The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
Whether and when communications platforms like Google, Twitter and Facebook are liable for their users’ online activities is one of the key factors that affects innovation and free speech. Most creative expression today takes place over communications networks owned by private companies. Governments around the world increasingly press intermediaries to block their users’ undesirable online content in order to suppress dissent, hate speech, privacy violations and the like. One form of pressure is to make communications intermediaries legally responsible for what their users do and say. Liability regimes that put platform companies at legal risk for users’ online activity are a form of censorship-by-proxy, and thereby imperil both free expression and innovation, even as governments seek to resolve very real policy problems.
In the United States, the core doctrines of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have allowed these online intermediary platforms user generated content to flourish. But, immunities and safe harbors for intermediaries are under threat in the U.S. and globally as governments seek to deputize intermediaries to assist in law enforcement.
To contribute to this important policy debate, CIS studies international approaches to intermediary obligations concerning users’ copyright infringement, defamation, hate speech or other vicarious liabilities, immunities, or safe harbors; publishes a repository of information on international liability regimes and works with global platforms and free expression groups to advocate for policies that will protect innovation, freedom of expression, privacy and other user rights.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Argentina heard arguments in Rodríguez, María Belén c/ Google Inc. y Otro s/ Daños y Perjuicios. The case requires the Supreme Court to decide for the first time whether Internet intermediaries - in this case, search engines Google and Yahoo - are liable for linking to content that violates fundamental rights or infringes copyright. It will also decide whether Google Image Search’s “thumbnails” infringe copyright law.
A few days ago, the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued an order requiring Google to remove websites from its worldwide index in Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack. Read more about Canadian Court Forces Google to Delist Websites Worldwide
Recently, an Advocate General with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down an opinion in Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG stating that European libraries may digize individual books in their collection without permission from the rightholders. Read more about European Libraries Don't Need Permission to Digitize Books in Their Collection, Says Advocate General of the ECJ
Today, the Hong Kong Government introduced the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 into the Legislative Council to revise Hong Kong’s copyright law so as to “keep pace with technological and overseas developments.” Read more about Hong Kong Government Introduces Copyright Bill Providing a “Safe Harbor” for OSPs for Copyright Infringement