Monthly Archives: April 2017

Information Law Group 2nd Annual ‘Work in Progress’ Workshop

The Information Law Group at the University of Sussex warmly invites you to their 2nd Annual ‘Work in Progress’ Workshop on Wednesday 3rd May.

The workshop provides an opportunity to discuss current research and receive feedback in a highly focused, informal environment.

The event is preceded by a PhD workshop (11-1pm) and followed by a lecture by Rob Wainwright, Director of Europol (5.30-6.30pm), entitled “The Role of Europol in Countering Organised Crime and Terrorism”.

Book Now

AGENDA

2.00pm – 3.30pm “Challenges to Competition Law in Information Markets”

Chair: Dr Judith Townend (Sussex); Discussant: Prof Chris Marsden (Sussex)

  • Dr Konstantinos Stylianou (Leeds) “Redefining Normal Competition: The Case Study of the ICT Industry”
  • Dr Konstantina Bania (EBU, TILEC) “The role of consumer data in the enforcement of competition laws”
  • Dr Nico Zingales (Sussex) “The rise of ‘infomediaries’ and its implications for antitrust enforcement”

3.30pm – 4.00pm Coffee Break

4.00pm – 5.30pm “Intermediary Platform Responsibility”

Chair: Prof Chris Marsden (Sussex); Discussant: Orla Lynskey (LSE)

  • Dr Andres Guadamuz (Sussex), “Whatever happened to our dream of an empowering Internet (and how to get it back)”
  • Dr David Erdos (Cambridge), “Intermediary Publisher Responsibility for Third Party Rights in European Data Protection”
  • Dr Felipe Romero Moreno (Hertfordshire), “The fake-news phenomenon in the 2016 post-crisis digital era”

5.30pm – 6.30pm Lecture: Rob Wainwright, Director of Europol “The Role of Europol in Countering Organised Crime and Terrorism”.

Where to after Watson: The challenges and future of data retention in the UK

An event hosted by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and sponsored by Simmons & Simmons. 

Date: 11th May 2017
Time: 17:30 – 19:30 (Registration open from 17:00). Followed by a reception
Venue: Simmons & Simmons, City Point, 1 Ropemaker Street, London EC2Y 9SS
Cost: Members £15, Non-members £25

This event can be booked on the British Institute for International and Comparative Law website. Book now.

The judgment of the CJEU in the Watson case was handed down shortly before the year’s end in 2016. The determination that member states may not impose on communications providers a general obligation to retain data was applauded by privacy groups and has undoubtedly caused disquiet among those involved in policing and intelligence. What parliamentarians and judges will make of it in the coming months – and, post-Brexit, years – is both uncertain and important.

In this event, experts will examine the strengths, weaknesses and implications of the decision, with an eye to rights protections, the need to combat serious crime, and the practicalities of managing both in light of the European Court’s decision.

Speakers:

  • The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP, Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee
  • Max Hill QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
  • Dr Nora Ni Loideain, Incoming Director, Information Law and Policy Centre, IALS
  • Renate Samson, Chief Executive, Big Brother Watch

Chair:

  • Professor Lorna Woods, University of Essex

For more information download the event flyer and join in the conversation: @BinghamCentre, #Watson

AG Szpunar in Stichting Brein v Ziggo: An Indirect Harmonisation of Indirect Liability?

In the following piece, Christina Angelopoulos, Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Cambridge, analyses the recent Opinion by AG Szpunar in case C-610/15, Stichting Brein v Ziggo. The post was originally published on the Kluwer Copyright Blog.

On 8 February, Advocate General Szpunar handed down his Opinion on Stichting Brein v Ziggo. The case is significant, as it represents the first time that the liability of an internet intermediary for copyright infringement will be considered by the CJEU. To date, all decisions handed down by that court on intermediary liability have instead concentrated on the related question of injunctions against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe.

Questions Referred

The case finds its origins in the Netherlands, where Stichting Brein, a Dutch anti-piracy organisation, applied for an injunctive order against internet access providers Ziggo and XS4ALL that would require them to block access for their customers to the peer-to-peer file-sharing website The Pirate Bay (TPB).

That application was upheld at first instance, but dismissed on appeal, on the grounds that, first, it is the customers of Ziggo and XS4ALL, and not TPB itself, who are the originators of the copyright infringements and, secondly, that the blocking sought would not be proportionate to the aim pursued, i.e. the effective protection of copyright.

The case eventually made it before the Hoge Raad, the Dutch Supreme Court, which decided to submit two questions to the CJEU. Essentially, these ask the following:

  1. Does TPB, by providing a system through which metadata on protected works that are present on its users’ computers is indexed and categorised, thus enabling those users to trace, upload and download the works, engage in a communication to the public of those works for the purposes of EU copyright law?
  1. If the answer to Question 1 is negative, may an injunction nevertheless be issued against Ziggo and XS4ALL, requiring them to block access for their customers to TPB?

It should be noted from the outset that these two questions are seen by the Dutch court as interconnected. The Hoge Raad is essentially querying whether TPB must be an infringer before access to it may be blocked.

[To continue reading this post on the Kluwer Copyright Blog, click here.]

New Study on Intermediary Liability and European Copyright Reform

Dr Christina Angelopoulos, associate research fellow at the Information Law & Policy Centre and lecturer at the University of Cambridge, has authored a study entitled ‘On Online Platforms and the Commission’s New Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market’.

The study, commissioned by MEP Julia Reda, evaluates the provisions of the European Commission’s Proposal of 14 September 2016 for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market that are relevant to the issue of intermediary liability.

The study concludes that key elements of these provisions are incompatible with existing EU directives, as well as with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

In particular, the study suggests that the Proposal misinterprets EU copyright and related rights law by implying that intermediaries that allow users to host content in a public manner are themselves performing an act of communication to the public. The study argues that acts of facilitation of third party copyright infringement are instead the rightful domain, not of primary, but of accessory liability, an area of copyright and related rights law that has not yet been harmonised at the EU level.

Continue reading