Cover of book: What Place for Fairness in Digital Content Contracts?
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

What Place for Fairness in Digital Content Contracts?

An Assessment of the Interplay between EU Copyright and Consumer Law
Authors:
Publisher:
 29.10.2020

Summary

Verbraucher sehen sich häufig Beschränkungen beim Zugang zu und bei der Nutzung von online angebotenen Inhalten ausgesetzt, die in Endbenutzer-Lizenzvereinbarungen durchgesetzt werden. Diese Beschränkungen können mit den durch das EU-Verbraucherrecht geschützten Verbraucherinteressen kollidieren. Dieses Buch bewertet die ungeklärte Beziehung zwischen dem EU-Urheberrecht und dem Verbraucherrecht, indem es die geltenden Rechtsvorschriften für die Bereitstellung digitaler Inhalte, einschließlich der neuen Richtlinie über digitale Inhalte und digitale Dienste und der Richtlinie über das Urheberrecht im digitalen Binnenmarkt, sowie die einschlägige Rechtsprechung des EuGH zur Beurteilung von Grundrechtskonflikten im Zusammenhang mit urheberrechtlichen Nutzungsbeschränkungen sorgfältig berücksichtigt. Dieses Buch enthält einen Vorschlag für einen integrativen Ansatz, der darauf abzielt, die Interessen von Urheberrechtsinhabern und Verbrauchern beim Zugang zu digitalen Inhalten und deren Nutzung miteinander in Einklang zu bringen.

Bibliographic data

Publication year
2020
Publication date
29.10.2020
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-7814-0
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2217-9
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Europäische Rechtspolitik der Universität Bremen (ZERP)
Volume
80
Language
English
Pages
242
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 14
    1. 1. State of research No access
    2. 2. Research questions No access
    3. 3. Limitations of the study No access
    4. 4. Structure of the book No access
  3. Chapter I: Digital restrictions – A case of consumer detriment No access 23 - 30
      1. 2.1.1 Digital content according to the means of access No access
      2. 2.1.2 Digital content according to the counter-performance provided by the consumer No access
    2. 2.2 Legal status of digital content products No access
    3. 2.3 European legislation No access
    4. 2.4 National legislation No access
    5. 2.5 First conclusion No access
    1. 3.1 Introduction: Consumer law and copyright law – Two parallel universes? No access
      1. 3.2.1 Introduction No access
      2. 3.2.2 The three-step test and exceptions and limitations protecting the consumer’s use of digital content products No access
        1. 3.2.3.1 Digital exhaustion No access
        2. 3.2.3.2 Technical Protection Measures (TPM) No access
      4. 3.2.4 Exercising control over copyrighted content: End-User License Agreements and Technical Protection Measures No access
      5. 3.2.5 The case of the private copy exception No access
      6. 3.2.6 The new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market No access
          1. 3.3.1.1.1 Formal requirements and transparency obligations No access
          2. 3.3.1.1.2 Information concerning payment obligations No access
          3. 3.3.1.1.3 Information provided in limited space or time No access
          4. 3.3.1.1.4 Timing and framing No access
        2. 3.3.1.2 The right of withdrawal for digital content products No access
        3. 3.3.1.3 Digital content not supplied in exchange of a monetary price No access
          1. 3.3.2.1.1 Formal assessment No access
          2. 3.3.2.1.2 Substantive assessment No access
        2. 3.3.2.2 Indicative list of unfair contract terms No access
        3. 3.3.2.3 Relationship of the UCTD with copyright law No access
            1. 3.3.2.4.1.1. What is the main subject matter in an EULA? No access
          2. 3.3.2.4.2 Consumer detriment No access
          3. 3.3.2.4.3 Contrary to the requirement of good faith No access
        1. 3.3.3.1 Application of the UCPD fairness test to technical restrictions No access
        2. 3.3.3.2 Misleading actions and omissions on the application of TPM as an unfair practice No access
        1. 3.3.4.1 The politics of EU contract law No access
        2. 3.3.4.2 Guarantee rights for digital content products No access
        3. 3.3.4.3 Unfair contract terms for the supply of digital content under the CESL proposal No access
        4. 3.3.4.4 The fairness test under the CESL proposal No access
      1. 3.4.1 Scope of application No access
      2. 3.4.2 Conformity of the digital content and digital services No access
      3. 3.4.3 Liability of the trader and consumer remedies No access
      4. 3.4.4 Relationship of the DCDSD with copyright law No access
    1. 4.1 The EU principle of ‘balancing’ No access
    2. 4.2 The EU principle of protection of the weaker party No access
        1. 4.3.1.1 The “quid” in the protection of the consumers’ expectations No access
        2. 4.3.1.2 How to define what the consumers’ legitimate expectations in a digital content contract are? No access
      2. 4.3.2 Justification used for the restriction No access
    4. 4.4 Second conclusion No access
      1. 5.1.1 The role of Copyright law No access
      2. 5.1.2 The role of Consumer law No access
      1. 5.2.1 Regulatory approach within EU copyright law No access
      2. 5.2.2 Regulatory approach within EU consumer law No access
    3. 5.3 Final conclusions No access
  8. EU Legal Acts No access 220 - 222
  9. Proposals for EU Legal Acts No access 223 - 223
  10. Case law of the CJEU No access 224 - 227
  11. Advocate Generals’ opinions No access 228 - 228
  12. Bibliography No access 229 - 242

Bibliography (205)

  1. ALEXY R. (2010), A Theory of Constitutional Rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  2. ARNOLD R. and ROSATI E. (2015), “Are National Courts the Addresses of the InfoSoc Three-Step Test?”, 10(10) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 741–749. Open Google Scholar
  3. AUSTRALIAN PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION (2016), Inquiry Report No. 78 on Intellectual Property Arrangements, 23 September, available at http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/intellectual-property/report/intellectual-property.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  4. AYRES I. and SCHWARTZ A. (2014), “The No-Reading Problem in Consumer Contract Law”, 66 Stanford Law Review, 545–609. Open Google Scholar
  5. BALLABH A. (2008), “Paracopyright”, 30 EIPR, 139–144. Open Google Scholar
  6. BAUMAN Z. (2005), Vida Líquida, Madrid, Paidós. Open Google Scholar
  7. BEALE H. (2016), Scope of application and general approach of the new rules for contracts in the digital environment, In-Depth Analysis, January 2016, PE 536.493. Open Google Scholar
  8. BEALE H. (2017), “Conclusion and Performance of Contracts: An Overview”, in: SCHULZE R., STAUDENMAYER D. and LOHSSE S. (eds.), Contracts for the supply of Digital Content: Regulatory Challenges and Gaps, Münster Colloquia on EU Law and the Digital Economy II, Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp. 33–58. Open Google Scholar
  9. BECHTOLD S. (2006), “Commentary on the Directive 2001/29/EC on the Harmonization of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society”, in: DREIER T. and HUGENHOLTZ P.B. (eds.), Concise European Copyright Law, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, pp. 343–403. Open Google Scholar
  10. BEUC (2009), “The Future of European Consumers’ Rights. BEUC’s reaction to the fundamental issues raised by the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer rights, COM(2008) 614”, available at http://www.acsel.asso.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/position-beuc.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  11. BEUC (2010), “Digital Products, How to Include them in the Proposal for a Consumer Rights Directive”, available at http://www.beuc.eu/publications/2010-00506-01-e.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  12. BEUC (2015), “Consumer use of copyrighted material”, available at http://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2015-063_consumer_use_of_copyrighted_material.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  13. BISCHOFF S. (2019), “Artikel 17 der Urheberrechts-Richtlinie EU/2019/790 – Notwendige Nachjustierung oder Systembruch im europäischen Urheberrecht?” in: HETMANK S. and RECHENBERG C. (eds.), Kommunikation, Kreation und Innovation – Recht im Umbruch?, Leipzig, Nomos, page 241 – 274. Open Google Scholar
  14. BLÄSI C. and ROTHLAUF F. (2013), “On the Interoperability of eBook Formats”. Study prepared for the European and International Booksellers Federation, available at http://wi.bwl.uni-mainz.de/publikationen/InteroperabilityReportGutenbergfinal07052013.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  15. BRADGATE R. (2010), “Consumer rights in digital products: A research report prepared for the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills”, Institute for Commercial Law Studies, Sheffield and BIS, available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/consumer-issues/docs/c/10-1125-consumer-rights-in-digital-products [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  16. BROWNSWORD R., HOWELLS G. and WILHELMSSON T. (1996), “Between Market and Welfare: Some Reflections on Article 3 of the EC Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts”, in: WILLETT C. (ed.), Aspects of Fairness in Contract, Glasgow, Blackstone Press, pp. 25–59. Open Google Scholar
  17. CÁMARA LAPUENTE S. (2006), El Control de las cláusulas “abusivas” sobre elementos esenciales del contrato, Navarra, Thomson-Aranzadi. Open Google Scholar
  18. CAMERANI R. et al. (2013), “Private Copying”, available at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresearch-private-150313.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  19. CASSIERS V. (2013), “La jurisprudence de la Cour de justice en matière de copie privée: bilan et perspectives”, ICIP-Ing.Cons., N°1, pp. 1–39. Open Google Scholar
  20. CHAPDELAINE P. (2017), Copyright Users Rights. Contracts and the Erosion of Property, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  21. COHEN JENORAM H. (2005), “Restrictions on Copyright and their Abuse”, 27 EIPR, 359–364. Open Google Scholar
  22. COLIN C. (2012), Droit d’utilisation des Oeuvres, Bruxelles, Lacier. Open Google Scholar
  23. COMMUNIA (2016), “Europeans deserve a better copyright reform”, available at https://www.communia-association.org/2016/09/14/europeans-deserve-better-copyright-reform/ [accessed on 31 October 2017]. Open Google Scholar
  24. COOK T. and BRAZELL L. (2004), The Copyright Directive. UK Implementation, Cornwall, Jordans. Open Google Scholar
  25. CUNNINGHAM A. and REED C. (2013), “Caveat Consumer? – Consumer Protection and Cloud Computing, Part 1 – Issues of Definition in the Cloud”, Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 130/2013, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2202758 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  26. DAVIES W. and WITHERS K. (2006), Public Innovation, London, Institute for Public Policy Research. Open Google Scholar
  27. DE VISSCHER F. and MICHAUX B. (2002), Précis du droit d’auteur et des droits voisins, Brussels, Bruylant. Open Google Scholar
  28. DOCTOROW C. (2014), “What happens with digital rights management in the real world?”, 5 February, available at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2014/feb/05/digital-rights-management [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  29. DOCTOROW C. (2016), Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free. Laws for the Internet Age, San Francisco, McSweeney’s. Open Google Scholar
  30. DRECHSLER L. (2018), “Data As Counter-Performance: A New Way Forward or a Step Back for the Fundamental Right of Data Protection?” Jusletter IT 22, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3329345 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  31. DREIER T. (2007), “Regulating competition by way of copyright limitations and exceptions”, in: Torremans P. (ed.), Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, Cornwall, Edward Elgar, pp. 232–254. Open Google Scholar
  32. DREIER T. (2010), “Limitations: The Centrepiece of Copyright in Distress. An introduction”, 1 JIPITEC, 50–54. Open Google Scholar
  33. DREIER T. and HUGENHOLTZ P.B. (2006), Concise European Copyright Law, The Hague, Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  34. DUFF N. et al. (2005), “Digital Music Usage and DRM, Results from a European Consumer Survey”, available at http://www.indicare.org/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=110 [accessed on 22 May 2017]. Open Google Scholar
  35. DUSOLLIER, S. (2001). “Les mesures techniques dans la directive sur le droit d'auteur dans la société de l'information: un délicat compromise”, 25(2) LEGICOM, 75–86. Open Google Scholar
  36. DUSOLLIER S. (2004), “Copie privée versus mesures techniques de protection: l’exception est-elle un droit?”. Commentary to the decision Test-Achats v EMI Belgium et al., 4 Auteurs & Media, 338–345. Open Google Scholar
  37. DUSOLLIER S. (2005), “L’encadrement des exceptions au droit d’auteur par le test des trois étapes”, 10 Intellectuele Rechten – Droits Intellectuels, 213–223. Open Google Scholar
  38. DUSOLLIER S. (2007), “La contractualisation de l’utilisation des œuvres et l’expérience belge des exceptions impératives”, Colloque Propriétés Intellectuelles, Octobre 2007, No 25, pp. 443–452. Open Google Scholar
  39. DUSOLLIER S. (2008), “The role of the lawmaker and of the judge in the conflict between copyright exceptions, freedom of expression and technological measures”, in: Copyright and Freedom of Expression, Proceedings of the ALAI Conference Barcelona 2006, Barcelona, Huygens, pp. 569–578, available at https://works.bepress.com/severine_dusollier/8/. Open Google Scholar
  40. DUSOLLIER S. (2010), “The Relations between Copyright Law and Consumer's Rights from a European Perspective”, European Parliament Publication, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2127736 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  41. DUSOLLIER S. (2012), “DRM at the intersection of copyright law and technology: a case study for regulation”, in: BROUSSEAU E. and MERZOUKI M. (eds.), Governance, regulations and powers on the internet, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–317. Open Google Scholar
  42. DUSOLLIER S. and KER C. (2008), Private copy levies and technical protection of copyright: the uneasy accommodation of two conflicting logics”, in: DERCLAYE E. (ed.), Research handbook on the future of EU copyright, Northampton, Edward Elgar, pp. 349–372. Open Google Scholar
  43. break-after Open Google Scholar
  44. DUSOLLIER S. et al. (2009), “Digital products in the acquis communautaire in the field consumer protection”. Study prepared for BEUC (not published). Open Google Scholar
  45. EDRi (2013), “Copyright. Challenges of the digital era”, EDRI PAPER, issue 07, available at http://www.edri.org/files/paper07_copyright.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  46. ENGADGET (2013), “Second Life readies for 10th anniversary, celebrates a million active user per month”, available at https://www.engadget.com/2013/06/20/second-life-readies-for-10th-anniversary-celebrates-a-million-a/ [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  47. ERICKSON K. and KRETSCHMER M. (2018) ‘This Video is Unavailable’: Analyzing Copyright Takedown of User-Generated Content on YouTube, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E- Commerce Law, 9(1) JIPITEC, 75–89. Open Google Scholar
  48. EUROPE ECONOMICS (2011), “Digital content services for consumers: Assessment of problems experienced by consumers”, available at: http://www.europe-economics.com/publications/eahc_final_report_+_appendices.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  49. EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR (2017), Opinion 4/2017 on the Proposal for a Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content. Open Google Scholar
  50. EUROPEAN LAW INSTITUTE (2016), “Statement of the European Law Institute on the European Commission’s proposed directive on the supply of digital content to consumers”, available at https://www.europeanlaweinstitute.eu/fileadminUser_upload/p_eli/Publications/ELI_Statement_on_DCD.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  51. FAURE M. (2008), “Towards Maximum Harmonisation of Consumer Contract Law?!?”, 15 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 443–445. Open Google Scholar
  52. FICSOR M. (2010), “Protection of ‘DRM’ under the WIPO ‘Internet Treaties’: Interpretation and Application”, in: STAMATOUDI I. A. (ed.), Copyright Enforcement and the Internet, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, pp. 257–302. Open Google Scholar
  53. GEIGER C. (2007), “The role of the three-step test in the adaptation of copyright law to the information society”, e-Copyright Bulletin, January-March 2007, 1–21. Open Google Scholar
  54. GEIGER C., FROSIO G. and BULAYENKO O. (2018), “The EU Commission’s Proposal to Reform Copyright Limitations: A Good but Far Too Timid Step in the Right Direction”, 40 EIPR, 4–15. Open Google Scholar
  55. GEIGER C., GRIFFITHS J. and HILTY R. M. (2008), “Towards a Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-step Test’ in Copyright Law”, 30 EIPR, 489–496. Open Google Scholar
  56. GEIGER C. et al. (2010), “Declaration: A balanced interpretation of the ‘Three-Step Test’ in copyright law”, 1 JIPITEC, 119–122. Open Google Scholar
  57. GEIGER C., GERVAIS D. and SENFTLEBEN M. (2014), “The Three-Step Test Revisited: How to Use the Test’s Flexibility in National Copyright Law”, 29 American University International Law Review, 581–626. Open Google Scholar
  58. GIROT C. (2001), User protection in IT: A comparative study on the protection of the user against defective performance in information technology, The Hague, Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  59. GOMULKIEWICZ R.W. (1998), “The License Is the Product: Comments on the Promise of Article 2b for Software and Information Licensing”, 13 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 891–930. Open Google Scholar
  60. GOMULKIEWICZ R.W. (2004), “Getting serious about user-friendly mass market licencing for software”, 12 George Mason Law Review, 687–718. Open Google Scholar
  61. GORDLEY J. (2006), Foundations of Private Law. Property, Tort, Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  62. GOTZEN F. (2007), “Copyright in Europe: Quo Vadis? Some conclusions after the implementation of the Information Society Directive”, 211 Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur, 2–28. Open Google Scholar
  63. GRIFFITHS J. (2009), “The ‘Three-Step Test’ in European Copyright Law – Problems and Solutions”, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 428–457. Open Google Scholar
  64. GRIFFITHS J. (2010), “Unsticking the centre-piece – the liberation of European Copyright Law?”, 1 JIPITEC, 87–95. Open Google Scholar
  65. GROSSKLAGS J. and GROSSKLAGS N. (2007), “Empirical studies on software notices to inform policy makers and usability designers”, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Financial Cryptography and 1st International Conference on Usable Security, Trinidad/Tobago, Lowlands, Scarborough, pp. 341–355. Open Google Scholar
  66. GUIBAULT L. (2002), Copyright Limitations and Contracts: An Analysis of the Contractual Overridability of Limitations on Copyright, The Hague, Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  67. GUIBAULT L. (2008), “Accommodating the Needs of iConsumers: Making Sure They Get Their Money’s Worth of Digital Entertainment”, 31 JCP, 409–423. Open Google Scholar
  68. GUIBAULT L. and HELBERGER N. (2005), “Consumer protection and Copyright Law”. Study prepared for the European Consumer Law Group, ECLG/035/05, Brussels, February 2005. Open Google Scholar
  69. HACKER P. (2020), “Regulating the Economic Impact of Data as Counter-Performance: From the Illegality Doctrine to the Unfair Contract Terms Directive”, in: LOHSSE S., SCHULZE R. and STAUDENMAYER D. (eds.), Data as Counter-Performance – Contract Law 2.0?, Baden-Baden, Hart Publishing/Nomos, pp. 47–76. Open Google Scholar
  70. HAGGART B. (2013), Copyfight. The global politics of digital copyright reform, University of Toronto Press, Canada. Open Google Scholar
  71. HELBERGER N. (2004), “It' s not a right, silly! The private copying exception in practice”, INDICARE Monitor, 7 October 2004, https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/itsnotarightsilly.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  72. HELBERGER N., (2011), “Standardising Consumers’ Expectations in Digital Content”, 13(6) info, 69–79, available at https://doi.org/10.1108/14636691111174270 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  73. HELBERGER N. (2013), “Form Matters: Informing Consumers Effectively”, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2013–71, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2354988 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  74. HELBERGER N. and HUGENHOLTZ P. B. (2007), “No Place Like Home for Making a Copy: Private Copying in European Copyright Law and Consumer Law”, 22 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 1061–1098. Open Google Scholar
  75. HELBERGER N. et al. (2013a), Digital Consumers and the Law. Towards a Cohesive European Framework, The Hague, Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  76. HELBERGER N. et al. (2013b), “Digital Content Contracts for Consumers”, 36 JCP, 37–57. Open Google Scholar
  77. HELBERGER N., ZUIDERVEEN BORGESIUS F. and REYNA A. (2017), “The perfect match? A closer look at the relationship between EU consumer law and data protection law”, 54 CML Rev., 1427–1465. Open Google Scholar
  78. HESSELINK M.W. (2012), “The case for a common European sales law in an age of rising nationalism”, 8 ERCL, 342–366. Open Google Scholar
  79. HOWELLS G. (1999), “Good Faith in Consumer Contracting”, in: BROWNSWORD R., HIRD N. J. and HOWELLS G. (eds.), Good Faith in Contract. Concept and Context, Suffolk, Ashgate, pp. 91–114. Open Google Scholar
  80. HOWELLS G. (2009), “The Future for the Proposed Consumer Rights Directive”, EJCL, 805–812. Open Google Scholar
  81. HUGENHOLTZ P.B. (1997), “Fierce creatures – Copyright exceptions: Towards extinction?” Keynote speech, IFLA/IMPRIMATUR Conference, "Rights, Limitations and Exceptions: Striking a Proper Balance", Amsterdam, 30–31 October, available at https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/PBH-FierceCreatures.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  82. HUGENHOLTZ, P.B. (2000) “Why the Copyright Directive is Unimportant, and Possibly Invalid”, 11 EIPR, 501–502. Open Google Scholar
  83. HUGENHOLTZ P. B. (2016), “Say Nay to the Neighbouring Rights!”, available at http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2016/04/14/say-nay-to-the-neighbouring-right/ [accessed on 05 August 2019] Open Google Scholar
  84. HUGENHOLTZ P.B. et al. (2007), Study on the Implementation and Effect in Member States’ Laws of Directive 2001/29/EC on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2006358&rec=1&srcabs=1096564&alg=7&pos=3 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  85. HUGENHOLTZ P.B. and SENFTLEBEN M. (2012), “Fair Use in Europe. In Search of Flexibilities”, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2012–39; Institute for Information Law Research Paper No. 2012–33, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2013239 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  86. JACEK PAŁKA P. (2018), “Terms of Service are not Contracts – Beyond Contract Law in the Regulation of Online Platforms”, in: GRUNDMANN S. (ed.), European Contract Law in the Digital Age, European Contract Law and Theory 3, Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 135–161. Open Google Scholar
  87. JACQUEMIN H. (2010), “Digital content and consumer protection within European Law”, in: The 8th international workshop for technical, economic and legal aspects of business models for virtual goods: incorporating the 6th international ODRL workshop, September 30th-October 1st 2010 Namur, Belgium. Namur, Presses Universitaires de Namur, pp. 41–57. Open Google Scholar
  88. JACQUEMIN H. (2017), “Digital Content and Sales or Service contracts under EU Law and Belgian/French Law”, 8 JIPITEC, 27–37. Open Google Scholar
  89. JANEČEK V. and MALGIERI (2020), “Data Extra Commercium”, in: LOHSSE S., SCHULZE R. and STAUDENMAYER D. (eds.), Data as Counter-Performance – Contract Law 2.0?, Baden-Baden, Hart Publishing/Nomos, pp. 95–126. Open Google Scholar
  90. KARLANDER L. (2018), The ECJ’s Adjudication of Fundamental Rights Conflicts. In Search for a Fair Balance, Uppsala, Uppsala University. Open Google Scholar
  91. KEIRSBILCK B. (2013), “The interaction between consumer protection rules on unfair contract terms and unfair commercial practices: Perenicova and Perenic”, 50 CML Rev., 247–264. Open Google Scholar
  92. KRETSCHMER M. (2011), “Private Copying and Fair Compensation. An empirical study of copyright levies in Europe”. Report commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office. Open Google Scholar
  93. KRETSCHMER M. et al. (2010a), “The Relationship between Copyright and Contract Law: A Review commissioned by the UK Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP)”, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2624945 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  94. KRETSCHMER M. et al. (2010b), Privilege and Property. Essays on the History of Copyright, Cambridge, Open Book Publishers. Open Google Scholar
  95. KREUTZER T. (2012), “Consumer Protection in Copyright Law. Suggestions for reforming certain aspects of current copyright law based on an analysis made from a consumer protection point of views”. Study prepared for the Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband, Berlin. Open Google Scholar
  96. KUCZERAWY A. (2019), “To Monitor or Not to Monitor? The Uncertain Future of Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive”, available at https://balkin.blogspot.com/2019/05/to-monitor-or-not-to-monitor-uncertain.html [Accessed 6 August 2019] Open Google Scholar
  97. LASTOWKA G. (2010), Virtual Justice: The New Laws of Online Worlds, Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar
  98. LEHMANN M. (2016), “A European Market for Digital Goods”, in: DE FRANCESCHI A. (ed.), European Contract Law and the Digital Single Market. The Implications of the Digital Revolution, Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 111–126. Open Google Scholar
  99. LESSIG L. (2004), Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and Law To Lockdown Culture And Control Creativity, New York, Penguin. Open Google Scholar
  100. LESSIG L. (2008), Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy, New York, Penguin. Open Google Scholar
  101. LIBERATION (2008), “La copie privée est une exception legal, pas un droit”, 8 December, available at http://www.liberation.fr/ecrans/2008/12/08/la-copie-privee-est-une-exception-legale-pas-un-droit_953049 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  102. LINKLATER E. (2014), “UsedSoft and the Big Bang Theory: Is the e-Exhaustion Meteor about to Strike?”, 5 JIPITEC, 12–22. Open Google Scholar
  103. LOOS M. (2014), “The regulation of digital content B2C contracts in CESL”, 3 Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, 146–159. Open Google Scholar
  104. LOOS M. and MAK C. (2012), “Remedies for Buyers in Case of Contracts for the Supply of Digital Content”: Note prepared for the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2012/462459/IPOL-JURI_NT%282012 %29462459_EN.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  105. LOOS, M. B. M. et al. (2011), Comparative analysis, Law & Economics analysis, assessment and development for recommendations for the possible future rules on digital content contracts, Final Report, available at http://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=7d3d806d-8315-4aa6-8fb6-1fc565d2b557 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  106. MACQUEEN H. et al. (2011), Contemporary Intellectual Property. Law and Policy, 2nd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  107. MAK V. (2016), The new proposal for harmonised rules on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content, In-Depth Analysis, January 2016, PE 536.494. Open Google Scholar
  108. MAŃKO R. (2015), Contract law and the Digital Single Market. Towards a new EU online consumer sales law?, EPRS, In-Depth Analysis, September 2015, PE 568.322. Open Google Scholar
  109. MAXWELL W. and MASSALOUX J. (2006), “French Copyright Law Reform: French Supreme Court Upholds Legality of DVD Anti-Copy Measures”, 17 Entertainment Law Review, 145–147. Open Google Scholar
  110. MCFADDEN P. M. (1988), “The Balancing Test”, 29 B.C.L. Rev. 585–656. Open Google Scholar
  111. MCGOWAN D. (2006), “Some Copyright Consumer Conundrums”, in: WINN J. K. (ed.), Consumer protection in the age of the `information economy, Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 155–174. Open Google Scholar
  112. METZGER, A., SENFTLEBEN M et al. (2020), “Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society” available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3589323 [accessed on 20 August 2020]. Open Google Scholar
  113. MEZEI P. (2015), “Digital First Sale Doctrine Ante Portas. Exhaustion in the Online Environment”, 6 JIPITEC, 23–71. Open Google Scholar
  114. MICKLITZ, H.-W. (2018), The Politics of Justice in European Private Law. Social Justice, Access Justice and Societal Justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  115. MICKLITZ H.-W. and KAS B. (2014), “Overview of Cases before the CJEU on European Consumer Contract Law” (2009–2013) Part I, 10 ERCL, 1–63; Part II, 10 ERCL, 189–257. Open Google Scholar
  116. MICKLITZ H.-W. and REICH N. (2012a), “AGB-Recht und UWG – (endlich) ein Ende des Kästchendenkens nach EuGH Pereničová und Invitel?”, EWS, 257–264. Open Google Scholar
  117. MICKLITZ H.-W. and REICH N. (2012b), “The Commission Proposal for a “Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (CESL)” – Too Broad or Not Broad Enough?”, EUI Working Papers Law 04/2012. Open Google Scholar
  118. MICKLITZ H.-W. and REICH N. (2014), “The Court and Sleeping Beauty: The Revival of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD)”, 51 CML Rev., 771–808. Open Google Scholar
  119. MOTHERBOARD (2017), “The Incredibly Technical History of Digital Rights Management”, 19 October, available at https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evbgkn/the-incredibly-technical-history-of-digital-rights-management [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  120. NAVARRETA M. (2015), “Good Faith and Reasonableness in European Contract Law”, in: RUTGERS J. and SIRENA P. (eds.), Rules and Principles in European Contract Law, European Contract Law and Theory 1, Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 135–150. Open Google Scholar
  121. NEBBIA P. (2007), Unfair Contract Terms in European Law. A study in Comparative and EC Law, Oxford, Hart. Open Google Scholar
  122. NEUMAYER K.-H. (1999), “Contracting subject to standard terms and conditions”, International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law: Contracts in general, Vol. VII, Part 12, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck. Open Google Scholar
  123. OLIVER J. (2002), “Copyright in the WTO: The Panel Decision on the Three-Step Test”, 25 Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, 119–170. Open Google Scholar
  124. OPRYSK, L. and SEIN, K. (2020), “Limitations in End-User Licensing Agreements: Is There a Lack of Conformity Under the New Digital Content Directive?”, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 51, 594–623. Open Google Scholar
  125. PACHL U. (2012), “The Common European Sales Law – Have the right choices been made? A consumer policy perspective”, Maastricht European Private Law Institute Working Paper 06/2012, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2027455 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  126. PACHL U. and REYNA A. (2012), “Unfair Contract Terms in Business-to-Consumer Contracts in the proposed Common European Sales Law”. Note prepared for European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs for the workshop of 31 May 2012. Open Google Scholar
  127. PERTÍÑEZ VÍLCHEZ F. (2003), “Los elementos esenciales del contrato y el control de las condiciones generales”, Aranzadi civil, No. 3, 2171–2183. Open Google Scholar
  128. PERZANOWSKI A. and HOOFNAGLE C.J. (2017), “What We Buy When We Buy Now”, 165 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 315–378. Open Google Scholar
  129. PRICHARD J.J. and HAYDEN M.B. (2008), “Assessing the readability of freeware end-user licensing agreements”, 9(2) Issues in Information Systems, 452–459. Open Google Scholar
  130. QUINTAIS J. P. (2019), “The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look”, European Intellectual Property Review 2019 (forthcoming) available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3424770 [accessed on 05 August 2019] Open Google Scholar
  131. QUINTAIS J.P. and FROSIO G. et al (2020), “Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics”, 10 JIPITEC 277, para 1. Open Google Scholar
  132. RAMBERG C. (2018), “Digital Content – A Digital CESL II – A Paradigm for Contract Law via the Backdoor?”, in: GRUNDMANN S. (ed.), European Contract Law in the Digital Age, European Contract Law and Theory 3, Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 315–328. Open Google Scholar
  133. REICH N. (2011), “Case Plus: Experiences with full harmonisation in Dir. 2005/29 after Plus – from back to grey lists?”, REDC, 393–402. Open Google Scholar
  134. REICH N. (2014), General Principles of EU Civil Law, Cambridge, Intersentia. Open Google Scholar
  135. REICH N. (2015a), “Balancing in Private Law and the Imperatives of the Public Interest: National Experiences and (Missed?) European Opportunities”, in: BROWNSWORD R. et al. (eds.) The Foundations of European Private Law, Oxford and Portland, Hart, pp. 221–248. Open Google Scholar
  136. REICH N. (2015b), “The Principle of Effectiveness and EU Contract Law”, in: RUTGERS J. and SIRENA P. (eds.), Rules and Principles in European Contract Law, European Contract Law and Theory 1, Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 45–67. Open Google Scholar
  137. REICH N. and MICKLITZ H.-W. (2009), “Crónica de una muerte anunciada: The Commission Proposal for a ‘Directive on Consumer Rights”, 46 CML Rev., 471–519. Open Google Scholar
  138. REICH N. and MICKLITZ H.-W. (2013), “Von der Klausel- zur Marktkontrolle”, EuZW, 457–460. Open Google Scholar
  139. REICH N., MICKLITZ H.-W., ROTT P. and TONNER K. (2014), European Consumer Law, Cambridge, Intersentia. Open Google Scholar
  140. REINBOTHE J. and VON LEWINSKI S. (2002), The WIPO Treaties 1996 – The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonogram Treaty: Commentary and Legal Analysis, London, Butterworth-LexisNexis. Open Google Scholar
  141. RENDAS T. (2018), “Spiegel Online: Do copyright exceptions and fundamental rights make easy bedfellows?”, 13(1) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 10–12. Open Google Scholar
  142. REYNA A. (2014), “What place for consumer protection in the Single Market for digital content? Reflections on the European Commission’s optional regulation policy”, EJCL, 333–361. Open Google Scholar
  143. REYNA A. (2016), “A tale of two industries: the “value gap” dilemma in music distribution”, Internet Policy Review, available at https://policyreview.info/articles/news/tale-two-industries-value-gap-dilemma-music-distribution/421 [accessed on 05 August 2019] Open Google Scholar
  144. RIMMER M. (2007), Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands off my IPod, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  145. ROGERS M., TOMALIN J. and CORRIGAN R. (2010), The economic impact of consumer copyright exceptions: A literature review. Study made for Consumer Focus, available at http://publications.aston.ac.uk/29567/1/Economic_impact_of_consumer_copyright_exceptions.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  146. ROMERO MORENO F. (2020) “‘Upload filters’ and human rights: implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market”, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 34:2, 153–182. Open Google Scholar
  147. RÖTHEL A. and MÖSLEIN F. (2017), “Concretisation of General Clauses”, in: RIESENHUBER K. (ed.), European Legal Methodology, Intersentia, Cambridge, pp. 261–289. Open Google Scholar
  148. ROTT P. (2004), „Privatkopie und Urhebervertragsrecht aus der Perspektive des Verbraucherrechts“, in: HILTY R.M. and PEUKERT A. (eds.), Interessenausgleich im Urheberrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 267–287. Open Google Scholar
  149. ROTT P. (2008), “Download of Copyright-Protected Internet Content and the Role of (Consumer) Contract Law", 31 JCP, 441–457. Open Google Scholar
  150. ROTT P. (2012a), “Extension of the Proposed Consumer Rights Directive to Cover the Online Purchase of Digital Products”. Study commissioned by BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation. – A summary can be accessed at BEUC (2012), “Digital Products, How to Include them in the Proposal for a Consumer Rights Directive”, available at http://www.beuc.eu/publications/2010-00506-01-e.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  151. ROTT P. (2012b), “More coherence? A higher level of consumer protection? – A review of the new Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU”, EJCL, 371–390. Open Google Scholar
  152. ROUNIER P. (1963), Droits subjectifs et situations juridiques, Paris, Dalloz. Open Google Scholar
  153. RUB G. A. (2015), “Rebalancing Copyright Exhaustion”, 64 Emory Law Journal 741–817. Open Google Scholar
  154. RUBI PUIG A. (2013), “Copyright Exhaustion Rationales and Used Software. A Law and Economics Approach to Oracle v UsedSoft”, 4 JIPITEC, 159–178. Open Google Scholar
  155. SCHULTE-NÖLKE H., TWIGG-FLESNER C. and EBERS M. (eds.) (2008), EC Consumer Law Compendium. The Consumer Acquis and its transposition in the Member States, Sellier, Munich. Open Google Scholar
  156. SCHULZE R. (ed.) (2012), Common European Sales Law (CESL) Commentary, Baden-Baden, C.H. Beck / Hart / Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  157. SCHULZE R. (2016), “Supply of Digital Content: A New Challenge for European Contract Law”, in: De Franceschi A. (ed.), European Contract Law and the Digital Single Market. The Implications of the Digital Revolution, Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 127–144. Open Google Scholar
  158. SCHULZE R., STAUDENMAYER D. and LOHSSE S. (eds.) (2017), Contracts for the supply of Digital Content: Regulatory Challenges and Gaps, Münster Colloquia on EU Law and the Digital Economy II, Baden-Baden, Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  159. SENFTLEBEN M. (2004), Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test – An Analysis of the Three-Step test in International and EC Copyright Law, The Hague, Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  160. SENFTLEBEN M. (2009), “Fair Use in the Netherlands – a Renaissance?”, 33 Tijdschrift voor auteurs, media en informatierecht (AMI), 1–7. Open Google Scholar
  161. SENFTLEBEN M. (2010), “The International Three-Step Test. A Model Provision for EC Fair Use Legislation, 1 JIPITEC, 67–82. Open Google Scholar
  162. SENFTLEBEN M. et al. (2017), “The Recommendation on Measures to Safeguard Fundamental Rights and the Open Internet in the Framework of the EU Copyright Reform”, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3054967 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  163. SGANGA C. (2015), “EU Copyright Law Between Property and Fundamental Rights: A proposal to Connect the Dots”, in: CASO R. and GIOVANELLA F. (eds.), Balancing Copyright Law in the Digital Age. Comparative Perspectives, Springer, Berlin, pp. 1–26. Open Google Scholar
  164. SHAHEED F. (2012), Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights: “The right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications”, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A-HRC-20-26_en.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  165. SIKLOS R. (2006), “A Virtual World but Real Money”, New York Times, 19 October 2006, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/technology/19virtual.html?_r=1& [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  166. SLUITER S. (2015), “The Dutch courts apply UsedSoft to the resale of eBooks”, available at http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2015/01/28/the-dutch-courts-apply-usedsoft-to-the-resale-of-ebooks/ [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  167. SMITS J. (2010), “Full Harmonisation of Consumer Law? A Critic of the Draft Directive on Consumer Rights”, 18 ERPL, 5–14. Open Google Scholar
  168. SPEDICATO G. (2015), “Online Exhaustion and the Boundaries of Interpretation”, in: CASO R. and GIOVANELLA F. (eds.), Balancing Copyright Law in the Digital Age, Berlin, Springer, pp. 27–64. Open Google Scholar
  169. SPINDLER G., KLÖHN L. (2003), “Neue Qualifikationsprobleme im E-Commerce – Kaufvertrag, Werkvertrag, Verbrauchsgüterkauf?”, CR, 81–86. Open Google Scholar
  170. SPINDLER, G. (2016), “Contracts for the supply of digital content – Scope of application and basic approach – Proposal of the Commission for a Directive on contracts for the supply of digital content”, 12 ERCL, 183–217. Open Google Scholar
  171. SPINDLER, G. (2017), “Contract Law and Copyright – Regulatory Challenges and Gaps”, in: SCHULZE R., STAUDENMAYER D. and LOHSSE S. (eds.), Contracts for the supply of Digital Content: Regulatory Challenges and Gaps, Münster Colloquia on EU Law and the Digital Economy II, Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp. 211–228. Open Google Scholar
  172. SPINDLER G. (2018), “Contracts for the Supply of Digital Content – The Proposal of the Commission for a Directive on Contracts for the Supply of Digital Content”, in: GRUNDMANN S. (ed.), European Contract Law in the Digital Age, European Contract Law and Theory 3, Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 281–313. Open Google Scholar
  173. STALLA-BOURDILLON, S. et al. (2016) “Open Letter to the European Commission – On the Importance of Preserving the Consistency and Integrity of the EU Acquis Relating to Content Monitoring within the Information Society”, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2850483 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  174. STIM R. (2016), Getting Permission, Using & Licensing Copyright-Protected Materials Online & Off, 6th ed., NOLO. Open Google Scholar
  175. STOKES S. (2014), Digital Copyright. Law and Practice, 4th ed., Oxford, Hart. Open Google Scholar
  176. STONE B. (2009), “Amazon Erases Orwell Books from Kindle”, New York Times, 17 July 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  177. STONE R. (2000), Principles of Contract Law, 4th ed., London, Cavendish Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  178. STUPP C., “New lead MEP could shift talks on contentious copyright bill”, available at https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/new-lead-mep-could-shift-talks-on-contentious-copyright-bill/ [accessed on 05 August 2019]. Open Google Scholar
  179. SUTHERSANEN U. (2005), “Human Rights and International Copyright Law”, in: GRIFFITH J. and SUTHERSANEN U. (eds.), Copyright and Free Speech, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 97–124. Open Google Scholar
  180. TARGOSZ T. (2012), “Copyright Exceptions and Consumers”, available at http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2012/01/14/copyright-exceptions-and-consumer-rights/. Open Google Scholar
  181. TENREIRO M, (1995), “The Community Directive on Unfair Terms and National Legal Systems: The Principle of Good Faith and Remedies for Unfair Terms”, 3 ERPL, 273–284. Open Google Scholar
  182. TITCOMB J. (2016), “Internet piracy falls to record lows amid rise of Spotify and Netflix”, The Telegraph, 5 July 2016, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/04/internet-piracy-falls-to-record-lows-amid-rise-of-spotify-and-ne/ [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  183. TRIAILLE J.-P. et al. (2015), “Preliminary studies to the future EU Copyright review: about (some) exclusive rights and (some) exceptions”, Auteurs et Media, 147–157. Open Google Scholar
  184. TRIAILLE J.-P. et al. (2013), “Study on the Application of Directive 2001/29/EC on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society (The InfoSoc Directive)”, available at https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9ebb5084-ea89-4b3e-bda2-33816f11425b [accessed on 22 May 2017]. Open Google Scholar
  185. TURNER M. and CALLAGHAN D. (2008), “You can Look But Don’t Touch! The Impact of the Google v Copiepresse Decision on the Future of the Internet”, 30 EIPR, 34–38. Open Google Scholar
  186. TWIGG-FLESNER C. (2020), “Conformity of Goods and Digital Content/Digital Services” in ARROYO AMAYUELAS E. AND CÁMARA LAPUENTE S. (Eds.), The impact of digitalization on private law, Barcelona-Madrid, Marcial Pons. Open Google Scholar
  187. TWIGG-FLESNER C. and METCALF D. (2009), “The Proposed Consumer Rights Directive – less haste, more thought?”, 5 ERCL, 368–391. Open Google Scholar
  188. UNESCO (1998), “Our creative diversity. Intergovernmental conference on cultural policies for development”. Statement of the conference held in Stockholm on 30 March – 2 April 1998. Open Google Scholar
  189. UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM (2007), “Study on the Implementation and Effect in Member States’ Laws of Directive 2001/29/EC on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society”, Final Report, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2006358&rec=1&srcabs=1096564&alg=7&pos=3 [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  190. UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION LAW (2018), “Academics Against Press Publishers’ Right”, available at https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press- publishers-right/ [accessed on 05 August 2019]. Open Google Scholar
  191. VAN HOBOKEN J. and HELBERGER N. (2008), “Looking Ahead – Future Issues when Reflecting on the Place of the iConsumer in Consumer Law and Copyright Law”, 31 JCP, 489–496. Open Google Scholar
  192. VON MEHREN A. (1982), “A general view of contract”, International Encyclopedia of Compative Law, Vol. VII, Part 1: Contract Law in General, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, chapter 1. Open Google Scholar
  193. VRANKEN M. (1997), Fundamentals of European Civil Law, Maryborough, Blackstone Press. Open Google Scholar
  194. WAGNER, R.P. (2003), “Information Wants to be Free: Intellectual Property and the Mythologies of Control”, 103 Columbia Law Review, 995–1034. Open Google Scholar
  195. WEATHERILL S. (2014), EU Consumer Law and Policy, 2nd ed., Padstow, Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  196. WENDEHORST C. (2016), “Sale of goods and supply of digital content – two worlds apart? Why the law on sale of goods needs to respond better to the challenges of the digital age”, Policy Department C in-depth analysis, PE 556.928. Open Google Scholar
  197. WESTKAMP G. (2007), “The Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC in the Member States” (Part II), Final Report, available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/infosoc-study-annex_en.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  198. Which? (2012), “Consumer attitudes to copyright reform. Format shifting: Private Copying Exception”, available at https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/Secondary-Legislation-Scrutiny-Committee/Which_Copyright.pdf [accessed on 22 May 2018]. Open Google Scholar
  199. WHITTAKER S. (2015), “General Principles and Underlying Principles in the Proposed Common European Sales Law and their Role in its Interpretation”, in: RUTGERS J. and SIRENA P. (eds.), Rules and Principles in European Contract Law, European Contract Law and Theory 1, Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 99–121. Open Google Scholar
  200. WILLETT C. (2007), Fairness in Consumer Contracts. The case of Unfair Terms, Padstow, Ashgate. Open Google Scholar
  201. WILHELMSSON T. (2004), “Varieties of Welfarism in European Contract Law”, 10(6) European Law Journal, 712–733. Open Google Scholar
  202. WINN J. and JONDET N. (2008), “A ‘New Approach’ to Standards and Consumer Protection”, 31 JCP, 459–472. Open Google Scholar
  203. WITT S. (2015), How music got free. The end of an industry, the turn of the century, and the patient zero of piracy, New York, Viking. Open Google Scholar
  204. YANGUAS GOMEZ R. (2012), “El principio de conformidad y su aplicacion a los contenidos digitales”, in: CÁMARA LAPUENTE S. and ARROYO AMAYUELAS E. (eds.), La revision de las normas La revisión de las normas europeas y nacionales de protección de los consumidores. Más allá de la Directiva sobre Derechos de los consumidores y del Instrumento Opcional sobre un Derecho europeo de la Compraventa de octubre de 2011, Cizur Menor, Thomson-Reuters/Civitas, pp. 471–507. Open Google Scholar
  205. YOUNGS R. (2014), English, French & German Comparative Law, 3rd ed., Abingdon and New York, Routledge. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law"
Cover of book: Recognition of Restructuring Plans under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency
Book Titles Full access
Abbas Abbasov
Recognition of Restructuring Plans under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency
Cover of book: Auftrag, Dienst- und Arbeitsvertrag
Book Titles No access
Chia-Te Hsiao
Auftrag, Dienst- und Arbeitsvertrag
Cover of book: Comparative Perspectives on the Law of Energy Transition in Europe
Edited Book Full access
Michael Rodi, Johannes Saurer
Comparative Perspectives on the Law of Energy Transition in Europe
Cover of book: Die Rolle des Gerichts im Rahmen des Prozessvergleichs
Book Titles No access
Adomas Jankauskis
Die Rolle des Gerichts im Rahmen des Prozessvergleichs
Cover of book: Questioning the Role of Competition Law in the 21st Century
Edited Book No access
Ranjana Andrea Achleitner, Eva Fischer, Lena Hornkohl, Bernadette Zelger
Questioning the Role of Competition Law in the 21st Century

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)

Welcome to Inlibra – Your Platform for Digital Professional Information

Nomos, C.H.Beck, VDI and over 100 other publishers combine their content here to create one of the largest platforms for digital professional information.

Research efficiently, cite long-term, use reliably – all united in one place.

Login

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

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex