Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsibility and Liability of Internet Intermediaries: Status Quo in the EU and Potential Reforms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Internet Law

Abstract

The article provides a short overview of the recent developments and open issues in European intermediary liability with reference to the E-Commerce-Directive privileges. Moreover, hyperlinks and search engine issues are addressed, as well as the fundamental problem of blocking injunctions against access providers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, Local Court of Munich, Case DS 465 Js 173158-95, 28 May 1998—CompuServe, published in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1998), pp. 2836–2840; District Court of Munich, Case 7 O 3625/98, 30 March 2000—AOL MIDI Files, published in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2000), pp. 2214–2217; see further, Spindler (1996), pp. 533–563; Sieber (1996), pp. 429–442.

  2. 2.

    For notice and take down actions under the DMCA, see Clark (2002), pp. 206–210. In general, for DMCA regulations see Ginsburg (1999), pp. 137–179; Saltarelli (2002), pp. 1647–1689.

  3. 3.

    This is now substituted by the Telemediengesetz.

  4. 4.

    An overview of the main liability problems regarding TDG is described by Spindler (1997), pp. 3193–3199.

  5. 5.

    Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, OJ L 178, 17 July 2000, pp. 1–16. See further, Peguera (2009), pp. 481–512, who compares DMCA Safe Harbours and the European Counterparts.

  6. 6.

    Lucchi (2011), gives an overview of the French HADOPI Law; for an analysis of the three strikes policy see further, Haber (2010), pp. 297–339.

  7. 7.

    See recitals 42, 43, 44 of Directive 2000/31/EC.

  8. 8.

    District Court of Brussels, Case No. 04/8975/A, 29 June 2007—SABAM v. S.A. Tiscali (Scarlet), a translated version is published in CAELJ Translation Series #001 (Mady, Bourrouilhou, & Hughes, trans), 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. J. 2008.

  9. 9.

    La cour d’appel de Bruxelles, Case No. 2007/AR/242, 28 January 2010 – Scarlet Extended v. SABAM.

  10. 10.

    Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22 May 2001, pp. 10–19.

  11. 11.

    Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights OJ L 157, 29 April 2004, pp. 16–25.

  12. 12.

    Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data OJ L 281, 23 November 1995, pp. 31–50.

  13. 13.

    Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector OJ L 201, 12 July 2002, pp. 37–47.

  14. 14.

    ECJ, Case C-70/10, 24 November 2011 – Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM.

  15. 15.

    ECJ, Case C-70/10, 24 November 2011 – Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM, rc. 38–40.

  16. 16.

    ECJ, Case C-275/06, 29 January 2008 – Promusicae v. Telefónica de España SAU.

  17. 17.

    ECJ, Case C-70/10, 24 November 2011 – Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM, rc. 45.

  18. 18.

    ECJ, Case C-70/10, 24 November 2011 – Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM, rc. 55.

  19. 19.

    Austrian Supreme Court, Case 4 Ob 6/12d, 11 May 2012, published in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International (2012), pp. 934–939; see further Heidinger (2011), p. 37.

  20. 20.

    ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 – UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 30; ECJ, Case C-557/07, 19 February 2009 – LSG v. Tele2 rc. 43 - 45; this judgement is commented by Nordemann and Schaefer (2009), pp. 583–584.

  21. 21.

    ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 – UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 32.

  22. 22.

    ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 – UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 38.

  23. 23.

    ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 – UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 47.

  24. 24.

    ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 – UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 52.

  25. 25.

    ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 – UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 53.

  26. 26.

    ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 – UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 60.

  27. 27.

    ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 – UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 62.

  28. 28.

    ECJ, Case C-70/10, 24 November 2011 – Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM, rc. 48, 50 ff.

  29. 29.

    ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 – UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 57.

  30. 30.

    Cf. 3.3.

  31. 31.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 76.

  32. 32.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 79.

  33. 33.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 83.

  34. 34.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 85.

  35. 35.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 90.

  36. 36.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 124.

  37. 37.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 131.

  38. 38.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 132.

  39. 39.

    ECJ, Case C-70/10, 24 November 2011 – Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM, rc. 35, see further Spindler (2012), pp. 311–313.

  40. 40.

    Fundamental German Federal Court of Justice, Case I ZR 121/08, 12 May 2010 - Sommer unseres Lebens, published in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2010), pp. 2061–2065.

  41. 41.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 138 f.

  42. 42.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 139.

  43. 43.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 149.

  44. 44.

    Ohly (2015), pp. 308–318, especially pp. 316 f.; apparently assessed different by Mantz and Sassenberg (2015), pp. 298–306, especially pp. 304 f.; likewise before Mantz and Sassenberg (2014), pp. 3537–3543, especially pp. 3541 f.

  45. 45.

    ECJ, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 67 et seq.

  46. 46.

    ECJ, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 64 et seq.

  47. 47.

    ECJ, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 78.

  48. 48.

    Spindler (1998), pp. 178–179; Spindler and Volkmann (2003), p. 14.

  49. 49.

    ECJ, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 81, 82.

  50. 50.

    ECJ, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 87.

  51. 51.

    ECJ, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 88.

  52. 52.

    ECJ, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 91.

  53. 53.

    ECJ, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 92.

  54. 54.

    ECJ, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 96, pursuing the approach of ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 – UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 62.

  55. 55.

    ECJ, Case C-484/14, 16 March 2016 – McFadden v. Sony Music Entertainment, rc. 98.

  56. 56.

    Regarding the functionality see Pfitzmann et al. (2008), pp. 42 f.; see further Sieber and Nolde (2008), pp. 182 f.; Frey and Rudolph (2008), pp. 78 ff.; summarising Leistner and Grisse (2015a), pp. 19–27, especially pp. 22 f.

  57. 57.

    German Federal Court of Justice, Case I ZR 174/14, 26 November 2015 – Goldesel, published in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2016), pp. 268–278, rc. 48 pursuing the approach of ECJ, Case C-314/12, 27 March 2014 - UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, rc. 62 f.; furthermore, Leistner and Grisse (2015b), pp. 105–115, especially pp. 110 f.; concerning public law blocking orders already Spindler and Volkmann (2002), pp. 398, especially p. 406.

  58. 58.

    German Federal Court of Justice, Case I ZR 174/14, 26 November 2015 – Goldesel, published in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2016), pp. 268–278, rc. 47.

  59. 59.

    German Federal Court of Justice, Case I ZR 174/14, 26 November 2015 – Goldesel, published in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2016), pp. 268–278, rc. 55 in reference to J.B. Nordemann, in: Fromm and Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 11. Aufl. (2014), § 97 Rdnr. 170 “Spill-Over”-Effekt; Leistner and Grisse (2015b), pp. 105–115, especially p. 108.

  60. 60.

    German Federal Court of Justice, Case I ZR 227/05, 10 April 2008, published in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2008), pp. 1097–1099, rc. 20; Spindler (2011), pp. 101–108, especially p. 108; approved by Leistner and Grisse (2015b), pp. 105–115, especially p. 112.

  61. 61.

    German Federal Court of Justice, Case I ZR 174/14, 26 November 2015 – Goldesel, published in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2016), pp. 268–278, rc. 40; German Federal Court of Justice, Case I ZR 227/05, 10 April 2008, published in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2008), pp. 1097–1099, rc. 19.

  62. 62.

    German Federal Court of Justice, Case I ZR 18/04, 12 July 2007, published in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2007), pp. 890–896, rc. 40; German Federal Court of Justice, Case VI ZR 101/06, 27 March 2007, published in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2007), pp. 724–726, rc. 13; commented by Spindler (2007), pp. 511–514, especially pp. 513 f.

  63. 63.

    German Federal Court of Justice, Case I ZR 174/14, 26 November 2015 – Goldesel, rc. 87.

  64. 64.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 9 December 2015, COM (2015) 626 final, p. 13 commented by Spindler (2016), pp. 73–81, especially p. 80.

  65. 65.

    Likewise, Leistner and Grisse (2015b), pp. 105–115, especially pp. 108.

  66. 66.

    This is assessed differently by Leistner and Grisse (2015b), pp. 105–115, especially pp. 113, who are only referring to voluntary cost absorption. In this case, the blocking would always be unreasonable and therefore inadmissible.

  67. 67.

    See for example, Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, 29 September 2009 – Bergamo Public Prosecutor’s Officer v Kolmisappi; Swedish Court of Appeal, 4 May 2010 – Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v Portlane AB; and Frederiksberg Court, 29 October 2008 – IFPI Danmark v DMT2 A/S.

  68. 68.

    UK High Court of Justice, Case Ltd [2010] EWHC 608, 29 March 2010 – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Anor v Newzbin.

  69. 69.

    Contemplated in s20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

  70. 70.

    UK High Court of Justice, Case [2011] EWHC 1981, 28 July 2011 – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc.

  71. 71.

    UK High Court of Justice, Case [2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch), 2 May 2012 – Dramatico Entertainment Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors.

  72. 72.

    UK High Court of Justice, Case [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch), 28 February 2013 – EMI Records Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors.

  73. 73.

    OFCOM. “Site Blocking” to Reduce Online Copyright Infringement: A Review of Sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act. Official Advice, (2010), http://bit.ly/175vMBN.

  74. 74.

    The Digital Economy Act 2010 is available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/pdfs/ukpga_20100024_en.pdf.

  75. 75.

    ECJ, Case C-324/09, 12 July 2011 – L’Oréal SA and Others v eBay International AG and Others.

  76. 76.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Digital Dingle Market Strategy for Europe, 6 May 2015, Com(2015) 192 final, pp. 6 f.

  77. 77.

    Cf. 3rd Report Chapter C.III.3. See further Verbiest and Spindler (2007), pp. 15–17.

  78. 78.

    For a detailed comment on the US-American role-model, see Holznagel (2007), pp. 971–986; Holznagel (2013), § 2 pp. 5 f.

  79. 79.

    See for more details, 3rd Report C.III.3.c), in particular Country Report Netherlands.

  80. 80.

    For more details, see 3rd Report C.III.3.c.) bb and in particular the Country Report Spain.

  81. 81.

    Cf. 3rd Report Chapter H.I. and more details in Country Report Finland.

  82. 82.

    German Federal High Court, Case VI ZR 93/10, 25. October 2011 – Blog-Eintrag, rc. 24, published in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2012), pp. 311–314.

  83. 83.

    For details cf. 3rd Report Chapter C.III.3.bb), in particular Country Report France.

  84. 84.

    For example, the good Samaritan privilege in 17 U.S. Code § 512c (2), which was introduced by the DMCA in 1998 and which limits the liability of a service provider if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement.

  85. 85.

    European Commission, Enforcement of intellectual property rights, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/intellectual-property/enforcement/index_en.htm; see further Spindler (2016), pp. 73–81.

  86. 86.

    Such a procedure was favoured by SPD (German party for social democracy) Bundestagsfraktion Arbeitskreis Urheberrecht (Working Group Copyright). In the opinion of the working group, a Host Provider should have the option to legally classify its status as an approved or non-approved business model. If the Provider is classified as a non-approved business model the legal consequence would be the loss of limited liabilities privileges. The working group paper is available at: http://www.spdfraktion.de/system/files/documents/positionspapier_telemediengesetz_spd-bt-fraktion_06012016_final.pdf, 6 January 2016, p. 6.

  87. 87.

    Cf. 3rd Report Chapter G.II.2.a) (search engines), G.II.3.a) (hyperlinks).

  88. 88.

    As the case in Belgium when users could upload hyperlinks directing them to pornographic websites and the hyperlink centre was explicitly dedicated to such use, Cassation, 3 févr. 2004, R.D.T.I., 2004, n° 19 ; En première et seconde instance : Corr. Hasselt, 1er mars 2002, inédit ; Anvers, 7 oct. 2003, A.M., 2004, liv. 2, pp. 166 et s., for more details see the country report on Belgium.

  89. 89.

    CJEU 8.9.2016 – C-160/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:644, - GS Media.

  90. 90.

    Cf. 3rd Report Chapter G.II.3.a).

  91. 91.

    Cf. 3rd Report Chapter G.II.2.a).

  92. 92.

    Such as CEN-Standards though these not yet have been adopted.

References

  • Clark DL (2002) Digital millennium copyright act: can it take down internet infringers? Comput Law Rev Technol J 6:193–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey D, Rudolph M (2008) Rechtsgutachten zur Evalierung des “Haftungsregimes für Host- und Access-Provider im Bereich der Telemedien” im Auftrag des Bundesverband Digitale Wirtschaft (BVDW) e.V

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromm F, Nordemann W (2014) Kommentar zum Urheberrecht, 11. Aufl. 2014, Kohlhammer Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Haber E (2010) The French revolution 2.0: copyright and the three strikes policy. Harv J Sports Entertain 2:297–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidinger R (2011) Die zivilrechtliche Inanspruchnahme von Access-Providern auf Sperreurheberrechtsverletzender Webseiten, Österreichische Blätter für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz (ÖBl), p. 37

    Google Scholar 

  • Holznagel D (2007) Zur Poviderhaftung – Notice and Take Down in § 512 U.S. Copyright Act, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International (GRUR Int.), pp 971–986

    Google Scholar 

  • Holznagel D (2013) Notice and Take-Down-Verfahren als Teil der Providerhaftung. Mohr Siebeck Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes J (2005) On the logic of Suing one’s customers and the Dilemma of infringement-based business models. Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 22:725–766

    Google Scholar 

  • Leistner M, Grisse K (2015a) Sperrverfügungen gegen Access-Provider im Rahmen der Störerhaftung (Teil 1), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR), pp 19–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Leistner M, Grisse K (2015b) Sperrverfügungen gegen Access-Provider im Rahmen der Störerhaftung (Teil 2), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR), pp 105–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucchi N (2011) Regulation and Control of Communication: the French Online Copyright Infringement Law (HADOPI). Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper No.11-07, available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/

  • Mantz R, Sassenberg T (2014) Rechtsfragen beim Betrieb von öffentlichen WLAN-Hotspots, Neue Juristische Wocheneschrift (NJW), pp 3537–3543

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantz R, Sassenberg T (2015) Warum der Referententwurf die Verbreitung von WLANs nicht fördern wird. Computer und Recht (CR), pp 298–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordemann J, Schaefer M (2009) Comment on EuGH Case C-557/07, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutzund Urheberrecht (GRUR), pp 583–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohly A (2015) Die Verantwortlichkeit von Intermediären, Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (ZUM), pp 308–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Peguera M (2009) The DMCA Safe Harbors and their European counterparts: a comparative analysis of some common problems. Colum J Law Arts 32:481–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfitzmann A, Köüsell S, Kriegelstein T (2008) Sperrverfügungen gegen Access-Provider, Technisches Gutachten. Available at: http://www.kjm-online.de/fileadmin/Download_KJM/Service/Gutachten/Gutachten_Sperrverfuegung_Technik_2008.pdf

  • Saltarelli L (2002) The digital millennium copyright act and the functionality fallacy. Notre Dame Law Rev 77:1647–1689

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber U (1996) Strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit für Datenverkehr in internationalenComputernetzen (1), Juristen Zeitung (JZ), pp 429–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber U, Nolde M (2008) Sperrverfügungen im Internet: Nationale Rechtsdurchsetzung im globalen Cyberspace? (Strafrehtliche Forschungsberichte), Schriftenreihe des MPI für ausländisches und internationals Strafrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G (1996) Deliktische Haftung im Internet – nationale und internationale Rechtsprobleme.Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (ZUM), pp 533–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G (1997) Haftungsrechtliche Grundprobleme der neuen Medien, Neue JuristischeWochenschrift (NJW), pp 3193–3199

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G (1998) Störerhaftung im Internet, Kommunikation und Recht (K&R), pp 177–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G (2007) Comment on German Federal Court of Justice Case I ZR 35/04, MultiMedia und Recht (MMR), pp 511–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G (2011) Präzisierung der Störerhaftung im Internet; Besprechung des BGH-Urteils “Konderhochstühle im Internet”, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR), pp 101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G(2012) Comment on ECJ Case C-70/10, Juristen Zeitung (JZ), pp 311–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G (2016) Die Modernisierung des europäischen Urheberrechts, Computer und Recht (CR), pp 73–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G, Volkmann C (2002) Die öffentlich-rechtliche Störerhaftung der Access-Provider, Kommunikation und Recht (K&R), pp 398–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G, Volkmann C (2003) Die zivilrechtliche Störerhaftung der Internet-Provider, Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis (WRP), pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbiest T, Spindler G (2007) Study on the liability of internet intermediaries. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/final_report_en.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Goettingen, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 6, 37073, Göttingen, Germany

    Gerald Spindler

Authors
  1. Gerald Spindler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerald Spindler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou

  2. School of Law, European University Campus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Philippe Jougleux

  3. School of Law, European University Campus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Christiana Markou

  4. School of Law, European University Campus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Thalia Prastitou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Spindler, G. (2017). Responsibility and Liability of Internet Intermediaries: Status Quo in the EU and Potential Reforms. In: Synodinou, TE., Jougleux, P., Markou, C., Prastitou, T. (eds) EU Internet Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64955-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64955-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64954-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64955-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation