Cover of book: Updating the Rules for Online Content Dissemination
Book Titles Open Access Full access

Updating the Rules for Online Content Dissemination

Legislative Options of the European Union and the Digital Services Act Proposal
Authors:
Publisher:
 2021

Summary

Der aktuelle Rechtsrahmen für die Verbreitung von Online-Inhalten hat sich als unzureichend für die effektive Bekämpfung von illegalen Inhalten erwiesen. Mit dem Kommissions-Vorschlag für einen „Digital Services Act“ soll der horizontale Rahmen für Intermediäre aktualisiert und ein sicheres Online-Umfeld geschaffen werden. Soweit es aber um Inhaltevermittlung geht, folgt aus europäischen Grundwerten und -rechten die Berücksichtigung medialer Besonderheiten.

Die vom Institut für Europäisches Medienrecht (EMR) im Auftrag der Landesanstalt für Medien NRW erstellte Studie beschreibt den geltenden Rechtsrahmen und vorgelegten Vorschlag und gibt eine umfassende Bewertung aus Perspektive des Medienrechts ergänzt durch Alternativvorschläge zur weiteren Verbesserung.

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2021
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8184-3
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2593-4
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Schriftenreihe Medienforschung der Landesanstalt für Medien NRW
Volume
83
Language
English
Pages
241
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 16 Download chapter (PDF)
  2. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. Background of the Study
    2. Aim of the Study
    3. Current Regulatory Framework of the European Union and Members States
    4. Regulatory Options on EU level
    5. Clarification of the Country of Origin Principle as Basis and its Exceptions
    6. Defining the Scope of Application of the Framework
    7. Reforming the Liability Privilege Regime
    8. Introducing Obligations and Duties for Service Providers
    9. Institutional Setup for Monitoring of Compliance and Enforcement
    10. Evaluation of the approaches chosen in the DSA Proposal
    11. Conclusions
  3. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. Hintergrund der Studie
    2. Ziel der Studie
    3. Aktueller Rechtsrahmen innerhalb der EU und ihrer Mitgliedstaaten
    4. Regelungsoptionen auf EU-Ebene
    5. Klarstellung des Herkunftslandprinzips als Basis und dessen Ausnahmen
    6. Die Definition des Anwendungsbereichs des Rechtsrahmens
    7. Die Reform des Regimes zur Haftungsprivilegierung
    8. Die Einführung von Pflichten und Obliegenheiten für Diensteanbieter
    9. Die institutionelle Ausgestaltung der Überwachung und der Rechtsdurchsetzung
    10. Bewertung der im DSA vorgeschlagenen Ansätze
    11. Schlussfolgerungen
  4. A. Background of the Study 75 - 80 Download chapter (PDF)
  5. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. I. On Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Freedoms and EU Values
    2. II. On the Allocation of Competences
    3. III. The Network of Sectoral Regulation
  6. C. Problems Identified regarding the Cross-Border Dissemination of Online Content 101 - 106 Download chapter (PDF)
  7. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. I. On the Digital Services Act Proposal
    2. II. On the Digital Markets Act Proposal
  8. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. a. Legal Instrument
        2. b. Content Neutrality of Horizontal Approaches
        3. c. Material Scope, Sectoral Exceptions and Discretion
        4. d. Defining Objectives of a Regulatory Approach
      2. 2. DSA Approach
      3. 3. Assessment
        1. a. Key Issues for Assessment
        2. b. Options: COO Principle or Market Location Principle
        3. c. Key Points for Design
      2. 2. DSA Approach
      3. 3. Assessment
      1. 1. Starting point
      2. 2. DSA Approach
      3. 3. Assessment
      1. 1. Starting Point
      2. 2. DSA Approach
      3. 3. Assessment
        1. a. Reactive Obligations: Notice and Takedown and Dispute Settlement
        2. b. Reactive Obligations: Trusted Flaggers and Law Enforcement Cooperation
        3. c. Proactive Obligations: User Empowerment
        4. d. Proactive Obligations: Stay down, Know Your Customer and Sanctions
        5. e. Proactive Obligations: Content Management
        6. f. Transparency, Reporting and Information Obligations
        1. a. All Intermediary Service Providers (Art. 10–13)
        2. b. Hosting Service Providers (Art. 14–15)
        3. c. Online Platforms (Art. 16–24)
        4. d. Very Large Online Platforms (Art. 25–33)
        5. e. Additional Obligations (Art. 34–37)
      3. 3. Assessment
        1. a. Overall Structure of Supervision
        2. b. Regulatory Powers and Sanctions
        3. c. Supranational Coordination and Cooperation
        1. a. Overall Structure of Supervision
        2. b. Regulatory Powers and Sanctions
        3. c. Supranational Coordination and Cooperation
      3. 3. Assessment
  9. F. Looking Ahead 229 - 232 Download chapter (PDF)
  10. Bibliography 233 - 241 Download chapter (PDF)

Bibliography (162)

  1. Albath, L.; Giesel M.: Das Herkunftslandprinzip in der Dienstleistungsrichtlinie – Eine Kodifizierung der Rechtsprechung? In: EuZW 9 (2), 2006, p. 38–42. Open Google Scholar
  2. Cited: Albath/Giesel, in: EuZW 9(2), 2006, 38, p. Open Google Scholar
  3. Babbs, D.: New Year, New Internet? Why It’s Time to Rethink Anonymity on Social Media, in: Inforrm’s Blog, 2020, https://inforrm.org/2020/01/31/new-year-new-internet-why-its-time-to-rethink-anonymity-on-social-media-david-babbs/. Open Google Scholar
  4. Cited: Babbs, in: Inforrm’s Blog, New Year, New Internet? Why It’s Time to Rethink Anonymity on Social Media. Open Google Scholar
  5. Blandin, L.: Proceedings of the Workshop on “E-commerce rules, fit for the digital age”, Study for the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Brussels, 2020. Open Google Scholar
  6. Cited: speaker, in: Blandin, Proceedings of the Workshop on “E-commerce rules, fit for the digital age”. Open Google Scholar
  7. Blanke, H.-J.; Mangiameli, S. (eds.): The Treaty on European Union (TEU), Berlin 2013. Open Google Scholar
  8. Cited: author, in: Blanke/Mangiameli. Open Google Scholar
  9. Büllesbach, A.; Gijrath, S. J. H.; Poullet, Y.; Prins, J. E. J. (eds.): Concise European IT Law, 2nd edition, Alphen aan den Rijn 2010. Open Google Scholar
  10. Cited: Büllesbach et al. (eds.), Concise European IT Law. Open Google Scholar
  11. Cappello, M. (ed.): Media pluralism and competition issues, IRIS Special, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg 2020, https://rm.coe.int/iris-special-1-2020en-media-pluralism-and-competition-issues/1680a08455. Open Google Scholar
  12. Cited: author, in: Cappello (ed.), Media pluralism and competition issues. Open Google Scholar
  13. Chapuis-Doppler, A.; Delhomme, V.: Regulating Composite Platform Economy Services: The State-of-play After Airbnb Ireland, in: European Papers, 5 (1), 2020, p. 411–428. Open Google Scholar
  14. Cited: Chapuis-Doppler/Delhomme, in: European Papers, 5 (1), 2020, 411, p. Open Google Scholar
  15. Cobbe, J.; Singh, J.: Regulating Recommending: Motivations, Considerations, and Principles, in: European Journal of Law and Technology (EJLT), 10 (3), 2019, https://ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/686. Open Google Scholar
  16. Cited: Cobbe/Singh, in: EJLT, 10 (3), 2019. Open Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, J.E.: The Regulatory State in the Information Age, in: Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 17 (1), 2016 p. 369-411. Open Google Scholar
  18. Cited: Cohen, in: Theoretical Inquiries in Law 17 (1), 2016, 369, p. Open Google Scholar
  19. Cole, M.: Gestaltungsspielraum der EU-Mitgliedstaaten bei Einschränkungen der Dienstleistungsfreiheit, in: Zeitschrift für Medien- und Kommunikationsrecht (AfP), 52 (1), 2021, p. 1–7. Open Google Scholar
  20. Cited: Cole, in: AfP 52 (1), 2021, 1, p. Open Google Scholar
  21. Cole, M.: Zum Gestaltungsspielraum der EU-Mitgliedstaaten bei Einschränkungen der Dienstleistungsfreiheit. Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel einer Regelung bezüglich der Medienvielfalt in Deutschland, Saarbruecken 2020, https://emr-sb.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Zum-Gestaltungsspielraum-der-EU-Mitgliedstaaten-bei-Einschr%c3%a4nkungen-der-Dienstleistungsfreiheit.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  22. Cited: Cole, Zum Gestaltungsspielraum der EU-Mitgliedstaaten bei Einschränkungen der Dienstleistungsfreiheit. Open Google Scholar
  23. Cole, M.: Die Neuregelung des Artikel 7b Richtlinie 2010/13/EU (AVMD-RL), Saarbruecken, 2019, https://emr-sb.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/emr-gutachten_neuregelung-des-artikel-7b-avmd_11.2019.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  24. Cited: Cole, Die Neuregelung des Artikel 7b Richtlinie 2010/13/EU (AVMD-RL). Open Google Scholar
  25. Cole, M.: The AVMSD Jurisdiction Criteria concerning Audiovisual Media Service Providers after the 2018 Reform, Saarbruecken, 2018, https://emr-sb.de/study-avmsd-jurisdiction-criteria/. Open Google Scholar
  26. Cited: Cole, AVMSD Jurisdiction Criteria after the 2018 Reform. Open Google Scholar
  27. Cole, M.: The Country of Origin Principle – From State Sovereignty under Public International Law to Inclusion in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive of the European Union, in: Meng, W.; Ress, G.; Stein, T. (eds.), Europäische Integration und Globalisierung – Festschrift zum 60-jährigen Bestehen des Europa-Instituts, Baden-Baden 2011. Open Google Scholar
  28. Cited: Cole, The Country of Origin Principle. Open Google Scholar
  29. Cole, M.: Europarechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für die Pluralismussicherung im Rundfunk, in: Freiheitssicherung durch Regulierung: fördert oder gefährdet die Wettbewerbsaufsicht publizistische Vielfalt im Rundfunk?, Baden-Baden 2009, p. 93 - 130. Open Google Scholar
  30. Cited: Cole, Europarechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für die Pluralismussicherung im Rundfunk, 93, p. Open Google Scholar
  31. Cole, M.; Etteldorf, C.; Ullrich, C.: Cross-border Dissemination of Online Content: Current and Possible Future Regulation of the Online Environment with a Focus on the EU E-Commerce Directive (Schriftenreihe Medienforschung der Landesanstalt für Medien NRW 81), Baden-Baden 2020, https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783748906438/cross-border-dissemination-of-online-content. Open Google Scholar
  32. Cited: Cole/Etteldorf/Ullrich, Cross-border Dissemination of Online Content. Open Google Scholar
  33. Cole, M.; Iacino, D.; Matzneller, P.; Metzdorf, J; Schweda S.: AVMS-RADAR: AudioVisual Media Services – Regulatory Authorities’ Independence and Efficiency Review: Update on recent changes and developments in Member States and Candidate Countries that are relevant for the analysis of independence and efficient functioning of audiovisual media services regulatory bodies (SMART 2013/0083), Study prepared for the Commission DG CNECT by the EMR and the University of Luxembourg, Brussels 2015, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9860f65c-8776-11e5-b8b7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. Open Google Scholar
  34. Cited: Cole et al., AVMS-RADAR. Open Google Scholar
  35. Cole, M.; Ukrow, J.; Etteldorf, C.: On the Allocation of Competences between the European Union and its Member States in the Media Sector. An Analysis with particular Consideration of Measures concerning Media Pluralism, Saarbruecken 2020, https://www.rlp.de/de/regierung/staatskanzlei/medienpolitik/rundfunkkommission/aktuelle-studien-gutachten/. Open Google Scholar
  36. Cited: Cole/Ukrow/Etteldorf, On the Allocation of Competences between the European Union and its Member States in the Media Sector. Open Google Scholar
  37. Constantin, S.: Rethinking Subsidiarity and the Balance of Powers in the EU in Light of the Lisbon Treaty and Beyond, in: Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy (CYELP), 4, 2008, p. 151–177. Open Google Scholar
  38. Cited: Constantin in: CYELP 4, 2008, 151, p. Open Google Scholar
  39. Cornils, M.: Designing Platform Governance: A Normative Perspective on Needs, Strategies, and Tools to Regulate Intermediaries, Algorithm Watch, Berlin 2020, https://algorithmwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Governing-Platforms-legal-study-Cornils-May-2020-AlgorithmWatch.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  40. Cited: Cornils, Designing Platform Governance: A Normative Perspective on Needs, Strategies, and Tools to Regulate Intermediaries. Open Google Scholar
  41. de Posson, V.: Digital Services Act: Ensuring a Trustworthy and Safe Online Environment While Allowing Freedom of Expression, in: Disruptive Competition Project, 20th January 2021, https://www.project-disco.org/european-union/012021-dsa-ensuring-a-trustworthy-and-safe-online-enviornment-while-allowing-freedom-of-expression/. Open Google Scholar
  42. Cited: de Posson, Digital Services Act: Ensuring a Trustworthy and Safe Online Environment While Allowing Freedom of Expression. Open Google Scholar
  43. de Streel, A.; Broughton Micova, S.: Digital Services Act: Deepening the internal market and clarifying responsibilities for digital services, Brussels 2020, https://cerre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CERRE_DSA_Deepening-the-internal-market-and-clarifying-responsibilities-for-digital-services_Full-report_December2020.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  44. Cited: de Streel/Broughton Micova, Digital Services Act: Deepening the internal market and clarifying responsibilities for digital services. Open Google Scholar
  45. de Streel, A.; Husovec, M.: The e-commerce Directive as the cornerstone of the Internal Market. Assessment and options for reform, Luxembourg, 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648797/IPOL_STU(2020)648797_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  46. Cited: de Streel/Husovec, The e-commerce Directive as the cornerstone of the Internal Market. Open Google Scholar
  47. de Streel, A.; Defreyne, E.; Jacquemin, H.; Ledger, M.; Innesti, A.; Goubet, M.; Ustowski, D.: Online Platforms’ Moderation of Illegal Content Online, Study for the committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/652718/IPOL_STU(2020)652718_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  48. Cited: de Streel et al., Online Platforms’ Moderation of Illegal Content Online. Open Google Scholar
  49. Diaz Crego, M.; Manko, R.; van Ballegooij, W.: Protecting EU common values within the Member States. An overview of monitoring, prevention and enforcement mechanisms at EU level, EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussels, 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/652088/EPRS_STU(2020)652088_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  50. Cited: Diaz Crego/Manko/van Ballegooij (EPRS study), Protecting EU common values within the Member States. Open Google Scholar
  51. Dreyer, S.; Heyer, R.; Seipp, T. J.; Schulz W.: The European Communication (Dis)Order. Mapping the media-relevant European legislative acts and identification of dependencies, interface areas and conflicts. Hamburg 2020 (Working Papers of the HBI No. 52), https://hans-bredow-institut.de/uploads/media/default/cms/media/8engbt7_AP52BKM_Mapping-Gutachten_en.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  52. Cited: Dreyer et al., The European Communication (Dis)Order. Open Google Scholar
  53. European Parliament: The Future of Money, Study for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg, 2019, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/642364/IPOL_STU(2019)642364_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  54. Cited: author, in: European Parliament, The Future of Money. Open Google Scholar
  55. European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media (ERGA): Report on the independence of NRAs, 15 December 2015, available at http://erga-online.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/report_indep_nra_2015.pdf.. Open Google Scholar
  56. Cited: ERGA, Report on the independence of NRAs. Open Google Scholar
  57. Evas, T.: Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence. European added value assessment, Study of the European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussels, 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/654178/EPRS_STU(2020)654178_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  58. Cited: Evas (EPRS study), Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence. Open Google Scholar
  59. Geiger, C.; Jütte, B.J.: Platform liability under Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive – Automated Filtering and Fundamental Rights: An Impossible Match, forthcoming in: GRUR International 2021, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3776267. Open Google Scholar
  60. Cited: Geiger/Jütte, Platform liability under Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. Open Google Scholar
  61. Grabitz, E.; Hilf, M.; Nettesheim, M. (eds.): Das Recht der Europäischen Union: EUV/AEUV, Vol. 71, Munich, 2020. Open Google Scholar
  62. Cited: author, in: Grabitz/Hilf/Nettesheim. Open Google Scholar
  63. Haarkötter, H.: Journalismus.online: Das Handbuch zum Online-Journalismus, Cologne 2019. Open Google Scholar
  64. Cited: Haarkötter, Journalismus.online: Das Handbuch zum Online-Journalismus. Open Google Scholar
  65. Hadzhieva, E., Impact of Digitalisation on International Tax Matters, Study for the Committee on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg 2019, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/626078/IPOL_STU(2019)626078_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  66. Cited: Hadzhieva, Impact of Digitalisation on International Tax Matters. Open Google Scholar
  67. Harrison J.; Woods, L.: Jurisdiction, forum shopping and the ‘race to the bottom’, Cambridge 2007. Open Google Scholar
  68. Cited: Harrison/Woods, Jurisdiction, forum shopping and the ‘race to the bottom’. Open Google Scholar
  69. Helberger, N.; Pierson, J.; Poell, T.: Governing Online Platforms: From Contested to Cooperative Responsibility, in: The Information Society, 34, 2018, p. 1–2. Open Google Scholar
  70. Cited: Helberger/Pierson/Poell in: The Information Society, 34, 2018, 1, p. Open Google Scholar
  71. Hörnle, J.: Country of Origin Regulation in Cross-Border Media: One Step Beyond the Freedom to Provide Services?, in: International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 54 (1), 2005, p. 89–126. Open Google Scholar
  72. Cited: Hörnle, in: International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54 (1), 2005, 89, p. Open Google Scholar
  73. Iacob, N.; Simonelli, F.: How to Fully Reap the Benefits of the Internal Market for E-Commerce?, Study for the committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648801/IPOL_STU(2020)648801_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  74. Cited: Iacob/Simonelli, How to Fully Reap the Benefits of the Internal Market for E-Commerce? Open Google Scholar
  75. Joint Research Centre (European Commission): Multimedia information society, Brussels 1997, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4da834e3-011d-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-140486803. Open Google Scholar
  76. Cited: Joint Research Centre, Multimedia information society. Open Google Scholar
  77. Jungheim, S.: Medienordnung und Wettbewerbsrecht im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung und Globalisierung, Tuebingen 2012. Open Google Scholar
  78. Cited: Jungheim, Medienordnung und Wettbewerbsrecht im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung und Globalisierung. Open Google Scholar
  79. Koltay, A. (ed.): Media Freedom and Regulation in the New Media World, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  80. Cited: author, in: Koltay, Media Freedom and Regulation in the New Media World. Open Google Scholar
  81. Kuczerawy, A.: Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression in the EU: from Concepts to Safeguards, Cambridge 2018. Open Google Scholar
  82. Cited: Kuczerawy, Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression in the EU: from Concepts to Safeguards. Open Google Scholar
  83. Lavi, M.: Evil Nudges, in: Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law (JETLaw), 21 (1), 2018. Open Google Scholar
  84. Cited: Lavi, in: JETLaw, 21 (1), 2018. Open Google Scholar
  85. Lievens, E.: Protecting Children in the Digital Era: The Use of Alternative Regulatory Instruments, Leiden/Boston 2010. Open Google Scholar
  86. Cited: Lievens, Protecting Children in the Digital Era: The Use of Alternative Regulatory Instruments. Open Google Scholar
  87. Lomba, N.; Evas, T.: Digital services act. European added value assessment, Study of the European Parliamentary Research Services, Brussels 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/654180/EPRS_STU(2020)654180_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  88. Cited: Lomba/Evas (EPRS study), Digital services act. Open Google Scholar
  89. Lopatka, R.: Subsidiarity: Bridging the gap between the ideal and reality, in: European View, 18 (spring), 2019, p. 26–36. Open Google Scholar
  90. Cited: Lopatka, in: European View, 18 (spring), 2019, 26, p. Open Google Scholar
  91. Madiega, T.: Reform of the EU liability regime for online intermediaries: Background on the forthcoming digital services act, In-depth analysis of the European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussel 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/649404/EPRS_IDA(2020)649404_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  92. Cited: Madiega (EPRS study), Reform of the EU liability regime for online intermediaries. Open Google Scholar
  93. Matulionyte, R.: Enforcing Copyright Infringements Online: In Search of Balanced Private International Law Rules, in: Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law (JIPITEC), 6 (2), 2015, p. 132–145. Open Google Scholar
  94. Cited: Matulionyte, in: JIPITEC, 6 (2), 2015, 132, p. Open Google Scholar
  95. Montagnani, M. L.; Trapova, A.: New Obligations for Internet Intermediaries in the Digital Single Market – Safe Harbors in Turmoil?, in: Journal of Internet Law (JIL), 22 (7), 2019, p. 3–11. Open Google Scholar
  96. Cited: Montagnani/Trapova, in: JIL, 22 (7), 2019, 3, p. Open Google Scholar
  97. Mulligan, D.; Bamberger, K.: Saving Governance-By-Design, in: California Law Review (CLR), 106, 2018, p. 698–772. Open Google Scholar
  98. Cited: Mulligan/Bamberger, in: CLR, 106, 2018, 698, p. Open Google Scholar
  99. Nettesheim, M.: Normenhierarchie im EU-Recht, in: Europarecht (EuR), 41 (6), 2006, p. 737–772. Open Google Scholar
  100. Cited: Nettesheim, in: EuR, 41 (6), 2006, 737, p. Open Google Scholar
  101. Nordemann, J. B.: Internal Market for digital services: Responsibilities and duties of care of providers of digital services, Study for the European Parliament Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648802/IPOL_STU(2020)648802_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  102. Cited: Nordemann, Internal Market for digital services: Responsibilities and duties of care of providers of digital services. Open Google Scholar
  103. Oster, J.: Communication, defamation and liability of intermediaries, in: Legal Studies, 35, 2015, p. 348–368. Open Google Scholar
  104. Cited: Oster in: Legal Studies, 35, 2015, 348, p. Open Google Scholar
  105. Penney, J. W.: Internet surveillance, regulation, and chilling effects online: a comparative case study, in: Internet Policy Review (IPR), 6 (2), 2017, https://doi.org/10.14763/2017.2.692. Open Google Scholar
  106. Cited: Penney, in: IPR, 6 (2), 2017. Open Google Scholar
  107. Petkova, B.; Ojanen, T. (eds.): Fundamental Rights Protection Online: The Future Regulation of Intermediaries, Cheltenham 2020. Open Google Scholar
  108. Cited: author, “title”, in: Petkova/Ojanen (eds.), p. Open Google Scholar
  109. Quintais, J.: Global Online Piracy – Study Legal Background Report, Amsterdam 2018, https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Global-Online-Piracy-Study-Legal-Background-Report.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  110. Cited: Quintais, Global Online Piracy – Study Legal Background Report. Open Google Scholar
  111. Quaglio, G.; Miller, S.: Potentially negative effects of internet use, In-depth analysis of the European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussels 2020. Open Google Scholar
  112. Cited: Quaglio/Miller (EPRS analysis), Potentially negative effects of the internet use. Open Google Scholar
  113. Rowland, D.; Kohl, U.; Charlesworth, A.: Information Technology Law, 5th edition, London 2016. Open Google Scholar
  114. Cited: Rowland/Kohl/Charlesworth, Information Technology Law. Open Google Scholar
  115. Sartor, G.: New aspects and challenges in consumer protection, Study for the committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648790/IPOL_STU(2020)648790_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  116. Cited: Sartor, New aspects and challenges in consumer protection. Open Google Scholar
  117. Savin, A.: EU Internet Law, Cheltenham 2014. Open Google Scholar
  118. Cited: Savin, EU Internet Law. Open Google Scholar
  119. Schulte-Nölke, H.; Rüffer, I.; Nobrega, C.; Wiewórowska-Domagalska, A.: The legal framework for e-commerce in the Internal Market, Study for the committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/652707/IPOL_STU(2020)652707_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  120. Cited: Schulte-Nölke et al., The legal framework for e-commerce in the Internal Market. Open Google Scholar
  121. Schwartz, I.: Subsidiarität und EG-Kompetenzen – der neue Titel „Kultur“-Medienvielfalt und Binnenmarkt, in: AfP, 24 (1) 1993, p. 409–421. Open Google Scholar
  122. Cited: Schwartz, in: AfP 24 (1), 1993, 409, p. Open Google Scholar
  123. Senftleben, M.; Angelopoulos, C.: The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act, Amsterdam 2020, https://www.ivir.nl/new-study-the-odyssey-of-the-prohibition-on-general-monitoring-obligations-on-the-way-to-the-digital-services-act/. Open Google Scholar
  124. Cited: Senftleben/Angelopoulus, The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act. Open Google Scholar
  125. Smit, S. J.: SME focus – Long-term strategy for the European industrial future, Study for the committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648776/IPOL_STU(2020)648776_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  126. Cited: Smit, SME focus – Long term strategy for the European industrial future. Open Google Scholar
  127. Smith, M.: Enforcement and cooperation between Member States in a Digital Services Act, Study for the Committee on Internal Market, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648780/IPOL_STU(2020)648780_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  128. Cited: Smith, Enforcement and cooperation between Member States. Open Google Scholar
  129. Sohnemann, N.; Uffrecht, L. M.; Hartkopf, M. C.; Kruse, J. P.; Noellen, L. M.: New Developments in Digital Services, Study for the committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648784/IPOL_STU(2020)648784_EN.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  130. Cited: Sohnemann et al., New Developments in Digital Services. Open Google Scholar
  131. Spindler, G.: Internet Intermediary Liability Reloaded – The New German Act on Responsibility of Social Networks and its (In ) Compatibility with European Law, in: JIPITEC, 8 (2), 2017, 166-179. Open Google Scholar
  132. Cited: Spindler, in: JIPITEC, 8 (2), 2017, 166, p. Open Google Scholar
  133. Svantesson, D.: European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet: An Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments, in: JIPITEC, 9 (2), 2018, p. 113–125. Open Google Scholar
  134. Cited: Svantesson, in: JIPITEC, 9 (2), 2018, 113, p. Open Google Scholar
  135. Ukrow, J.: Die Vorschläge der EU-Kommission für einen Digital Services Act und einen Digital Markets Act. Darstellung von und erste Überlegungen zu zentralen Bausteinen für eine digitale Grundordnung der EU, in: Impulse aus dem EMR, Saarbruecken 2021, https://emr-sb.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Impulse-aus-dem-EMR_DMA-und-DSA.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  136. Cited: Ukrow, Die Vorschläge der EU-Kommission für einen Digital Services Act und einen Digital Markets Act. Open Google Scholar
  137. Ukrow, J.: Indexierung des Rundfunkbeitrags und Stabilität der deutschen Rundfunkfinanzierung. Ansätze einer europarechtlichen Risikoanalyse, in: UFITA, 83 (1), 2019, 279–330, p. Open Google Scholar
  138. Cited: Ukrow, in: UFITA, 83 (1), 2019, 279, p. Open Google Scholar
  139. Ullrich, C.: Unlawful Content Online: Towards a New Regulatory Framework for Online Platforms, Luxembourg 2020. Open Google Scholar
  140. Cited: Ullrich, Unlawful Content Online: Towards a New Regulatory Framework for Online Platforms. Open Google Scholar
  141. Ullrich, C.: New Approach meets new economy: Enforcing EU product safety in e-commerce, in: Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (MJ), 26 (4), 2019, p. 558–584. Open Google Scholar
  142. Cited: Ullrich, in: MJ, 26 (4), 2019, 558, p. Open Google Scholar
  143. Ullrich, C.: A Risk-Based Approach towards Infringement Prevention on the Internet: Adopting the Anti-Money Laundering Framework to Online Platforms, in: IJLIT, 26 (3), 2018, p. 226–251. Open Google Scholar
  144. Cited: Ullrich, in: IJLIT, 26 (3), 2018, 226, p. Open Google Scholar
  145. Ullrich, C.: Standards for Duty of Care? Debating Intermediary Liability from a Sectoral Perspective, in: Journal of Intellectual Property, in: JIPITEC, 8 (2), 2017, p. 111–126. Open Google Scholar
  146. Cited: Ullrich, in: JIPITEC, 8 (2), 2017, 111, p. Open Google Scholar
  147. Vamialis, A.: Online Defamation: Confronting Anonymity, in: IJLIT, 21 (1), 2013, p. 56–62. Open Google Scholar
  148. Cited: Vamialis, in: IJLIT, 21 (1), 2013, 56, p. Open Google Scholar
  149. van Eecke, P.: Online Service Providers and Liability: A Plea for a Balanced Approach, in: Common Market Law Review, 48 (5), 2011, p. 1455–1502. Open Google Scholar
  150. Cited: van Eecke, in: Common Market L. Rev., 48 (5), 2011, 1455, p. Open Google Scholar
  151. van Hoboken, J.; Quintas, J. P.; Poort, J.; van Eijk, N.: Hosting intermediary services and illegal content online. An analysis of the scope of Article 14 ECD in light of developments in the online service landscape, SMART 2018/0033, Amsterdam 2018, https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/hosting_intermediary_services.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  152. Cited: van Hoboken et al., Hosting intermediary services and illegal content online. Open Google Scholar
  153. Vlassis, A.: The review of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Many political voices for one digital Europe?, in: Politique européenne, 56 (2), 2017, p. 102–123. Open Google Scholar
  154. Cited: Vlassis, in: Politique européenne, 56 (2), 2017, 102, p. Open Google Scholar
  155. Waldheim, S.: Dienstleistungsfreiheit und Herkunftslandprinzip: Prinzipielle Möglichkeiten und primärrechtliche Grenzen der Liberalisierung eines integrierten europäischen Binnenmarktes für Dienstleistungen, Göttingen 2008. Open Google Scholar
  156. Cited: Waldheim, Dienstleistungsfreiheit und Herkunftslandprinzip. Open Google Scholar
  157. Woods, L.: The proposed Digital Markets Act: overview and analysis, in: EU Law Analysis, 14 January 2021, http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-proposed-digital-markets-act.html. Open Google Scholar
  158. Cited: Woods, The proposed Digital Markets Act: overview and analysis. Open Google Scholar
  159. Woods, L.: Overview of Digital Services Act, in: EU Law Analysis, 16 December 2020, http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/12/overview-of-digital-services-act.html. Open Google Scholar
  160. Cited: Woods, Overview of Digital Services Act. Open Google Scholar
  161. Woods, L.; Perrin, W.: Online harm reduction – a statutory duty of care and regulator, Dunfermline 2019, https://d1ssu070pg2v9i.cloudfront.net/pex/carnegie_uk_trust/2019/04/08091652/Online-harm-reduction-a-statutory-duty-of-care-and-regulator.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  162. Cited: Woods/Perrin, Online harm reduction – a statutory duty of care and regulator. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "Copyright Law & Media Law", "Computer and Internet", "Media Policy & Media Ethics"
Cover of book: Der Verbraucherschadensersatzanspruch gemäß § 9 Absatz 2 UWG
Book Titles No access
Fabian Göllner
Der Verbraucherschadensersatzanspruch gemäß § 9 Absatz 2 UWG
Cover of book: Die Beurteilung von Faktenchecks nach dem Äußerungsrecht
Book Titles No access
Alexander Heimann
Die Beurteilung von Faktenchecks nach dem Äußerungsrecht
Cover of book: Law & Critique | Recht & Kritik
Edited Book Full access
Greta Olson, Christian Schmidt, Benno Zabel, Jochen Bung, Franziska Martinsen, Hanna Meißner
Law & Critique | Recht & Kritik
Cover of book: Ethik der Kryptographie
Book Titles Full access
Laurence Lerch
Ethik der Kryptographie
Cover of book: Israel in deutschen Medien
Book Titles No access
Jonas Hessenauer, Lukas Uwira
Israel in deutschen Medien

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex