Skip to main navigationSkip to main content
The University of Southampton
Interdisciplinary Centre for Law, Internet and Culture (iCLIC)

Online content regulation at the crossroads of automation and injunctions: the way forward Event

ILAWS members
14:00 - 16:00
20 November 2017
Room 1107, B176L, Boldrewood Campus

Event details

In 2014 the UK Government acknowledged “content regulation of the internet could give rise to unintended consequences such as stifling the free flow of ideas and expression that lies at the heart of the development of the internet.” However, the sentiments underpinning this position are currently in a state of flux. Politicians have toughened their words and policy makers have been more zealous than in the past, calling for enhanced responsibility for online platforms. What are – and what should be – the implications of this call for enhanced responsibility? Are alternatives to the enrolment of private actors available and workable? What are the international law challenges related to the enrolment of private actors in the law enforcement process?

Speaker information

Dr Micheál Ó Floinn, Lecturer in Cyber Security Law, Territoriality and the Enrolment of Service Providers in the Law Enforcement Process. Online IP infringement today is invariably multi-jurisdictional, implicating the laws of various countries. Law enforcement routinely deal with domestic service providers that host evidence abroad, or foreign service providers with vital information required for proceedings. Traditional inter-State mechanisms for securing access to this information is known to be inefficient, slow, cumbersome, and usually unsuitable for investigative purposes. In this talk, I consider the international law challenges faced by law enforcement in this environment, and some legal developments on both sides of the Atlantic: the Microsoft warrant case and its progeny, and the extraterritorial provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

Dr Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon, Associate Professor in Information Technology Law , Content regulation online and human rights: how to enrol private actors? Online platforms have been the focus of attention in recent months: they have been called upon by many – and in particular by the European Commission – to “actively” engage in the fight against illegal content and to implement “proactive” measures such as content recognition technology. The proposal for a Copyright Directive in the Digital Single Market is a clear illustration of this trend as well as the last Communication of the European Commission on tackling illegal content online. These initiatives raise the question as to what extent the enlistment of private power through hard or soft law instruments is compatible with human right standards and whether the time has come to seriously consider alternatives such as online courts.

Dr Eleonora Rosati, Associate Professor in Intellectual Property Law, Intermediary IP injunctions: who must bear the implementation costs? Intermediary injunctions, including blocking orders, have become particularly frequent in the intellectual property (IP) enforcement process. After the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions of Cartier, the UK Supreme Court is set to decide whether intermediaries should bear the costs of implementing the injunctions obtained by relevant rightholders. The question that arises is whether such matter can be governed exclusively by domestic provisions or whether, instead, some guidance and principles must be derived from EU law

Dr Luke McDonagh,Senior Lecturer, Law School at City, University of London,Evaluating the Reforms of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court - What Lessons for Online Courts? Luke will present his research into the 2010-2013 reforms of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). The reforms had a transformative effect on the court's ability to attract small-scale litigants. He considers whether the success of the reforms has any lessons for online courts.

Karmen Turk,Partner TRINITI Law Firm, Visiting Lecturer in IT law, University of Tartu, Estonia, Drawing from her legal expertise in human rights, intellectual property, media law and her work in the Delfi v. Estonia case before the European Court of Human Rights, Karmen will present the pros and cons of the Estonian current civil procedure injunction model that could be implemented in other states as online courts for the purposes of content regulation online.

Privacy Settings