Iptegrity understands that there is a draft directive on notice and action in existence. It will affect anyone providing  or using web hosting facililities, search engines and  social media.  It is currently making its way around the inter-stitial processes in the European Commission. That means it is being passed around for comment to the different units that have an interest in it.  From what I understand, the draft directive is

 an attempt to standardise the process for take-down requests, and that it also extends the concept of ‘take-down’ to include other types of actions (presumably blocking of content or payment facilities although this is not clear at this stage).

 There is a very real problem with take-down requests as things currently stand. Take-down requests are when someone asks a hosting provider, such as YouTube, or an ISP, to remove content that has been uploaded onto a web server. They are typically used by rights-holders for removal of copyrighted material, and  for the removal of other content such as alleged libel.

 Unlike the US, where the Digital Millenium copyright Act (DMCA) sets out very clearly what must be done by claimants and recipients of take-down requests, there is no formal take-down procedure spelled out under European law. And the establishment of a European-style DMCA has been resisted in the past.

 However, the situation is now that European take-down requests are  de facto governed by the DMCA, because European-based organisations are sending their take-down requests to the Us headquarters of companies such as Google and FaceBook, and  using the DMCA as their justification. Likewise, the Internet companies are using the DMCA as their guideline for how to manage such requests.

 Requests to domestic hosts in EU member states are dealt with on an individual basis, under national law, and sometimes not even that – they are decided by the person who happens to receive the request.

In both cases, it can be argued that take-downs in Europe are subject to private enforcement. This creates a chaotic and inconsistent situation, with consequent lack of certainty for Internet service providers and content companies.

 Hence, a directive could actually be the best way to calm the chaos.

But it depends what’s in it.  From what I understand, the Commission’s draft directive is lacking in substance on certain points,  and it risks increasing the possibilities for private law enforcement.

The issues that it should be addressing, but which may be missing are:

-  making a distinction between civil and criminal law. This is important because some content – for example, content that infringes copyright, or is defamatory – is subject to civil law; whereas other content, such as child abuse images, is subject to criminal law.

- proper guidance for providers, who should not be left to take the decision about what is legal and illegal. Civil law  take-downs should be determined by a court order, not by an employee of the host or ISP.  In some EU member states, such as Spain, this will be determined by the Constitution.

-  a transparency  requirement on hosting and Internet service providers  who should be required by law to publish reports on takedowns received and acted on.


- a definition of ‘action’ in this context. We may assume that it means blocking of content or payment facilities, rendering invisible, etc, but the directive really needs to be clear as to what is intended. Otherwise, we will have the chaotic situation where different methods are used by different providers at their own discretion.

 In the context of the current environment, a European Commission  initiative to regulate take-down requests may be welcomed.

 However, if it fails to address these critical points, then it risks increasing the uncertainty for providers, and of course, for users. Currently, under the de facto US system, providers are on some very grey legal ground. If there is an EU directive, then they will claim that their actions are legitimate.

 Users  want the commission to get the balance right between provider certainty and user’s rights to freedom of expression. They  need assurance  that the law will not support their content being arbitrarily judged  and thrown out by private employees operating under a shaky piece of law.

  This is an original article from Iptegrity.com and reflects research that I have carried out. If you refer to it or to its content,  please cite my name as the  author, and provide a link back to iptegrity.com.  Media and Academics – please cite as Monica Horten, 2013,  Notice & action directive: how will the EU balance users’ rights?, in iptegrity.com, 13 June  2013.  Commercial users - please contact me.





The Copyright Enforcement Enigma 'accurate and absorbing account of the story of the Telecoms Package' -Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology

'...a must read for those interested in knowing in depth about copyright enforcement and Internet.' -Journal of Intellectual Property Rights.  

Read more  

Copyright Enforcement Enigma launch, March 2012

European Parliament launch for Copyright Enforcement Enigma

Don't miss Iptegrity! Iptegrity.com  RSS/ Bookmark      

Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten. She is  a trainer & consultant on Internet governance policy, published author& Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics & Political Science. She served as an independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee on  Internet freedom (MSI-INT). Most recently she has worked on projects in the former Soviet states.  She was shortlisted for The Guardian Open Internet Poll 2012. Iptegrity  offers expert insights into Internet policy. Iptegrity has a core readership in the Brussels policy community, and has been cited in the media. Please acknowledge Iptegrity when you cite or link.  For more, see IP politics with integrity

Iptegrity.com is made available free of charge for  non-commercial use, Please link-back & attribute Monica Horten. Thank you for respecting this.

Contact  me to use  iptegrity content for commercial purposes