Toward the extension of obligations to other intermediaries in the internet

Main Article Content

Autores

Ernesto Rengifo García

Resumen

It is well known that the copy diminishes the individual value of the creation and discourages the effort of the creator. Because of this, the responsibility of internet service providers (ISP) concerning copyright infringement by their users has been a subject of great controversy for more than a decade. This discussion has led to a consensus in the sense that the ISP will not be responsible when their participation in the infringement is limited to transmitting, linking, caching, and disseminating information generated by third parties, as long as other requirements are met, such as adopting and communicating policies intended to prevent infringements. However, the development of new business models and the expansion of services available online have raised the question of whether it is possible to extend the secondary or indirect liability regime to other intermediaries such as internet advertising services and financial transaction providers. In order to analyze the liability regimes that could be applied to these intermediaries,¡ it is important to take into account the following points, which will be developed in this paper: i) to understand the operation of online advertising and payments and the economic magnitude of these businesses, ii) to understand the liability regime presently applied to the isp, iii) to study the objections that have been raised against the extension of such regime to online advertising and financial transaction providers, and finally, iv) to analyze how through recent legislative initiatives such as the proposed PIPA, SOPA, and open bills in the United States, efforts have been undertaken to overcome the objections and to offer effective and expeditious mechanisms to protect copyright in the internet.

Palabras clave:

Article Details

Referencias

“EGEDA y YouTube ayudan a los creadores españoles a optimizar la propiedad intelectual en Internet”. Jul. 2013, disponible en: [http://www.egeda.es/EGE_Mos-trarNoticia.asp?NmNoticia=512]. Consultado en septiembre de 2013.

“MPAA victory against Hotfile is a victory shared by all content creators hurt by online piracy”, en [http://voxindie.org/tag/copyright-infringement/]. Consultado en septiembre de 2013.

Alessandri Rodríguez, Arturo. “De la responsabilidad extracontractual en el Derecho Civil”, Santiago de Chile, Editorial Jurídica Chile, 2010, p. 309.

Atheya, Susan. Nekipelovb, Denis. A Structural Model of Sponsored Search Advertising Auctions, 2012.

Benkler, Yochai; Roberts, Hal, Faris, Robert Faris, Solow-niederman, Alicia & Etling, Bruce. Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate. The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. July 2013.

Capítulo 16, “Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual” del TLC suscrito entre Colombia y Estados Unidos, disponible en: [http://www.tlc.gov.co/publicaciones.php?id=14853].

Castro, Daniel. PIPA/SOPA: Responding to critics and finding a path forward. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. Dec. 2011.

Estados Unidos, Cámara de Representantes. Proyecto de ley Online Protection and Enforcement of digital Trade Act. H.R. 9782 (1112th).

Field, Dominic et al. Cutting Complexity, Adding Value: Efficiency and Effectiveness in Digital Advertising, Boston, The Boston Consulting Group. May 2013.

Folsom, Thomas. Toward Non-Neutral First Principle of Private Law: Designing Secondary Liability Rules for New Technological Uses, University of Akron, 2008.

IAB internet advertising revenue report, 2012 full year results. April 2013, disponible en: [http://www.iab.net/media/file/iab_Internet_Advertising_Revenue_Report_FY_2012_rev.pdf]. Consultado en septiembre de 2013.

López Romero, Tatiana. Internet Service Providers’ Liability for online copyright infringement: The US Approach. In: Universitas, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas, n.º 112, julio-diciembre de 2006.

Martinet Farano, Béatrice. Internet Intermediaries’ Liability for Copyright and Trademark Infringement: Reconciling the EU and U.S. Approaches. In: Transatlantic Technology Law Forum, Working Papers, Stanford, n.º 14, 2012.

Modelos de costos más utilizados en el marketing en Internet. May 2011. In: [http://www.microsoft.com/business/es-es/content/paginas/article.aspx?cbcid=43]. Consultado en septiembre de 2013.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

Perset, Karine. The Economic and Social Role of Internet Intermediaries. Organisation for Econocmic Co-operation and Development. May 2010 (DSTI/ICCP(2009)9/final).

Sala de Casación Civil de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, sentencia del 15 de marzo de 1996, M.P.: Carlos Esteban Jaramillo Schloss, exp. 4637.

Seeligson Smith, Lamar. Myths v. Fact: Stop Online Piracy Act. United States House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee (TX-21).

Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de 12 de julio de 2011, en el asunto C-324/09.

Spainhour, Sthepen & Eckstein, Robert. Webmaster in a nutshell, A desktop quick reference, O’Relly & Associates, 3rd Ed., 2003.

Suecia, Stockholm district Court. Sony Music Entertaiment et al. v. Prate Bay. Case B 13301-06, April 17 2009.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Perfect 10, Inc., v. CCBILL LLC, Dec. 4, 2006.

United States Court of Apples for the Ninth Circuit, Perfect 10, Inc., v. Amazon.com. (508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) Amended, Dec. 3, 2007.

United States Court of Apples for the Ninth Circuit, Perfect 10, Inc., v. Visa International Service et al. 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007).

United States District Court for the Central District of California. Robert Hendrickson v. EBay Inc et al. Sept. 4, 2001. 165 F.Supp.2d 1082, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1335 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

United States District Court of Massachusetts, Elsevier Ltdaltd., and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Chitika Inc., Cliksor.com, Inc. and Kapil Dev Saggi, Dec. 2, 2011.

United States District Court. Southern District of Florida. Miami Division. Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al., v. Hotfile Corp. et al.. Case 1:2011cv20427. Dec. 3, 2013.

United States District Court. Southern District of Florida. Miami Division. Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al., v. Hotfile Corp. et al. Case 1:2011cv20427. Jul. 8, 2011.

United States Congress, Senate. Proposed Bill: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011. S. 968 (112th).

United States, House of Representatives. Proposed Bill: Stop Online Piracy Act.VH.R. 3261.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.