Intermediarios y posición de garante en el mercado único digital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37417/REDE/num81_2022_706Palabras clave:
Intermediarios, Puerto Seguro, Responsabilidad Directa, Posición de Garante, Derecho de DefensaResumen
La jurisprudencia más reciente del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea ha puesto de manifiesto la necesidad de armonizar la responsabilidad del prestador de servicios de intermediación más allá de su delimitación negativa a través del puerto seguro. Para ellose propone una equiparación de laresponsabilidad del intermediario a la del tercero infractor a través del derecho de comunicación pública, en un intento de acomodar el rol del intermediario a los nuevos deberes reconocidos en el artículo 17 de la Directiva de Mercado Único Digital (2019). Frente a los problemas derivados de esta aproximación, la figura de la posición de garante vinculada a un efectivo derecho de defensa de las partespermitiría generar un deber específico en el intermediario consistente en impedir la continuidad de la infracción cometida previamente por un tercero, ofreciendo con ello una solución alternativa de carácter más ponderada y garantista, resaltando con ello la posición clave del intermediario en la promoción de la creatividad y libertad de expresión en internet.
Descargas
Citas
Aide, C. (1990) More Comprehensive Soul: Romantic Conception of Authorship and the Copyright Doctrine of Moral Rights. Toronto Faculty of Law Review, 8, 185-209.
Amayuelas Arroyo, E (2020) La responsabilidad de los intermediarios en Internet ¿puertos seguros a prueba de futuro? Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, 12, 808-837.
Angelopoulus, C y Smet, J (2016). Notice and Fair Balance: How to Reach a Compromise Between Fundamental Rights in European Intermediary Liability. Journal of Media Law, 8, 1-26.
Ataner, A (2001) How Strict is Vicarious Liability: Reassessing the Enterprise Liability and Consumer Law Strict Liability. Vand. Law Review, 54, 63-104.
Balkin, J (2018) Free Speech is a Triangle”. Columbia Law Review, 118, 2011-2056.
Balkin, J (2014) Old School/New School Speech Regulation”. Harvard Law Review, 127, 2296-2342.
Balkin, J (2004) Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Free Expression for the Information Society. New York University Law Review, 79, 1-55.
Bambauer, D (2011) Orwell’s Armchair. Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies Research Papers, 247,1-74.
Barrero Ortega, A (2021) Responsabilidad de los intermediarios de internet en el Derecho de la Unión Europea. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 123, 107-132
Bury, M y Zihlmann, Z (2020) Intermediaries Liability in light of the Recent EU Copyright Reform. Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 11, 35-75.
Belli, L & Venturini, J (2016) Private Ordering and the Rise of Terms of Service as Cyber-Regulations. Internet Policy Review, 5, 1-17.
Bezanson, R (2003) Speaking Through Other’s Voices: Authorship Originality and Free Speech”. Wake Forest Law Review, 38, 1056-1079.
Bruner, L (2016) The Liability of an Online Intermediary/Third Party Content: the Watchdog Becomes the Monitor: Intermediary Liability After Delfi. Human Rights Law Review, 16, 163-174.
Bridy, A (2020). The Price of Closing the Value Gap: How the Music Industry Hacked EU Copyright Reform. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 22, 323-358.
Camacho Sepúlveda, R (2015). Destinatarios de la función de salvaguarda de los derechos de propiedad intelectual en el entorno digital: la Ley 21/2014. Revista General de la Legislación y Jurisprudencia, 3, 407-428.
Carpou, Z (2016) Robots, Pirates and the Rise of the Automated Takedown Regime: Using the DMCA to Fight Piracy and Protect End-Users. Colum. J.L. & Arts, 39, 551-590.
Coderch, P et al (2002) Respondeat Superior II: De la Responsabilidad por Hecho de Otro a la Responsabilidad de la Organización. InDret, 3,1-22.
Coderch, P, et al, (2002) Respondeat Superior I. InDret, 2, 1-19.
Coombe, R.M (1991) Objects of Property and Subjects of Politics: Intellectual Property Law and Democratic Dialogue. Texas Law Review, 69, 1853-1880.
Cotino Hueso, L (2017) Responsabilidad de Intermediarios y Prestadores de Servicios de Internet en Europa y Estados Unidos y su importancia para la libertad de expresión, Revista de Derecho Comunitario y Nuevas Tecnologías, 17, 1-32
Curto, N (2020) EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market and ISP Liability: What’s Next at International Level? Case West Research Journal of Law, Technology and The Internet, 11,1-30.
Debita, G (2017) The Re-Emergence of Medieval Authorship Models in Contemporary Genres”, Cultural Intertexts, 7, 104-123.
Demetrio Crespo E (2017) Responsabilidad penal por omisión del empresario, Editorial Jurídica Continental
Drassinower, A (2015) What’s wrong with copying? Harvard University Press
Dusollier, S (2020) The 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Some Progress, a Few Bad Choices and Overall Failed Ambition. Common Law Market Review, 57, 970-1030.
Elkin-Koren, N (2017) Fair Use by Design. UCLA Law Review, 64, 1083-1100.
Elkin-Koren, N (1996). Cyberlaw and Social Change: A Democratic Approach to Copyright Law in Cyberspace. Cardozo Art. & Entertainment Law Journal, 14, 215-296.
Erikson, K y Kretschmer, M, (2018) This video is unavailable: analysing takedown of user-generated content on Youtube. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 9, 1-29.
Ferry, F (2020). The Dark Side(s) of the EU Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market. China-EU Law Journal, 7, 21-38.
Freixes, T (Coord) (2020) Garantías del Proceso Debido y Unión Europea: implicaciones para los ordenamientos internos. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado
Frosio, G (2018) Re-Imaging Digital Copyright Through the Power of Imitation: Lessons from Confucius and Plato. Pekin University Transnational Law Review, 5, 55-106.
Frosio, G (2018) Why Keep a Dog and Bark Yourself? From Intermediary Liability to Responsibility. Oxford International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 26, 1-38
Frosio, G (2017) The Death of Non-Monitoring Obligations: A Story of Untamable Monsters”, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information, Technology and Electronic Commerce Law”, 8, 2017, 199-216.
Frosio, G (2016) Digital Piracy Debunked: A Short Note on Digital Threats and Intermediary Liability. Internet Policy Review, 5, 1-22.
Frosio, G (2014) Rediscovering Cumulative Creativity from the Oral Formulaic Tradition to Digital Remix: Can I Get a Witness? The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 13, 344-393.
García Morales, M. J. (2013) La prohibición de censura en la era digital. Revista de Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, 31, 255-273.
Ginsburg, J (2010) User-Generated Content Sites and Section 512 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Columbia Law School, Paper Nº 10-255, 183-198.
Ginsburg, J (2017) The Court of Justice of the European Union creates a EU Law of Liability/Facilitation of Copyright Infringement: Observations on Brein v Filmspeler (C-527/15) and Brein v Ziggo (C-610/15), Columbia Law & Economics, 572, 1-14.
Guler, S (2020) Article 17 of the CDSM Directive and the Fundamental Rights: Shaping the Future of the Internet. European Journal of Law and Technology. 12, 1-30.
Helberger, N (2017) Governing Online Platforms: From Contest to Cooperative Responsibility. The Information Society, 34, 1-14.
Heller, M (1998) The Tragedy of the Anti-Commons: Property in the Transition: From Marx to Markets. Harvard Law Review, 111, 621-688.
Heymann, L (2007) Everything is Transformative: Fair Use and Reader Response, Columbia Journal of Law & Arts, 31, 445-466.
Hoboken, J (2019) The Proposed EU Terrorism Content Regulation: Analysis and Recommendations with respect to Freedom of Expression Implications, Transatlantic Working Group, 1-10.
Holt, K (2011) Grokster and Beyond: Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement During Live Musical Performances, Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 19, 173-200.
Hua, J (2014) Establishing Certainty of Internet Service Provider Liability and Safe Harbor Regulation, National Taiwan University Law Review, 9, 1-48.
Husoveck, M (2018) The Promises of Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement: Takedown or Staydown: Which is Superior and Why? Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 42, 54-84.
Kanalan, I (2016). Horizontal Effect of Human Rights in the Era of Transnational Constellations on the accountability of Private Actors for Human Rights Violations”, European Yearbook of International Economy Law, 7, 424-457.
Katyal, S (2003) The New Surveillance. Case W. Res. L. Rev., 54, 297-386.
Keats Citron, D (2008) Technological Due Process. Washington University Review, 85, 1249-1314.
Kreimer, S (2006) Censorship by Proxy: the First Amendment, Internet Intermediaries and the Problem of the Weakest Link. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155, 11-102.
Ku, R, (2002) The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics of Digital Technology. University of Chicago Law Review, 69, 263-324.
Kuczerawy, A (2015) Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression: Recent Developments in the EU Notice & Action Initiative. Comparative Law & Security, 31, 46-56.
Kuczerawy, A (2019). General Monitoring Obligations: a New Cornerstone of Internet Regulation in the EU. Rethinking IT and IP Law. En Katolieke Universiteit te Leuven (ed), Rethinking IT and IP Law. Celebrating 30 years CiTiP, Intersentia.
Kuczerawy, A (2020). From Notice and Take Down to Notice and Stay Down. Risks and Safeguards for Freedom of Expression. En Frosio, G (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Intermediary Liability Online, Oxford University Press.
Lange, D (1992) At Play in the Fields of the Word: Copyright and the Construction of Authorship in the Post-Literature Millenium. Law and Contemporary Problems, 55, 139-151.
Leersen, P (2015) Cut Out by the Middle Man: the Free Speech Implications of Social Media Blocking and Banning the EU. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information, Technology and Electronic Commerce, 6, 99-119.
Lemley, M (2015) Faith-Based Intellectual Property. UCLA Law Review, 62, 1328-1347.
Lemley, M (2004) Ex Ante versus Ex Post Justification for Intellectual Property. University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 129-150.
Lemley, M (1997) Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property. Texas Law Review, 75, 873-906.
Levin, D (2006) The Future of Copyright Infringement: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v Grokster, Ltd. St. John’s Journal of Legal Commentary, 21, 271-310.
Liu, J (2019) An Empirical Study of Transformative Use in Copyright Law. Stanford Technology Law Review, 22, 163-241.
Longke, T (2019) On an internet service provider´s content management obligation and criminal liability. Journal of Eastern-European Criminal Law, 1, 145-158.
Mark, D (2012) Copyright Law in Canada: Similar but not the Same. Landslide, 4, 49-53.
Martin, T (2010) Vicarious and Contributory Liability for Internet Host Providers: Combating Copyright Infringement in the United States, Russia and China. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 27, 2010, 1-36.
Maggiolino, M (2019) EU Trade Secrets Law and Algorithmic Transparency. Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No 3363178, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3363178.
Mehra, S y Trimble M (2014) Secondary Liability, ISP Immunity and Incumbent Entrenchment. American Journal of Comparative Law Supplement, 62, 685-706.
Montagnani, M y Yordanova, A (2018). Safe Harbors in Deep Waters: A New Emerging Liability Regime for Internet Intermediaries in the Digital Single Market. International Journal and Law and Information Technology, 26, 294-310.
Montagnani, M (2020) Virtues and Perils of Algorithmic Enforcement and Content Regulation in the EU- A Toolkit for A Balanced Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement. Journal of Law, Technology and Internet, 11,1-49.
Mostert, F (2020) Digital Due Process: A Need for Online Justice. Journal of Intellectual Property Law &Practice, 15, 1-23.
Nitoslawsky, M y Short, M (2013) Canada’s New Copyright: The Supreme Court Redefines Fair Use and Technological Neutrality, Landslide, 5, 43-49.
Pascual Suaña, O (2017) Derecho a no incriminarse en la Directiva (UE) 2016/343 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 9 de marzo de 2016 por la que se refuerzan en el proceso penal determinados aspectos de la presunción de inocencia y el Derecho a estar presente en juicio. Revista de Estudios Europeos, 1, 65-67.
Peguera Poch, M (2007) Sólo sé que no sé nada (efectivamente): la apreciación del conocimiento efectivo y otros problemas de aplicación judicial de la L.S.S.I”, Revista de Internet, Derechos y Política, 5, 1-18.
Perel, M y Elkin-Koren, N (2016) Accountability in Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement. Stanford Technology Law Review, 19, 473-533.
Pessach, G (2003) Copyright Law as a Silencing Restriction on Non-Infringing Materials: Unveiling the Scope of Copyright’s Diversity Externalities. Southern California Law Review, 76, 1067-1104.
Prechal, S (2020) Horizontal Direct Effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, 66, 408-426.
Priest, G (1985) The Invention of Enterprise Liability: A Critical History of the Intellectual Foundations of Modern Tort Law. Journal of Legal Studies, 14, 461-528.
Quintais, J (2020) The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look. European Intellectual Property Review, 1, 1-23.
Reis, R (2009). The Sony Legacy: Secondary Liability. Akron Intellectual Property Journal, 3, 223-268.
Robles Planas, R (2012) Los dos niveles del sistema de intervención en el delito, InDret, 2, 1-25.
Rodríguez Mesa, MJ (2013) Los delitos de omisión impropia como delitos especiales y de dominio positivo del hecho en materia de autoría y participación. REDUR, 11107-126.
Romero Moreno, F (2020) Upload Filters and Human Rights: Implementing Art. 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 34, 153-181.
Rosenblatt, E (2018) Who will speak for the Slender Man? Dialogism and Dilemmas in Character Copyright. Florida Law Review, 70, 2018, 69-78.
Rotstein, R (1993). Beyond Metaphor: Copyright Infringement and the Fiction of the Work. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68, 725-804.
Rueda Martín, MA (2013) ¿Participación por omisión? Un estudio sobre la cooperación por omisión en un delito doloso cometido por un autor principal. Atelier
Sánchez Aristi, R (2014) La provisión de enlaces en internet y el derecho de puesta a disposición del público (Comentario a la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 13 de febrero de 2014 en el asunto C-466/12, caso Svensson ). Revista de Propiedad Intelectual, 46, 45-95.
Sánchez Aristi, R (2015) Responsables de la Infracción (art. 138 LPI), en Bercovitz, R (dir), La Reforma de la Propiedad Intelectual, Tirant Lo Blanch.
Sánchez Leria, R (2020). Plataformas de alojamiento y contenido ilícito en internet: reflexiones a propósito de la nueva Directiva 2019/790, sobre derechos de autor en el mercado digital. Revista de Derecho Civil, 3, 163-198.
Senftleben, M (2020). Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement. The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platforms Liability. Florida Law Review, 14, 299-328.
Senftleben, M y Angelopoulos, C (2020) The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. SRRN, 1-34, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3717022
Sites, B (2016) Fair Use and the New Transformative. Columbia Journal of Law & Arts, 39, 513-550.
Solomon, S et al (2021) Platforms Responsibility and Regulation. Canada Considerations on Transparency, Legislative Clarification and Design? Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 34, 1-18.
Tehranian, J (2015) The New Censorship. Iowa Law Review, 101,103-148.
Thomson, M (2016) Beyond Gatekeeping: The Normative Responsibility of Internet Intermediaries. Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 18, 783-848.
Thornburg, E (2001) Going Private: Technological Due Process and Internet Dispute Resolution. U.C. Davis Law Review, 34, 151-220.
Urban, J et al. (2017) Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice. UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper, Nº 2755628, 2017, 1-170.
Urban, J and Quilter, L (2006). Efficient Process or Chilling Effects? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 DMCA. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 22, 621-694.
Wan, K (2011) Monopolistic Gatekeepers’ Vicarious Liability for Copyright Infringement, Regent University Law Review, 23, 65-96.
Wan, K (2011) Internet Service Providers Vicarious Liability versus Regulation of Copyright in China. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 2, 375-412.
Witting, C (2006) Breach of the non-delegable duty: defending limited strict liability in Tort. University of New South Wales Law School, 29, 2006, 33-60.
