this undesirable effect and contextually preserve the many fundamental rights at stake.

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey, title = {Algorithmic propagation: How the data-platform regulatory framework may increase bias in content moderation}, author = {Margoni, T. and Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4913758}, year = {}, date = {DATE ERROR: pub_date = }, abstract = {This chapter offers a reflection on the topic of content moderation and bias mitigation measures in copyright law. It explores the possible links between conditional data access regimes and content moderation performed through data-intensive technologies such as fingerprinting and machine learning algorithms. In recent years, various pressing questions surrounding automated decision-making and their legal implications materialised. In European Union (EU) law, answers were provided through different regulatory interventions often based on specific legal categories, rights, and foundations contributing to the increasing complexity of interacting frameworks. Within this broader background, the chapter discusses whether current EU copyright rules may have the effect of favouring what we call the propagation of bias present in input data to the output algorithmic tools employed for content moderation. The chapter shows that a reduced availability and transparency of training data often leads to negative effects on access, verification and replication of results. These are ideal conditions for the development of bias and other types of systematic errors to the detriment of users\' rights. The chapter discusses a number of options that could be employed to mitigate this undesirable effect and contextually preserve the many fundamental rights at stake.}, }

The independence of media regulatory authorities ‘on the books’ and ‘on the ground’

Handbook of Media and Communication Governance, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024, Cheltenham, UK

Abstract

Independent regulatory authorities are the default choice for regulatory governance in European countries’ audiovisual media sector. Pursuant to European Union law and the standard setting of the Council of Europe, Member States should create conditions for the effective functioning of independent regulatory authorities. The 2018 revision of the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive contains an obligation to designate independent regulatory authorities. Research on independent regulatory authorities suggests that the relationship between higher levels of formal independence (‘on the books’) and actual independence (‘on the ground’) is not linear. Put differently, there are limits to institutional engineering via prescriptive legislation because other factors external to the law play out decisively for regulators’ actual independence. This chapter will explore the research and the practice of independent regulatory authorities in European countries’ audiovisual media sector. The empirical basis is country-level and comparative surveys on independent media supervisory authorities in European countries.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive, Council of Europe, European regulation, Independent Regulatory Authorities, media governance

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey, title = {The independence of media regulatory authorities ‘on the books’ and ‘on the ground’}, author = {Irion, K.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800887206.00019}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-07-29}, abstract = {Independent regulatory authorities are the default choice for regulatory governance in European countries’ audiovisual media sector. Pursuant to European Union law and the standard setting of the Council of Europe, Member States should create conditions for the effective functioning of independent regulatory authorities. The 2018 revision of the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive contains an obligation to designate independent regulatory authorities. Research on independent regulatory authorities suggests that the relationship between higher levels of formal independence (‘on the books’) and actual independence (‘on the ground’) is not linear. Put differently, there are limits to institutional engineering via prescriptive legislation because other factors external to the law play out decisively for regulators’ actual independence. This chapter will explore the research and the practice of independent regulatory authorities in European countries’ audiovisual media sector. The empirical basis is country-level and comparative surveys on independent media supervisory authorities in European countries.}, keywords = {Audiovisual Media Services Directive, Council of Europe, European regulation, Independent Regulatory Authorities, media governance}, }

Machine readable or not? – notes on the hearing in LAION e.v. vs Kneschke external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2024

Artificial intelligence, Germany, text and data mining

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {Machine readable or not? – notes on the hearing in LAION e.v. vs Kneschke}, author = {Keller, P.}, url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/07/22/machine-readable-or-not-notes-on-the-hearing-in-laion-e-v-vs-kneschke/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-07-22}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Germany, text and data mining}, }

Opinion of the European Copyright Society on Certain Selected Aspects of Case C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland and Kwantum België

van Eechoud, M., Metzger, A., Quintais, J. & Rognstad, O.A.
IIC, vol. 55, iss. : 8, pp: 1316-1328, 2024

Abstract

The Berne Convention underscores the national treatment of foreign authors, allowing countries of the Union to protect designs through various means. Article 2(7) of the Convention (Berne) introduces a material reciprocity test, limiting copyright protection for works of applied art not protected in their country of origin. The Kwantum case (C-227/23), involving a dispute over a work of design or applied art, questions the application of the reciprocity test in the light of harmonised copyright law and the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in RAAP (C-265/19). The Dutch Supreme Court seeks clarity on whether EU law mandates a copyright limitation through reciprocity, especially for non-EU right holders. In EU law, the Design Directive and Design Regulation govern the relationship between copyright and design protection for works of applied art. Both instruments stress the possibility of the cumulation of rights, allowing registered designs to qualify for copyright protection. Judicial harmonisation, notably in Cofemel (C-683/17) and Brompton Bicycle (C-833/18), extended the originality requirements to all works – including works of applied art – and thus limited EU Member States’ autonomy. The proposed Design Directive and Design Regulation maintain the cumulation principle, aligning with CJEU case-law on originality. In this Opinion, the European Copyright Society (ECS) does not make any pronouncement on the desirability of cumulation. On the topic of material reciprocity, the CJEU ruled in RAAP that Art. 8(2) of the Rental and Lending Directive (RLD) prohibited a Member State from excluding non-EEA performers from equitable remuneration for communication to the public of their recordings. The Court clarified that limitations to this right could be introduced only by the EU legislature and had to comply with Art. 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU). Any limitation had to be clearly defined by law. The Court emphasised that any exclusion of non-EEA right holders from remuneration must be explicit, as the right fell within the fundamental right to intellectual property of Art. 17(2) CFREU. Additionally, the Court stated that Art. 8(2) RLD should not be interpreted as granting a remuneration right solely to the phonogram producer and excluding the performer who contributed to the phonogram. The ECS criticised the potential wider implications of RAAP, proposing an alternative interpretation of the remuneration right under Art. 4(2) of the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), suggesting that it should apply only to performers towards whom a direct and unreserved obligation existed on the basis of the WPPT. The ECS also criticised the Court’s reliance on the CFREU, particularly insofar as the Court viewed harmonised rights as abstract rather than individual, thus creating uncertainty about limitations. The Court’s conclusion that only the EU legislature could limit the right for nationals of non-EU states raises concerns about the application of material reciprocity by Member States in the past, and the retroactive effects of the interpretation remain unclear, contributing to legal uncertainty. In RAAP, the CJEU interpreted the WPPT, emphasising compliance with TRIPS and the Berne Convention’s core provisions in EU law. The Court stressed that material reciprocity had to be explicit in statutory law, with only the EU legislature defining limitations under harmonised rules such as Art. 8(2) RLD. However, EU design legislation grants Member States autonomy despite harmonised concepts established in cases like Cofemel and Brompton Bicycle. Unlike in RAAP, the CJEU may have more flexibility in interpreting EU copyright law for applied art in the Kwantum case. Precedents like Cofemel and Brompton Bicycle allow the Court to interpret material reciprocity under Art. 2(7) Berne without legislative intervention. Two alternatives for the Court are to interpret Art. 2(7) as mandating material reciprocity, preventing internal market issues, or to declare Member States’ application compatible with EU law, whether they apply material reciprocity or offer unreserved national treatment to works of applied art on the basis of Art. 19 Berne. Comparing RAAP and Kwantum, material reciprocity differs under Art. 4(2) WPPT and Art. 2(7) Berne. RAAP dealt with a conditional exception, while Art. 2(7) Berne is a mandatory rule, implying that countries of the Union must deny copyright protection to works protected solely as designs and models in their country of origin. While countries can choose to set aside material reciprocity under Art. 19 Berne, if the CJEU views Art. 2(7) Berne as limiting copyright as an intellectual property right under Art. 17(2) CFREU, the requirements in Art. 52(1) CFREU are already fulfilled without legislative intervention. Applying these considerations to the Kwantum case, it is noted that Dutch law provides no more protection than Art. 2(7) Berne. Given Art. 2(7)’s precedence over domestic law in the Dutch legal order, Dutch courts must apply the material reciprocity clause unless EU law dictates otherwise. In our view, the CJEU could either recognise material reciprocity as a requirement of EU law or declare Member State rules that mirror Berne’s reciprocity clause to be compatible with EU law. In conclusion, Kwantum reflects the uncertainty stemming from RAAP. The ECS advocates for a nuanced approach to the international application of EU copyright and related rights, giving due consideration to the regulations of international conventions as part of the EU legal order. In the case of copyright protection of works of applied art, the CJEU could, as a first step, either apply the reciprocity rule set out in Art. 2(7) Berne directly, or leave it to the Member States to decide on material reciprocity or national treatment, in accordance with the principles of the Berne Convention. As a second step, the EU legislature would be well advised to address the questions raised by RAAP and Kwantum at a more fundamental level through legislative intervention.

Copyright

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Opinion of the European Copyright Society on Certain Selected Aspects of Case C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland and Kwantum België}, author = {van Eechoud, M. and Metzger, A. and Quintais, J. and Rognstad, O.A.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01504-1}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-07-22}, journal = {IIC}, volume = {55}, issue = {8}, pages = {1316-1328}, abstract = {The Berne Convention underscores the national treatment of foreign authors, allowing countries of the Union to protect designs through various means. Article 2(7) of the Convention (Berne) introduces a material reciprocity test, limiting copyright protection for works of applied art not protected in their country of origin. The Kwantum case (C-227/23), involving a dispute over a work of design or applied art, questions the application of the reciprocity test in the light of harmonised copyright law and the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in RAAP (C-265/19). The Dutch Supreme Court seeks clarity on whether EU law mandates a copyright limitation through reciprocity, especially for non-EU right holders. In EU law, the Design Directive and Design Regulation govern the relationship between copyright and design protection for works of applied art. Both instruments stress the possibility of the cumulation of rights, allowing registered designs to qualify for copyright protection. Judicial harmonisation, notably in Cofemel (C-683/17) and Brompton Bicycle (C-833/18), extended the originality requirements to all works – including works of applied art – and thus limited EU Member States’ autonomy. The proposed Design Directive and Design Regulation maintain the cumulation principle, aligning with CJEU case-law on originality. In this Opinion, the European Copyright Society (ECS) does not make any pronouncement on the desirability of cumulation. On the topic of material reciprocity, the CJEU ruled in RAAP that Art. 8(2) of the Rental and Lending Directive (RLD) prohibited a Member State from excluding non-EEA performers from equitable remuneration for communication to the public of their recordings. The Court clarified that limitations to this right could be introduced only by the EU legislature and had to comply with Art. 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU). Any limitation had to be clearly defined by law. The Court emphasised that any exclusion of non-EEA right holders from remuneration must be explicit, as the right fell within the fundamental right to intellectual property of Art. 17(2) CFREU. Additionally, the Court stated that Art. 8(2) RLD should not be interpreted as granting a remuneration right solely to the phonogram producer and excluding the performer who contributed to the phonogram. The ECS criticised the potential wider implications of RAAP, proposing an alternative interpretation of the remuneration right under Art. 4(2) of the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), suggesting that it should apply only to performers towards whom a direct and unreserved obligation existed on the basis of the WPPT. The ECS also criticised the Court’s reliance on the CFREU, particularly insofar as the Court viewed harmonised rights as abstract rather than individual, thus creating uncertainty about limitations. The Court’s conclusion that only the EU legislature could limit the right for nationals of non-EU states raises concerns about the application of material reciprocity by Member States in the past, and the retroactive effects of the interpretation remain unclear, contributing to legal uncertainty. In RAAP, the CJEU interpreted the WPPT, emphasising compliance with TRIPS and the Berne Convention’s core provisions in EU law. The Court stressed that material reciprocity had to be explicit in statutory law, with only the EU legislature defining limitations under harmonised rules such as Art. 8(2) RLD. However, EU design legislation grants Member States autonomy despite harmonised concepts established in cases like Cofemel and Brompton Bicycle. Unlike in RAAP, the CJEU may have more flexibility in interpreting EU copyright law for applied art in the Kwantum case. Precedents like Cofemel and Brompton Bicycle allow the Court to interpret material reciprocity under Art. 2(7) Berne without legislative intervention. Two alternatives for the Court are to interpret Art. 2(7) as mandating material reciprocity, preventing internal market issues, or to declare Member States’ application compatible with EU law, whether they apply material reciprocity or offer unreserved national treatment to works of applied art on the basis of Art. 19 Berne. Comparing RAAP and Kwantum, material reciprocity differs under Art. 4(2) WPPT and Art. 2(7) Berne. RAAP dealt with a conditional exception, while Art. 2(7) Berne is a mandatory rule, implying that countries of the Union must deny copyright protection to works protected solely as designs and models in their country of origin. While countries can choose to set aside material reciprocity under Art. 19 Berne, if the CJEU views Art. 2(7) Berne as limiting copyright as an intellectual property right under Art. 17(2) CFREU, the requirements in Art. 52(1) CFREU are already fulfilled without legislative intervention. Applying these considerations to the Kwantum case, it is noted that Dutch law provides no more protection than Art. 2(7) Berne. Given Art. 2(7)’s precedence over domestic law in the Dutch legal order, Dutch courts must apply the material reciprocity clause unless EU law dictates otherwise. In our view, the CJEU could either recognise material reciprocity as a requirement of EU law or declare Member State rules that mirror Berne’s reciprocity clause to be compatible with EU law. In conclusion, Kwantum reflects the uncertainty stemming from RAAP. The ECS advocates for a nuanced approach to the international application of EU copyright and related rights, giving due consideration to the regulations of international conventions as part of the EU legal order. In the case of copyright protection of works of applied art, the CJEU could, as a first step, either apply the reciprocity rule set out in Art. 2(7) Berne directly, or leave it to the Member States to decide on material reciprocity or national treatment, in accordance with the principles of the Berne Convention. As a second step, the EU legislature would be well advised to address the questions raised by RAAP and Kwantum at a more fundamental level through legislative intervention.}, keywords = {Copyright}, }

Taming the “Free”: Content moderation in the Fediverse and the Role of the DSA: A practical guide for server administrators in the Fediverse external link

Rijnswou, E. van & Verboom, C.
2024

Abstract

The current legal framework for content moderation in the Digital Services Act (DSA) is focused on centralized digital services. This makes it challenging for decentralized services, such as instances in the Fediverse, to know how to comply with the DSA. To address this issue, this report offers a practical guide for server administrators in the Fediverse to meet the DSA's content moderation obligations. In this practical guide, you will find: - categorization of Fediverse instances under the DSA; - content moderation obligations for all intermediary services; - content moderations obligations for hosting services in particular; as well as - for online platforms in general. In this report instances in the Fediverse are classified as hosting services, to be precise, as online platforms. As an online platform, instances will have to comply with the general content moderation obligations for all intermediary services, as well as the additional obligations for hosting services and online platforms. At the same time, micro or small enterprises are exempt from the additional obligations that online platforms have, which means that instances meeting this exemption are not subject to the additional obligations. To simplify the steps that a server administrator can take to comply with the DSA, this report provides checkboxes to help server administrators determine if they fall under the DSA and, if so, what their obligations are. Additionally, platforms are encouraged to take on further responsibilities by, for example, adopting voluntary codes of conduct. We also conclude that even if an instance does not meet the exact requirements of a micro or small enterprise, full compliance with the additional obligations for online platforms may be less of a focus point for enforcement if you are a relatively small service. Finally, and most importantly, we advise server administrators of small instances to provide transparency in their content moderation practices. This report is written by Emese van Rijnswou and Charlotte Verboom under the supervision of Dr. João Pedro Quintais & Ot van Daalen of the Glushko & Samuelson Information Law and Policy Lab (ILP Lab) of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam. The ILP Lab is a student-run, IViR-led institution which develops and promotes research-based policy solutions that protect fundamental rights and freedoms in the field of European information law. The report has been written in partnership with the DSA Observatory and European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi). It reflects the recommendations and conclusions of the authors of the ILP Lab.

Bibtex

Report{nokey, title = {Taming the “Free”: Content moderation in the Fediverse and the Role of the DSA: A practical guide for server administrators in the Fediverse}, author = {Rijnswou, E. van and Verboom, C.}, url = {https://ilplab.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/06/Final-Content-Moderation-in-the-Fediverse-2.pdf}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-04-24}, abstract = {The current legal framework for content moderation in the Digital Services Act (DSA) is focused on centralized digital services. This makes it challenging for decentralized services, such as instances in the Fediverse, to know how to comply with the DSA. To address this issue, this report offers a practical guide for server administrators in the Fediverse to meet the DSA\'s content moderation obligations. In this practical guide, you will find: - categorization of Fediverse instances under the DSA; - content moderation obligations for all intermediary services; - content moderations obligations for hosting services in particular; as well as - for online platforms in general. In this report instances in the Fediverse are classified as hosting services, to be precise, as online platforms. As an online platform, instances will have to comply with the general content moderation obligations for all intermediary services, as well as the additional obligations for hosting services and online platforms. At the same time, micro or small enterprises are exempt from the additional obligations that online platforms have, which means that instances meeting this exemption are not subject to the additional obligations. To simplify the steps that a server administrator can take to comply with the DSA, this report provides checkboxes to help server administrators determine if they fall under the DSA and, if so, what their obligations are. Additionally, platforms are encouraged to take on further responsibilities by, for example, adopting voluntary codes of conduct. We also conclude that even if an instance does not meet the exact requirements of a micro or small enterprise, full compliance with the additional obligations for online platforms may be less of a focus point for enforcement if you are a relatively small service. Finally, and most importantly, we advise server administrators of small instances to provide transparency in their content moderation practices. This report is written by Emese van Rijnswou and Charlotte Verboom under the supervision of Dr. João Pedro Quintais & Ot van Daalen of the Glushko & Samuelson Information Law and Policy Lab (ILP Lab) of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam. The ILP Lab is a student-run, IViR-led institution which develops and promotes research-based policy solutions that protect fundamental rights and freedoms in the field of European information law. The report has been written in partnership with the DSA Observatory and European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi). It reflects the recommendations and conclusions of the authors of the ILP Lab.}, }