LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


Introduction

 

Intermediaries are third party organizations that offer intermediation services between the parties trading amongst themselves. Such organizations act as ducts for services offered by a supplier to the relevant consumer. Value addition to the service in question is a key aspect of the trading platform offered by such intermediaries, which is highly improbable if the trading is done directly. Provision of a trading platform for any kind of electronic commerce is the key link of the existence of an intermediary.

 

As existing in the technological age the surfaced usage includes the financial militaries along with the insurance sector. Financial services where insurance brokers, mortgage brokers and financial advisors offer select intermediation services for and in the supply of financial products such as mortgage loans, insurance premiums and investment services and products.

 

The intermediaries find their relevance in the Barter system in the following manner for in the aforementioned system, the intermediary is a person or a group who stores valuables in practices such as trade until those are needed. Parties to such transaction have space available to take delivery of them and store them or until and unless the requirements that follow are met. Facilitator of a contract between two parties is also an intermediary.

 

Classification of intermediaries is very important aspect of any transaction or for understanding purposes. Such can be classified as merchant intermediaries and or as accountant intermediaries. The landmark case of Baile and Bakos (1997) analyzed a number of prevalent case studies and jurisprudence and thereby identified four such rules and duties of electronic intermediaries inclusive of information aggregating, provision of trust, matching and meeting of minds and facilitation.[2]. The tagline of information economy has been recently glued to economy yet till date the market has always relied on the exchange of relevant information.

 

Neoclassical model of economics has largely ignored the importance of information[3]. As per the assumptions of a neoclassical model of the market, the market information should be perfect wherein the transaction costs are low whereas in reality such a perfect market is impossible. Actors of such structures are not having the adequate and asymmetric information so they shall and they do make decisions based on bounded rationale. The aforementioned lack of perfect information rests and results in increased transaction costs for the sellers as well as buyers.

 

Traditionally the intermediaries in question have served to reduce such information related transaction costs. An economic agent is what an intermediary shall act as, which in turn helps buyers and sellers find each other and help in executing a transaction stacked. In addition to that the said intermediaries help in order to classify followed by sorting the market information and finally distribute the market information and goods. The role of intermediaries does not end at the behest of distribution of the goods and services but has grown and become more specialized as advances in transportation as technology increases the size and complexity of any such market place.[4]

 

As for the present day, however, advances, which take us into far future, threaten the role of a tradition intermediary. If the logs of the World Wide Web were to be checked such technologies transform the said locale of any such business transaction-taking place under themselves from the traditional to the cyber market place. The Internet does exponentially expands the scope and the size of any said market, it also give direct link access in between the seller and the consumer. Businesses do advertise and market directly to the consumers whilst the said consumers employ and enjoy web tech capabilities to seek out the services they seek. Disintermediation is what is addressed by such technological capabilities of today’s era. And thus eliminate the middleman in any such transaction.

 

Advancement of the paradigm concerned is shifting its focus on the html space from the traditional goods to such information goods and services thereby entering into a true information economy. Infrastructure of the Internet adds value to such information by the enhancement of the ability to retrieve, filter, store, repackage and distribute the same.[5] Information can be very easily and in accordance to the consumer/ seller/ retailer being turned into a commodity and be bought or sold at a market place. Usage of Internet for businesses now days can attract a huge client base and opportunities. Information about credit cards/ bank accounts and other personal data.[6] Online businesses, in today’s era collect consumer data and sell it for direct marketing. Business can, truly, maximize profits and minimize transaction costs. Thereby proving that information commodities are not only intangible goods but also personal information is negatively politicized.

 

There is, however, a greater potential for the information, personal, to be misused by such Internet based businesses. Capitalizing on consumer information compromises on consumer’s privacy rights and loss of property.[7] Consumers never have any kind of control over how their information, personal, shall be used. Not so surprisingly, there has been a relevant concern in pertinence to consumer privacy.[8]

 

The conceptual net of an intermediary and its conceptualization

 

Any question related to the success rate of an intermediary shall be dealt with once the prospect of intermediaries is clear to us. Examination of the aspect of reduction of uncertainties in digital age also has to be dealt with caution and should be preceded by laying out a conceptual framework which would inherently focus on uncertainties in the digital age of today. The key aspect of the digital information is to be understood if at all we intend to find out what role an intermediary does play in our economic system. Such hitting the nib of concepts will serve as a basis and further when intermediary is analyzed both in historical and present-day markets.

          

Information and how it is relevant

 

Information is an ambiguous aspect, which has started to affect the economy in the last 100 years, and therefore needs to be addressed.[9]Given the focus of this thesis on the role and liabilities of an intermediary, a definition, which aptly relates to the same, exists.[10] Anything which can be exploited to remove/ reduce uncertainty in decision-making is information.[11] “‘Depression of individuals’/ the subjective belief of distributions over all state of the world is what uncertainty can be defined as”.[12] Thereby information is any diction which a user/ individual receives and that reduces the uncertainty in prevalent in his current environment; this is referral to the product, its price and the like.

 

Uncertainty has in the past created markets for information. Wherein agents are un-aware of the future event; the quality of the product, the honestly another person carries, they seek information to reduce uncertainty.[13] Information has always decreased the risk involved in complex and complicated transactions. Risk, as defined is “the potential for loss when uncertain future events might cause harm to the economy”.[14] The understanding of the exploitation of information it is first, absolutely required to remove any such queries.

 

Information can largely be described by properties, which hold a common referral value. Information for one is an intangible source and resource and a good, which does not have any materialistic value.[15] In continuance, information is a highly fungible reserve. All information can be described by common properties.[16]Information trading can be a barter system trading and can be exchanged as a resource for another information or its source. The value of information always does vary with the perception and requirements of the current user.[17] The nature/ significance and the value of information vary according to its use. The production of information goods requires high fixed costs and comparatively low marginal costs.[18] Information, as we may understand is costly to produce but very cheap to be reproduced.[19] Information trading is a very profitable venture very much unlike the tangible goods and services. Post the initial payment, information can be used, reused and recycled any number of ways without any sort of additional costs. In the similar manner, information can be replicated at zero value and without any sort of limitation bar. Information never deteriorates or goes rugged unlike tangible goods. Information, however, may become obsolete and or untrue with the passage of time and its value may suffer because of that.[20]

 

A common feature that creates uncertainties in markets all together is the non-exclusivity and information is a non-exclusive product.[21] For referral the transfer of information in between a producer and a user, only one single copy of the information is actually mortgaged. The production house keeps the actual information. Thereby giving the producer the advantage of sharing and/ or using that piece of information again and again. In the similar manner, when the good is sold, the seller enjoys its subsequent benefits.[22] The information given to the seller can be replicated and sold by the buyer without him having to give any information about the aforementioned transaction to the seller. In such cases, the seller loses the compensation for the future use of the information so transacted. Disclosure is also an issue in case of the information being non-exclusive because such commercial use of the information may be revealed to others. Additional market uncertainty develops when such agents hesitate in publishing information and it is likelihood that the agents are likely to invest comparatively less in the production of information and its knowledge.[23]

 

Uncertainties in markets also develop because the information’s true value can never be predicted.[24] The consumer can never know the value of information before he buys the same. The exhibition of the information by the seller before selling has a way to create certain other uncertainties as well. A traditional buyer is always at risk, never he shall know the surest nature of the information being transacted, purchase. Under-development of markets is also a repercussion of such uncertainties.

 

Consideration of such unique persona of a piece of information, we are bound to ace that information does not fit comfortably in the neo-classical market system and its economy. Boisot in 98’ pointed out that the problem of neo-classical economics has been addressed schizophrenically.[25] Information is treated as a free good by the economic system and not subject to trading yet on the other had it is being traded. Efficient markets gain a perfect foresight as a support to the information-trading era and practice.[26]

Overcoming the problem of imperfect information and information symmetry, a mediator can be appointed who would in –short mediate between the buyer and the seller/ creation of any such agent is a solution, a mediator w/ agent who would act in both the buyer and sellers interests. The repeating of dealing and reputation affects would discourage misrepresentation of such information to the buyer. Such a solution aligns all kinds of incentives in between producers and users. Thus, a third party -an intermediary-reduces information asymmetry.

Neoclassical finances fails to take into attention the uncertainty of intelligence, requiring alternate principles to explain the business of markets. Such two theories are hereby discussed.

 

Agency Cost theory

 

An agency cost is a financial concept concerning the rate to a "principal" (an organization, person or assemblage of persons), when the principal selects or hires a "mediator" to act on its behalf. Because the two parties have diverse interests and the manager (mediator) has more information, the major (party with the issue) cannot directly ensure that its agent is continually acting in its (the principals') best welfares.[27]

 

Mutual examples of this cost include that which are tolerated by shareholders (the primary), when corporate organization (the agent) buys other corporations to expand its market, or spends currency on wasteful pet schemes, instead of maximizing the value of the business's worth; or by the voters of a politician's area (the principal) when the representative (the agent) passes legislature helpful to large suppliers to their campaign rather than the supporters.[28]

 

Though effects of help cost are near in any agency connection, the term is most used in trade contexts.

 

Transaction Cost theory

 

In social science and connected disciplines, The value of a deal may be a value incurred in creating associate economic exchange (restated: the price of taking part in an exceedingly big/growing market).[29]

 

Transaction prices are divided into three broad categories:[30]

 

Search and data prices are unit prices, like those incurred in deciding that the specified functional article is accessible on the market; that has all-time low worth, etc.

 

Bargaining prices are unit specific prices in which case the buyer needs to come back to an appropriate agreement with the opposite party to do the dealings, draw up associate applicable contract then on. In theory of games this can be analyzed for example with the game of chicken. On quality markets and in market microstructure, the dealings value is which a very few perform in the space between the bids and rise.

 

Controlling and social control prices are unit specific prices that tend to create positive scenarios so that the opposite party sticks to the terms of the contract, and taking applicable action (often through the legal system) if the behavior of the opposite parties seems questionable. For example, the customer of a brand new automotive faces a spread-jam of various dealings prices. The search prices are the prices of finding an automobile and deciding the car's condition. The dialogue focuses on the diversification of the prices thereby negotiating upon a price with the retailer.

 

Internet Service suppliers and Their Liability

 

The DMCA defines  ‘service provider’ in two such ways that, each is applicable to totally different subsections. A  ‘service provider’ as  ‘an entity giving transmission, routing or  providing the relevant connections for digital on-line communications, between or among points mere by a user, of the material of user’s selection, without modification to the content of material as sent or received’,[31] the second half of the section states that a ‘service supplier’ is loosely outlined as  ‘a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities so required.’[32] This broad definition is aimed directly on the half of the framers to embrace universities and different establishments that offer Internet access to their students and researchers, etc. Moreover, it is conjointly broad to embrace the current ISPs, as well as suppliers of new services in the future.[33] The four main provisions of the DMCA address varying functions of the said associate ISP.  In Section 512(a) protection is given for the passage operate and it protects ISP for  ‘transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service supplier.’ Section 512(b) limits liability of associate ISP for caching and Section 512(c) protects storage of material on the provider’s system or network at the direction of the user and finally, ISPs who offer data location tools such as links or directories that are also protected, subject to bound circumstances.[34]

 

Despite varied laws protective IPR; it is still associate enormous task to keep a check on the copyright infringers on the web. Several lobbying teams and especially those who are acting as individuals in the music industry[35] in USA were in favour of holding ISPs liable for copyright infringement by the subscribers.  It is important to take note of the truth that there is a fundamental distinction     between on-line services involving  transfer of content  and  the services themselves providing the contents.[36]  Though, it is truthful enough to hold ISPs liable in the latter situation, it is transparently unfair to hold ISPs liable for the infringing actions of their subscribers. ISPs can be liable for copyright infringement if they are directly concerned in the repetition of protected material.  For example, if an ISP makes offered ill-gotten copies of latest songs on its web site it would be guilty of copyright infringement. However it is not truthful to hold ISP liable for the actions of a subscriber who shares ill-gotten copies of songs over Internet without ISP having  any knowledge of  these  infringing actions of the subscriber.

 

One of the main reasons behind involving ISPs in the method and holding them liable is  a definite result of typical contracts that they enter into with their customers, ISPs are authorized to shut down websites as well as e-mail addresses in case of infringement.  In order to take requisite action(s) they also have facilitated stern lines for news abuse.[37] In United Kingdom, beneath the information Protection Act, the ISPs are prevented from revealing the names of subscribers without their permission or an associate order from the court to a third party.  Wherefore, in the event of a copyright infringement, a copyright owner cannot determine anything pertaining to the address or location of the wrong doer. In order to directly sue the wrongdoer, the copyright owner has to force ISP to disclose the offender’s name.[38] Some believe that turning to ISPs is associate, economic as well as a productive means to deal with copyright infringers or even different e-infringers in general, particularly in locating the culprits.[39] The web permits users to remain anonymous and consequently, it has become impossible to zero in on the perpetrators, thus many are in favor of holding ISPs liable for the copyright infringements by their subscribers.

 

Moreover, the cost of proceedings way outweighs what is recovered in the end and holding an individual liable will fetch you the same outcome for an ISP shall pay more damages. However it is absurd to hold ISP liable for the actions of its user merely as a result of ISP has deeper pockets than the individual. Another argument in favor of holding ISPs liable was due to the nature of electronic transmission of information; if a subscriber uploads infringing copyright material his ISP would have reproduced it on its laptop servers and thereby be primarily liable for copyright infringement. But, this argument might not hold still for long, as mentioned earlier in this paper, the courts set that temporary electronic copies are  excluded from the definition of ‘copies’. ISPs take unit vehement in their refusal to take blame for infringing action by the subscribers.  They purpose out that ISPs are mere conduits of data and are no different than a ancient post workplace that is not liable for a calumniator(s) letter that is announce through it or a phone company that is not accountable for any obscene decision created by a user.  Thus, liability of ISPs ought to conjointly be restricted.  They conjointly argue that imposing liability on ISPs would in flip mean barricading the potential growth of web.

 

ISP liability for the actions of the subscribers is based on their data of the activities of subscribers. Where, the ISP is unaware of the subscriber’s activities, the courts are reluctant to hold ISP liable, however in cases wherever the concerned ISP is aware of the subscriber’s copyright infringement or wherever ISP should have well-known the activities of subscriber’s, it is highly attainable that the courts would hold ISP liable for copyright infringement by the subscribers.[40]  At present, several national governments are of the read that ISPs ought to escape liability for infringements by the subscribers of that they are unaware of, but they have a duty to take away such content once such action is brought to their notice.[41] There are varied reasons as to why it is not feasible in apply for ISPs to be accountable for cases of copyright infringement. Taking note of the immense range of transactions that take place through ISPs, it is not sensible to expect ISPs to monitor the content that passes through their systems. It is not possible and valuable for ISPs to police the content of the websites used by millions.  Moreover, the instant nature  of  the  transactions conjointly create  it difficult  to choose the content  or  even  to  edit  it  or merely  keep a watch over  it.  As per  William  Foster,  ‘ISPs are  similar  to  common  carriers  in  that  they  have  no control  over that  members  of  the  public  use  their facilities,  or  the  content,  members  of  the  public choose  to  transmit.’ so, requiring  ISPs  to monitor  transactions  in  order  to  trace  copyright violations  would  violate  the  rights  of  the  subscribers and  it  would conjointly amendment  ISP  business  model. The  latest  argument  is  that  ISPs ought to  be  liable for direct  copyright  infringement  in  cases wherever  they interfere  with  the  automatic information  flow  and  conduct  a human screening method  of  objects announce  to  the websites  they  host. However  what  has  to  be  taken  note  of is that  inspite of human screening,  it  is  humanly impossible to be hundred percent correct  as to  there is no  infringement  of  copyright  at  all. The terribly truth that  ISP has concerned  a person  to  check  for  violations in  addition  to  the  terms  and  conditions  is smart enough proof  that  ISP  is doing  its  best  to forestall  subscribers  from  copyright  infringement.  In  such  a  case,  it  is  morally wrong  to  hold ISPs  liable  for  the  actions of  the subscribers. however  there are  differing  views  on  this point.[42]

  

Position of the USA

 

Pre-DMCA situation

 

Prior  to  the  Digital  Millennium  Copyright  Act (DMCA) once  the  liability  of  ISPs  came  up  before the  courts,  there  was  nothing however  the  copyright  law  to rely  on.  Thus,  some  courts  relied  on  strict  liability while  others control  ISPs  to  be  not  liable  at  all. However,  in  1996,  theCongress passed the Communications  Decency  Act  providing  immunity  to ISPs.

 

The Communications Decency Act, 1996

 

In  1996, the Communications Decency Act was enacted in the United States and Section 230 of the Act states that  ‘no supplier or user of associate interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any data provided by another information content provider.’ Thus, it  gives immunity  to interactive service providers from liability beneath state intellectual property laws.[43] As  a result  of  this  provision,  holding  ISPs liable  for deciding  to  publish,  withdraw  or alter  content  is  not possible.19  Similar  to  DMCA  provisions that shield ISPs  in  case  of  third  party  copyright  infringement,  this provision  was conjointly  brought  in as a result of  holding  ISPs liable  for  communications  of  others  would  adversely affect  free  speech  and  it  would  be  unfair  to  hold  ISPs liable  for those  actions. Moreover, as mentioned earlier in  this  paper, it  is not possible  to  monitor  the problematic  content  by  ISPs.

 

In Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights beneath  the  Law Inc  v  Craigslist INC;[44]

 

The  Hon’ble Court adjudged  that  the immunity  provided  to  ISPs beneath  Section  230(1)  of the  Communications  Decency  Act,  extends  to  claims, seeking  to  hold associate  ISP  liable  as  a  publisher  for content  authored  by  third  parties,  and  not  to  all  claims arising  out  of  the  ISP’s  role  in giving  public  access  to such  content.  Thus, it will  be  seen  that  the  immunity given  to  ISPs  has  limitations and  ISPs will  not  escape from  its  liability  in  all  circumstances.

 

Playboy  Enterprises INC v Frena[45]

 

This was one of the initial cases wherever liability of ISPs for the copyright infringement of subscribers was examined.The  defendant, George Frena, operated a Bulletin Board Service  (BBS) for those who purchased bound product from the suspect and anyone who paid  a  fee might  log  on  and  browse through totally different  BBS  directories  to  look  at  the pictures  and  they might conjointly transfer  copies  of  the photographs. Among several images  that  the defendant created offered  to  his  customers,  one hundred  and  seventy  were unauthorized proprietary photographs that  belonged  to  the litigant. The Court  noted  that  the  intent  of  the  BBS operator was irrelevant  and applied  strict  liability  principle  of  the Copyright  Act. The  BBS  operator  was liable  for direct  infringement as a result of  the defendant’s system itself equipped  unauthorized  copies of proprietary work  and created  them offered  to  the  public. It was irrelevant  that the suspect did not create  infringing copies itself. However, with time the  Court’s  ruling was widely  debated  and  discredited.

 

Religious Technology Center v Netcom[46]

 

Few  years  later, came the Netcom case. The plaintiffs, Religious Technology  Center  (RTC) control copyrights  in  the unpublished  and revealed  works of L Ron  Hubbard,  the  founder  of  the  Church  of Scientology.  The suspect,  Erlich  was  a  former minister  of religion who  had  later on become  a vocal critic  of  the  Church.  On associate  on-line  forum  for discussion  and  criticism  of religion, Erlich announce portions of  the  works  of  L Ron  Hubbard.  Erlich gained  his  access  to  the web  through  BBS that was  not  directly joined  to web, however  was connected through  Netcom  On-Line  Communications INC. After failing  to win over  Erlich  to  stop  his  postings,  RTC contacted  BBS  and  Netcom.  The  owner  of  BBS demanded  the litigant  to  prove  that  they owned   the copyrights of  the works announce  by  Erlich therefore  that  he would  be unbroken  off  the  BBS. The  plaintiffs  refused BBS  owner’s  request  as  unreasonable. Netcom similarly  refused  plaintiffs’  request  that  Erlich not be allowed  to  gain  access  to web  through  its  system. Netcom contended  that  it  would  be not possible  to prescreen Erlich’s  postings  and  that  to forestall  Erlich from victimization  the web meant  doing  the  same  to hundreds  of  users  of  BBS.  Consequently,  plaintiffs sued  BBS  and  Netcom  in  their  suit  against  Erlich  for copyright  infringement  on  the web. The  Court  reasoned  that  eventhough  ‘copyright  is  a strict  liability  statute,  there ought to  be  some part  of volition  or causing that  is lacking wherever  a defendant’s  system  is simply  used  to produce  a  copy  by third  party.’  The  Court additional  noted  that,  when  the subscriber  is  directly  liable  it  is senseless  to  hold different parties  (whose  involvement  is simply  providing Internet  facilities)  liable  for  actions of  the subscriber. The  Court conjointly  noted  that  the  notice  of  infringing activity  of  service supplier can  implicate  him  for contributory  negligence  as  failure  to forestall associate infringing copy from being distributed would constitute substantial participation.

 

Substantial participation  is wherever  the suspect has data of primary  infringer’s  infringing  activities  and  induces, causes  or  materially contributes  to the infringing conduct of primary infringer. The Court rejected  the argument of  the suspect  that associate  ISP  is similar  to  a common carrier and so  entitled  to  exemption from  strict  liability written in  Section  III of  the Copyright  Act  and declared  that carriers are  not sure  to carry all  the traffic  that passes through  them. Nevertheless,  the Court  did not  impose  direct infringement  liability  on ISP as  that  would  result  in  liability  for every single server transmitting information  to each different laptop.

 

Sega  Enterprises  Ltd  v  Maphia[47]

 

In  this specific  case,  the  BBS  Operator wittingly created  his  BBS  to enable  users  to transfer  the plaintiff’s proprietary  video  game package therefore  that users might transfer  and  use  the package uploaded by different  users  for  free.  The  Court  noted  that simply because  the suspect  is not  liable  for  direct infringement, however, will  not  mean  that  he  is  free from  liability.  Although,  the  Copyright  Act will  not expressly  impose  liability  on anyone different  than  direct infringers,  courts  have  long  recognized that  in bound circumstances, liability for conducive infringement will  be obligatory.  The Court discovered  that conducive copyright  infringement  stems  from  the  notion  that  one who  directly  contributes  to  another’s infringement should  be control  liable.  Such  liability is established where the defendant,  ‘with   the knowledge of infringing  activity,  induces,  causes  or  materially contributes  to  the  infringing  conduct  of  another.’ Thus the Court took note of  the data of  BBS operator and  his  material  contribution  in  the  copyright infringement  by  subscribers and control  BBS  operator contributory  liable.

 

Three  years once  the  Netcom  case,  the  DMCA was  brought  in.  The on-line  Copyright  Infringement Liability  Limitation  Act11  was conjointly  enacted  as half  of the  Digital  Millennium  Copyright  Act  of  1998. However,  the  DMCA  was associate  update  of  the  general law  governing  copyright,  viz,  the  Copyright  Act, 1976, that restricted  the  potential  liability  of  ISPs regarding bound  activities,  and  subject  to  their complying  with bound  conditions however  did  not  exempt ISPs  from  liability.[48]  In  addition  to  limiting  the liability  of  ISPs  in bound  instances,  the  DMCA conjointly lays  down wherever ISPs will  be control  liable  for infringement  of  copyright  by  their  subscribers. The DMCA permits  ISPs  to  avoid each  copyright liability  and  liability  to  subscribers  by  adhering  to certain tips  set  out in this that are legendary  as ‘safe harbours’.  Through these safe harbor provisions,  DMCA  limits  ISP  liability to  four categories,  viz.,  firstly, temporary  digital  network communications,  secondly,  system  caching,  thirdly, information  residing  on  systems  at  the  direction  of subscribers;  and fourth, data  location  tools. The  DMCA  accepts  the  ruling  of  the  Netcom  case and provides categorical  protection  to  ISPs,  hence,  as  long  as the information  is mechanically  transmitted  through  the server  and  the  ISP  is  not concerned  in sterilization  the content,  the  ISP can  not  be  liable  for  mere transmission  of  infringing information  through  its  server. The  DMCA conjointly  exempts  ISPs  from  direct  liability for reception or temporary storage of fabric in their networks if bound measures are taken by ISPs. The DMCA in Section 512(i)(1) states that the limitation of liability of the ISP beneath this Section is provided only if such ISP:

 

‘(A) has adopted and fairly enforced, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy  that  provides  the  termination  in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or  network WHO are  repeat  infringers;  and

 

(B) accommodates and doesn't interfere with standard  technical  measures.’

 

Thus,  firstly,  ISPs  have  to  follow  a  policy wherever  it terminates  access  to  subscribers who are repeat offenders;[49] second,  they  have  to place in place technical measures to forestall  infringements.[50] There are further needs in the individual sections of  the  activities  protected.3 The DMCA  has a system  of  ‘notice  and  take  down’ under that once associate ISP receives  a  notification  from a  right-holder informing it that a breach of  copyright had  been  committed  through  its  system,  the  ISP  is obliged  to  take  account  of  that data  and  to act to prohibit all  access  to  the offensive data through  its  system.  The  ISP  is place beneath  pressure  of either proscribing  access to user at  the risk of being sued for breachof contract  in case  of  false  notification or  for  being  sued  by  the  alleged  copyright  owner for not  taking  action once advised  of  a copyright violation  by  the  user  of  ISP. however  if  ISP follows  the statutory  procedure  in  such  a scenario,  he  is  protected by  the  law. therefore  in  such  a scenario,  the ISP will  repost the  material  taken  down  if  the user  files  a  counter notice  stating that  his  posting  of  material will  not infringe anyone’s copyright. However this will be  done solely if  the  copyright  owner has not filed associate  infringement action  seeking  a preparation order against  the  user.[51]

  

Analysis of DMCA

 

Initially, USA  was to adopt a procedure wherever  ISPs were to be liable for the content  that  was  transmitted and  as  transmission  was  regarded  to  be  equivalent  to reproduction. However  later  on  in  1996  they  adopted  a policy that  provided  that  ISPs are  not  liable  for content  that  they unwittingly  transmit.  However, ISPs would  be control accountable  for  taking  down content  that  copyright  holders will  show  to  violate their  copyright  rights. This  puts  the  burden  of monitoring  the  content on the house owners  of  intellectual property and not  on  the  ISPs.  It is associate attention-grabbing solution  that will  be  adopted  by national  governments in  dealing with copyright  infringement problems on the Internet.

 

What  is  to  be  noted  is  that USA  Congress  has  not granted general immunity  to  the  ISPs  through DMCA, but  it  has restricted  the  liability  of  the ISPs based mostly on their data and  involvement  of  the  infringing activity.[52] The  ISPs square measure  willing  to  adhere  to DMCA provisions,  and request  refuge  in  the  safe harbors therefore that  they square measure warranted  of  non-liability.[53]  This system of  limiting  the  responsibility  of  ISPs  has  enabled  USA to produce associate evenhanded  balance  among  the  interests of all  parties involved.[54]  Thus, ISPs  do  not  escape liability  at  all prices  and  copyright  holders conjointly  cannot harass ISPs where the sole  responsibility for infringing  action  is  on  a  subscriber.

 

Post  DMCA

 

Costar v Loopnet [55]

 

Costar,  a copyright owner of numerous photographs of business real estate brought a suit of  copyright  infringement  against  Loopnet Iraqi National Congress, an ISP,  for direct  infringement because Costar’s copyrighted pictures were denote  by  Loopnet’s subscribers  on  Loopnet’s web site.  If  a  subscriber includes  a  photograph  for  a  real  estate  listing,  he must fill out  a type  and  agree  to  the  ‘terms  and  conditions’, along  with associate degree further specific warrantee that thesubscriber has ‘all necessary rights and authorizations’ from the copyright owner of the photographs. The subscriber then uploads the photographs  into  a  folder  in Loopnet’s  system, and the photograph  is  transferred  to  RAM  of  one of the Loopnet’s  computers  for  review.  Then  a  Loopnet employee quickly reviews the photograph first off  to determine whether or not  the photograph  in truth  depicts commercial  real estate,  and second  to establish  any obvious proof, such  as, a text message or copyright  notice,  that  the  photograph might  have  been copyrighted  by  another. If the  photograph  fails  either one  of  these  criteria,  the worker  deletes  the photograph  and  notifies  the  subscriber.  Otherwise,  the employee  clicks associate degree  ‘accept’  button  that  prompts Loopnet’s  system  to  associate  the  photograph  with  the web  page  for  the  property  listing, creating  the photograph out there  for  viewing.

 

The  Court adjudged  that  direct  liability  attaches solely when there is some  conduct  that causes the infringement.  The  Court  took  note  of  the truth  that  the infringing  activity  is  initiated  by  the  subscriber  and therefore  he  is  the  direct  infringer.  The  majority control that associate  ISP ought to  not  be  liable  as  a  direct  infringer when  its  facility  is  used  to  infringe  a  copyright however when  it  engaged  in  no  intervening  conduct.[56]  With regard  to Loopnet’s  gate  keeping apply,  the  Court observed  that  ‘the  employee’s  look  is therefore casual  as  to be  insignificant’.  The  Costar call additionally created  it clear  that  DMCA will  not  limit  ISPs  to  the  safe harbour  provisions statute  in  the  statute.  Rather, ISPs might believe  on  either  DMCA  safe  harbor provisions, unwritten  defences  or each.[57]

 

Intermediary liability in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda.

 

Issues relating to intermediary liability vary among the countries in the study but there are many common issues among the countries including the limitations on liability, the role of intermediaries with regards to terrorism and violence, hate speech, cybercrime, copyright infringement, digital piracy, and obligations to assist with lawful interception of communications.

 

Other than in South Africa policy debates around intermediary liability are relatively new. Limitations on liability were legislated in South Africa in the Electronic Communications and Transaction Act (25 of 2002)[58], almost five years before they were first contemplated in Kenya[59] and almost ten years before they were legislated in Uganda[60]. This is perhaps due to the relatively higher internet penetration in South Africa in the 1990s and 2000s – it had one of the highest rates of internet penetration in Africa and ranked higher than other countries with similar levels of economic development[61]. The absence of mention of intermediary liability in legislation in Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda is perhaps explained by the lower levels of internet access in these countries in the 1990s and 2000s. Now other African countries have overtaken South Africa, which is reported by some studies to have lower levels of internet penetration than Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda. As all countries have in recent years experienced increased internet access, increased bandwidth and increased access through mobile phones, intermediary liability has emerged in legislative and policy debates.

 

Nonetheless issues concerning intermediary liability are neither new nor have they arisen out of a vacuum they have been discussed earlier in issue-based contexts using different terminology. In Nigeria the role of cybercafes with regards to cybercrime was discussed in the mid-2000s. As mobile internet access has increased and relative rates of access from cybercafes have decreased the discussion has now moved center around mobile phone operators. In Kenya, after the election violence following the 2007 elections, an ongoing debate about the role of communications intermediaries with regards to hate speech along with their role in peacebuilding began. The debate initially focused on the role of mobile operators and particularly focused on SMS/text messages. The debate continues as Kenya streamlines the writ and interpretation of its legal system to accord with its new constitution. Debate around the role of intermediaries in hate speech and in political messaging has regained momentum as the Kenyan General election approaches on the 4th of March 2013.

 

The Indian  Perspective (Position)

 

India is bit by bit developing its data technology market and  the variety  of web subscribers  is  increasing  everyday. On with this development, there is would like to have higher and a lot of comprehensive laws to tackle the problems that might arise in close to future.  The Copyright Act, 1957 will not deal with the liability of the ISPs at all.  However, the liability of ISPs finds mention in Section seventy-nine of the Information Technology Act, 2000  (IT Act) as follows:

 

‘Network  service  providers  not  to  be  liable  in certain  cases- For  the  removal  of  doubts,  it  is  hereby  declared that  no  person  providing  any  service  as  a network  service  provider  shall  be  liable  under this  Act,  rules  or  regulations  made  thereunder for  any  third  party  information  or  data  made available  by  him  if  he  proves  that  the  offence  or contravention     was     committed     without his knowledge  or  that  he  ad  exercised  all  due diligence  to  prevent  the  commission  of  such offence  or  contravention.

  

Explanation.-For the purposes of this Section, - (a) ‘network service provider’ means an intermediary;

 

(b)  ‘Third party information’ means   any information dealt with by a network service provider in his capacity as an intermediary’[62]

  

Section seventy nine  of  the  IT  Act  exempts  ISPs  from liability  for  third  party info  or knowledge created available  by  him  if  the  ISP  had  no data  of  the offence  committed  or  if  the  ISP  had  exercised  ‘all  due diligence’  to stop  any  infringement.  This  in flip means  that  unless  the  case  in  hand  falls below  these two exemptions ISPs  are liable   for  copyright infringements  as  well  as  any different  violations  that  take place  in  their  websites,  even  if  the  act  is  done  by  the subscribers.  Section seventy nine  is very  loosely  worded and  there  is  a risk  that  these  exceptions mentioned  in  the  IT  Act will  be  used additional  as  a  tool  of harassment  of firms  by  the  authorities.[63]  The Section  exempts  ISPs  from  liability  if  the ISP has exercised  ‘all  due  diligence’.  What  is  all  due diligence?  It ought to  have  been  worded  clearer  since the  manner  in completely different  ISPs perceive  ‘all  due diligence’ can  be completely different  and  one will perpetually  say that disregarding  of  the  measures  taken  by  ISPs  that  it is  not  ‘all  due  diligence’.  The clarification  to Section seventy nine conjointly  has  the risk  to  be loosely interpreted and thereby making almost any intermediary  a  ‘network  service  provider’.  A  better definition ought to  have  been  given  to  the  term ‘network  service  provider’.  One will presumably  argue that  this  broad  definition permits several completely different sorts of  service suppliers  to  be enclosed, however  at  the  same time  there  is conjointly  the risk  of  it  being understood in  a  manner  broader  than  what  was  contemplated  by the  framers. According  to  some  legal specialists  on  Indian  law, caching amounts to    reproduction and     such unauthorized copy  would  be equal  to infringement.  Since    caching  is done   by  ISPs themselves,  ISPs could notice  it troublesome  to  plead ignorance.  ISPs  would sure  be  liable  if  the  owner  of the  copyright  informs  ISP regarding  such  infringement and  no  action  is  taken  by  the  ISP.  As  in  any different jurisdiction  the truthfulness  of  the  copyright  owner’s claim  is Associate in Nursing  issue  in Republic of India  as  well. whereas  Section seventy nine  of the  IT  Act,  2000  liberates  ISPs  of  its  liability  if  it will prove  its cognitive content  and  due  diligence,  it will  not  specify  who would be held  liable  for such contravention  in  such Associate in Nursing  event.  Therefore,  this provision can  cause issues once Associate in Nursing  offence regarding  third  party info  or  provision  of knowledge is  committed.[64] therefore  it will  be ascertained  that  the existing  legal  provisions  do  not  clearly visit  the extent  of  the  ISP’s  liability  in  cases  of  copyright infringement  by  the  subscribers.[65]

The liability of ISPs can arise in a number of cases by application of different statutes. This can be criminal or civil in nature depending on various factors. However, it is impractical to find out the liability if ISPs which could arise in various forms at one place. Equally impractical could be to amend all our laws which could hold ISPs liable, in order to limit their liability.[66] The later has not been attempted in any Indian Legislation including Copyright Act, 1957 till date. Therefore, by Information Technology Act, 2000 the attempt is to supply a mechanism which works as a filter for all such ISPs for the purpose of determining their liability. To clarify, we take an illustration, if an ISP is accused of illegally distributing pirated copies of music or videos then his liability be first determined under Section 51(a)(ii) and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. If he is found liable then his liability would be tested on the touchstone of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Under the Information Technology Act, 2000 itself ISPs can qualify exemptions under two grounds i.e. Lack of Knowledge and Exercise of Due Diligence.[67] These exemptions work as Safe Harbor for these intermediaries. Nonetheless, the extents of the safe harbors allowed under the Act are limited. [68]

 

There can be potentially three types of liability on an intermediary which can be imposed, it include, (1) direct; (2) vicarious; and (3) contributory liability which might be civil or criminal in nature.[69]  Existing liability schemes generally join traditional fault-based liability and strict liability rules with broad Internet-specific liability exemptions.

The amendment S. 72(2) protects the identity of subscribers to the services of an intermediary. Under this the intermediary should (i) gain access to any material or other information relating to a subscriber who avails his services; (ii) discloses such information or material to any other person; (iii) without the consent of such subscriber; and (iv) with intent to cause injury to him.[70] In case of breach of confidentiality and privacy the liability by way of compensation under the draft is not exceeding Rs 25 lakhs.

 

Religious Technology Centre v. Netcom Online Communications Services Inc[71]

 

 The court observed that lack of knowledge or intent was often emphasized by the ISPs. The Court has found out in many judgments that a lack of intention to infringe is not a defense in copyright actions. In this case the judge expressly rejected the allegations that the ISP has infringed directly and refused to follow Playboy Enterprises v. Frena, on the ground that Netcom could only be guilty of direct infringement if it has caused the infringing copies to be made:

 

“...the mere fact that Netcom's system incidentally makes temporary copies of plaintiff works does not mean Netcom has caused the copying.”

 

The Singapore Electronic Transactions Act, 1998 under Section 10 gives various liabilities of network service providers. Under Section 10(3) of the Act it does not grant immunity for hosting

 

third party resources, because such hosting would be automatic and temporary storage of those resources. It recognizes some kind of immunity from liability for the content the ISP carries if national ambitions for e-commerce are to be achieved. In similar fashion German Multimedia Law 1998 Article 5[72] gives responsibilities which need to consider by the Service Providers on Cyberspace. There is certainly extensive requirement of such legislations in India which can govern the jurisdictional aspects and extensive immunities for ISP's and other internet intermediaries extending to copyright infringement and criminal law as well as to civil actions for torts such as defamation.

 

Google Inc v. Louis Vuitton Malletier[73]

 

It was observed that the Commission's first report on the application of Directive 2000/31 shows by stating:-

 

'...the Commission will, in accordance with Article 21 [of Directive 2000/31], continue to monitor and rigorously analyse any new developments, including national legislation, case-law and administrative practices related to intermediary liability and will examine any future need to adapt the present framework in the light of these developments, for instance the need of additional limitations on liability for other activities such as the provision of hyperlinks and search engines'.

 

Hence from the above explanation we observe that considerable variations in laws relating to: (a) intermediary liability; (b) safe harbour regimes; (c) notification regimes must be seen in future since its the need of the hour. There are too many uncertainties in application of intermediary liability law in all jurisdictions which must be resolved through amendments. We must have a detailed compliance regime for intermediary liability and jurisdictional disputes. For all above said suggestions we require to maintain litheness to counter to changes in technology & not be controlled by exhaustive and detailed Treaty responsibility.[74]

Need  for higher  legislation  on  ISP  liability India  has  a  long approach  to  go  in delivery of  a comprehensive  legislation  on  the  liability  of  ISPs  in cases  of  copyright  infringement  in  digital  context.  It  is of  utmost  importance  for  a  country  such  as Republic of India  with an  increasing range  of net  users Associate in Nursing  thereby increasing  the  threat  to  infringing  the  rights  of copyright  holders.  At  the  same  time, Republic of India  is apace becoming  digitalized  and  if  new  laws are  not  brought in  to defend  ISPs  from  copyright  infringement  by subscribers  and  the connected  aspects,  it  would  adversely affect  the  ISP business  as  a  whole although  cases regarding  the  same are nevertheless  to come back  before  any  court of  law  in Republic of India.  Moreover,  it  is conjointly necessary  for India  to  update  their  laws concerning  this facet  to remain  in  competition  with different  Asian  countries  such as  Singapore that  have come back up  with comprehensive  laws  limiting  the  liability  of  ISPs. Some  argue  that  taking  note  of  the  borderless nature  of  the net,  all  nations ought to  develop  a  set of  rules  for  ISPs that are  universally  applicable. Given  the variations  in  the  systems,  different countries can come back  up  with completely different  approaches regarding  the  liability  of  ISPs  and  consequently  ISPs operating  in  multiple  countries can  face completely different liabilities  in completely different  countries.  Another facet is  that there can  be  clash  of varied  domestic  laws  on  ISPs where Associate in Nursing  ISP  is operational  a internet  hosting web site  in  one country  and wherever  it  has  allegedly  committed copyright  violations  in  another  country wherever  the web site has  been  accessed.[75]  Thus, a  universal  set  of  rules  to  be made  applicable  in  the  context  of  the net  is  being suggested.

 

Some Recommendations in pertinence to the Intermediary Liabilities.

 

Double mind perspective when screening content.

 

The unnerving effect can primarily be ascribed to the requirement for private intermediaries to achieve subjective judicial determination in the course of ordering the takedown. From the retorts to the takedown notices, it is outward that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal fitness or resources to unhurried on the legality of an countenance, as a effect of which, such intermediaries have a predisposition to err on the side of caution and chill lawful expressions in order to edge their liability. Even if such intermediary has ample legal competence, it has a tendency to prioritize the allocation of its legal resources according to the professed importance of assailed expressions. Further, if such subjective fortitude is required to be done in a controlled timeframe and in the want of adequate facts and contexts, the intermediaries have no choice but to mechanically (without application of mind or proper judgment) comply with the takedown notification.

 

Outlook to the aforementioned issue:-

 

It is hereby suggested that the need for private intermediaries to subjectively verify the lawfulness of associate expression gets replaced with associate objective test. Such associate objective check is introduced by dynamic  the data requirement. for instance, for the ‘hosting’ category of intermediaries, the target check ought to be to work out “whether or not the third party supplier of data is willing to defend his expression in court”. By legal fiction, Actual data is attributed to the intermediator given that the third party supplier of data refuses to defend his expression or fails to reply with a counter notice among the notice point.

 

Problem in understanding and or interpreting the criterion laid down in the concerned statute.

 

The content policy (criteria for administering the takedown) uses terms that are not outlined to explain prohibited expressions. The responses of the takedown notices demonstrate that multiple interpretations of identical term can create uncertainty and thus a chilling impact - as it induces the negotiator to adopt the broadest attainable interpretation of the term and to err on the aspect of caution.

 

Outlook to the aforementioned issue:-

 

It is suggested that every single terminology used in the content policy (criteria for administering the takedown) be clearly outlined or be replaced with a statement that prohibits all expressions and would be unlike “violate any law for the nowadays in force” so that only specific legislatively barred expressions, within the scope of ‘cheap/adult’ restrictions as pictured within the Constitution of India, will be taken down and used.

  

Conclusion

 

There seems to be a world movement towards adopting a “notice and take-down” policy (the EU regime, the Digital Millennium Act, etc.). Such a regime passes the prices of judgment on to personal parties (who successively square measure possible to pass them on to users) and will additionally inhibit free speech. The shortage of judicial oversight will be a problematic issue, particularly within the case of tiny businesses or short-run censorship.

 

The Indian law at first took a step forward with the passing of the IT modification Act in 2009 however with the introduction of the go-between tips, the safe harbor provided by Section seventy nine of the Act has been worn therefore on be much non- existent. The Asian country position at the instant looks unreasonable particularly the maximum amount of the content accessed in India is formed abroad, which implies Indian intermediaries can bear the forcefulness of any liability claims.

 

The issue of a way to wear down intermediary liability is thus one that there's no straitjacket answer. However, I think that any palm system should be designed on the subsequent principles that square measure additional compatible with the improvement of the inter-internet as a medium of communication:

 

Self-regulation by intermediaries appears to guide to suboptimal social control of the law and promotes whimsicality and reduces transparency by promoting private action during a public sphere.

 

The law must differentiate between intermediaries on the premise of practicality and will offer immunity wherever the go-between wasn't during a position to regulate or assess the offence (practically or in law).

  

The law should differentiate between varied crimes on the premise of harshness and maltreatment and wear down every class appropriately (and probably through changes in alternative relevant statutes like the Copyright Act, Indian legal code, etc). For in- stance, within the case of threats to national security, commission of knowable offences, etc, a notice and takedown regime ought to be acceptable. This might change such claims to be proscribed efficiently and stop harm. Even within the event executive action is found necessary in extreme cases (say involving terror threats), there should be judicial consciousness of the action inside such a time, failing that the makes an attempt to censor should stop. Just in case of copyright, defamation and obscenity- connected claims, there's no reason for a different commonplace to be applied compared to ancient ways of dissemination of data. It might thus be appropriate if any complaints received square measure place through a judicial method before censor- ship. In any event, damages in such scenario square measure possible to be financial and per se any tiny delay occasioned by having to require the touch on court wouldn't unduly hurt the parties concerned (especially as courts square measure sceptered to grant injunctive relief). Such a system would additionally cut back false claims, and guarantee intermediaries square measure safe from having to create powerful decisions regarding matters they can't be expected to possess experience in.

 

Provision of data concerning in- stances of censorship could be a must and therefore judicial and government authorities square measure best suited to adjudicate on instances wherever censorship is needed. Inserting the concern of policing the web on nonpublic intermediaries is clearly impractical and in- economical within the end of the day.

 

Simply obstructing content is associate impractical and unreal methodology to bind net crimes.

 

[1] Bailey, J. P., & Bakos, J. Y. (1997). An Exploratory Study of the Emerging Role of Electronic Intermediariations and Policy, 19(5), 406-417.

[2] Kingma, B. R. (2001). The economics of information: A guide to economic and cost-benefit analysis for information professionals (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

[3] Wolpert, S. A., & Wolpert, J. F. (1986). Economics of information. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

[4] Beniger, J. R. (1986). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

[5] Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

[6] Larson, E. (1992). The naked consumer: How our private lives become public commodities (1st ed.). New York: H. Holt.

[7] Larson, E. (1992). The naked consumer: How our private lives become public commodities (1st ed.). New York: H. Holt.

[8] Cavoukian, A., & Tapscott, D. (1997). Who knows: Safeguarding your privacy in a networked world. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[9] Rose, F. (1999). The economics, concept, and design of information intermediaries: A theoretic approach. New York: Physica-Verlag.

 

[11] Rose, F. (1999). The economics, concept, and design of information intermediaries: A theoretic approach. New York: Physica-Verlag.

[12] Hirshleifer, J. (1973). Where are we in the theory of information? The American Economic Review, Vol. 63 (No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association), 31-39.

[13] Kingma, B. R. (2001). The economics of information: A guide to economic and cost-benefit analysis for information professionals (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

[14] ibid

[15] Rose, F. (1999). The economics, concept, and design of information intermediaries: A theoretic approach. New York: Physica-Verlag.

[16] Sampler, J. L. (1998). Redefining industry structure for the information age. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 (No. 4, Special Issue: Editor's Choice), 343-355.

 

[17] ibid

[18] Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

[19] ibid

[20] Evans, P., & Wurster, T. S. (2000). Blown to bits: How the new economics of information transforms strategy. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

[21] Kingma, B. R. (2001). The economics of information: A guide to economic and cost-benefit analysis for information professionals (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

[22] ibid

[23] Rose, F. (1999). The economics, concept, and design of information intermediaries: A theoretic approach. New York: Physica-Verlag.

[24]  Rose, F. (1999). The economics, concept, and design of information intermediaries: A theoretic approach. New York: Physica-Verlag.

[25] Boisot, M. (1998). Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in the information economy. New York: Oxford University Press.

[26] ibid

[27] ^ Pay Without Performance by Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried, Harvard University Press 2004

[28] nvestopedia explains ‘Agency Costs’

[29] Cheung, Steven N. S. (1987). Economic organization and transaction costs. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics v.2 p 55-58

[30] Commons, J.R (1931). “Institutional Economics”. American Economic Review 21: 648–657. Retrieved February 8, 2013.

[31] 17 USC Section 512(k)(1)(A), http://www4.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512-- --000-.html (17 May 2007).

 

[32] 17 USC Section 512(k)(1)(B), http://www4.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html (17 May 2007).

 

[33] Joseph B G & Wasylik D P, Copyright issues on the Internet and the DMCA, Practicing Law Institute-Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series, 2003, 451.

 

[34] Section 512(d) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

 

[35] Cooper R, Media law, music copyright, ISP’s liability for file sharing, http://ezinearticles.com/?Media-Law---Music- Copyright---ISP%E2%80%99s-Liability-for-File-Sharing&id =360608 (9 May 2007).

 

[36] Wei W, The liability of Internet Service Providers for copyright infringement and defamation actions in the United Kingdom and China: A comparative study, European Intellectual Property Review, 28 (10) (2006) 528.

 

[37] Osborne D, Copyright and trademark infringement on the net – Looking to the Internet Service Provider first, http://www.iprights.com/cms/templates/articles.aspx?articlei d=146&zoneid=2 (9 May 2007).

 

[38] Cooper R, Media law, music copyright, ISP’s liability for file sharing, http://ezinearticles.com/?Media-Law---Music- Copyright---ISP%E2%80%99s-Liability-for-File-Sharing&id =360608 (9 May 2007).

[39] Osborne D, Copyright and trademark infringement on the net – Looking to the Internet Service Provider first, http://www.iprights.com/cms/templates/articles.aspx?articlei d=146&zoneid=2 (9 May 2007).

  

[40] Unni V K, Internet Service Provider’s liability for copyright infringement- How to clear the misty Indian perspective, Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 8 (2001) 13. ISP liability, http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/isp.html (9 May 2007).

  

[41] Osborne D, Copyright and trademark infringement on the net – Looking to the Internet Service Provider first, http://www.iprights.com/cms/templates/articles.aspx?articlei d=146&zoneid=2 (9 May 2007).

 

[42] Costar v Loopnet, 373 F 3D 544 (4th CIR 2004).

 

[43] CDA Section 230, Immunity covers state intellectual property-related, right of publicity claims, http://brownraysman.typepad.com/technology_law_update/2 007/04/cda_section_230.html#more (24 May 2007).

 

[44]Chicago  Lawyers’  Committee  for  Civil  Rights  Under  The Law  Inc  v  Craigslist  Inc,  Case  No.  06  C  0657  (NDIll,  14 November 2006)        in Online   Defamation/Libel/ Communications  Decency  Act-Internet  library  of  law  and court decisions, http://www.internetlibrary.com/topics/online_defamation.cfm  (24  May  2007).

 

[45] Playboy Enterprises Inc v Frena, 839 F Supp 1552 (M D Fla 1993).

 

[46] Religious Technology Center v Netcom, 907 F Supp 1361 (N D Cal 1995), http://www.tomwbell.com/NetLaw/Ch07/ Religious-C.html (17 May 2007).

 

 [47] Sega Enterprises Ltd v Maphia, 948 F Supp 923, 932 (N D Cal 1996), http://www.tomwbell.com/NetLaw/Ch07/ Sega.html (17 May 2007).

 

[48] Final Report of the Inter-Governmental Copyright Committee, http://www.unesco.org/culture/copyright/images/ IGC1971XII9e.pdf (9 May 2007).

  

[49] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512--000-.html (27 August 2007). USC  512(i)(1)(A),

  

[50] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512--000-.html (27 August 2007). http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/ issues/v9n4/mercurio94. html (9 May 2007). Francisco Castro, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Provisions on circumventing protection systems and limiting liability of service providers, Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 3 (2004) 3. USC 512(i)(1)(B),

 

[51] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512--000-.html (27 August 2007). USC  512(g),

  

[52] http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/ isp_in_us.htm  (9  May  2007).

 

[53] http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n4/mercurio94.html (9 May 2007).

 

[54] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512--000-.html (27 August 2007).

 

[55] Costar  v  Loopnet,  373  F  3D  544  (4th  CIR  2004).

 

[56] http://jip.kentlaw.edu/ art/volume%206/6%20Chi-Kent%20J%20Intell%20Prop%201.doc  (9  May  2007).

 

[57] ibid

[58] http://www.internet.org.za/ect_act.html

 

[59] Safe harbour like provisions for liabilities were proposed in the Now Defunct Electronic Transactions Bill of 2007.

 

[60] In the Electronic Transactions Act of 20011, op cit.

 

[61] “South Africa” in Freedom House, Freedom on the Net 2011, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- 
net/2012/south-africa)

 

[62] Section 79, IT Act (2000)

[63] http://cyberlaws.net/cyberindia/liablity.htm  (15  May  2007).

 

[64] http://www.sudhirlaw.com/cyberlaw-itact.htm  (10  May  2007).

 

[65] http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/isp_in_us.htm  (9  May  2007).

 

[66] S.K. Verma & Raman Mittal, “Legal Dimensions of Cyberspace”, (2004, Indian Law Institute, Delhi)

  

[67] K. Mani's, “A Practical Approach to Cyber Laws” ̧ (2009 Edn., Kamal Publishers, Delhi)

 

[68] Diane Cabell, “Unlocking Economic Opportunity in the South Through Local Content Appendix A: Potential Liability Concerns for an Open Content Exchange Network”, Berkman Center for Internet & Society (January 2002), available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/open economies/oknliability.html#n86, Last visited on 1st March, 2010.

 

[69] Apar Gupta, “Liability of Intermediaries in India — From troubled waters to safe harbors”, (2007) PL May 3, www.ebc-india.com/practicallawyer, Last visited on 1st March, 2010.

 

[70] Proposed Amendments to the IT Act, 2000, Expert Committee on Review of the IT Act, 2000, “Report of the Expert Committee: Full Text” (Proposed 29-8-2005), available at http://www.mit.gov.in/itact2000/ITAct.doc (hereinafter proposed Amendments to the IT Act, 2000), Section 72(2).

 

[71] 907 F Supp 1361 (ND Cal, 1995)

 

[72] Trans. Christopher Kuner, www.kuner.com, Last visited on 1st March, 2010.

 

[73] Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, delivered on 22nd September 2009, Joined Cases C-236/08, C- 237/08 and C-238/08, www.manupatra.com, Last visited on 1st March, 2010.

 

[74] SSRN-id1800837; Sonia Verma, B.Sc., LL.B (Corporate Hons.), IV Year, National Law University, Jodhpur. Upvan Madhur Prakash, B.A., LL.B (Corporate Hons.), IV Year, National Law University, Jodhpur.

 

[75]http://www.isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/B1/B1_2.HTM  (9  May  2007).


"Loved reading this piece by Rishabh Raj?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"






Tags :


Category Intellectual Property Rights, Other Articles by - Rishabh Raj 



Comments


update