lower court, affirming that Italy’s laws of libel
apply to content on foreign Web sites accessible
by Internet users in the country. 39 The Court held
that while the offending statements were posted
outside of Italy, the effects were felt within the
country and were therefore subject to the national laws.
The issue of the need for a unified framework was brought to the fore once more in
February 2007 as a part of the European
Parliament’s second reading of the Rome II
Regulation, which seeks to establish rules on the
applicable law to noncontractual obligations relevant to publications via the Internet and other
electronic networks. The Parliament’s proposed
amendment is that the law applicable should be
that of the country to which “the publication or
broadcast is most directed,” which is to be determined “by the language of the publication or
broadcast, or by sales or audience size in a given
country as a proportion of total sales or audience
size, or by a combination of these factors.”
Further, the amendment suggests that if these
are not easy to determine, “the relevant law will
be the one of the country where editorial control
is exercised.” With regard to the right to reply, it is
suggested that the applicable law should be that
of the country in which the publisher or broadcaster has its “habitual residence.” The text,
which has been adopted by the Parliament, is not
expected to find easy favor with the European
Council and must undergo a standard conciliatory procedure where member states and
Members of European Pariliament, in equal representation, debate the proposal, and it will be
approved as a regulation if an acceptable compromise is reached. 40
In their current form, defamation laws at the
country level, particularly in the UK, have been
criticized for leading to a “Web takedown” culture
where ISPs immediately remove content that is
allegedly defamatory when brought to their
notice, for fear of facing law suits. The concern in
the UK, as in other nations, is that this can have
a “chilling effect” on lawful online content and
behavior. 41
A landmark precedent in the UK led the way
for the establishment of a notice-and-takedown
system. In Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet
Limited, a defamatory statement was made on a
posting to a newsgroup called “soc.culture.thai,”
available on a server at the provider Demon
Internet Limited. The message was found to be
forged and only appeared to come from Godfrey.
Despite a request by Godfrey to take down the
content, as it was defamatory of him, the ISP did
not comply. As a result, he claimed damages for
libel under §1 of the Defamation Act, 1996, and
settled with Demon out of court. 42
Libel law in the UK has been known to be
particularly sympathetic to libel plaintiffs—and is
often contrasted with the law in the United States
in this context—such that many individuals from
outside countries have sued publications in the
UK, despite a relatively small circulation there, for
a better chance of winning. However, the Jameel
v. Wall Street Journal Europe case significantly
increased press protections against libel claims
in October 2006. 43 There has also been debate
over whether the protection of the reputation of
individuals is in conflict with the Human Rights
Act of 1998, insofar as it might infringe upon the
right to free speech. 44
Copyright
A few countries in Europe have begun to employ
Internet filtering to combat copyright infringement, evolving toward the notice-and-takedown
approach used in the United States. In Denmark,
as per a ruling of the Copenhagen City Court on
October 2006, TDC, the country’s largest ISP,
blocked access to a Web site that distributes illegally copied music. 45 In February 2007, as mentioned earlier, Norway proposed filtering on a
much larger scale that would include blocking of
peer-to-peer sites offering illegal downloads of
music, movies, and television shows. 46
Regional Overviews
191
apply to content on foreign Web sites accessible
by Internet users in the country. 39 The Court held
that while the offending statements were posted
outside of Italy, the effects were felt within the
country and were therefore subject to the national laws.
The issue of the need for a unified framework was brought to the fore once more in
February 2007 as a part of the European
Parliament’s second reading of the Rome II
Regulation, which seeks to establish rules on the
applicable law to noncontractual obligations relevant to publications via the Internet and other
electronic networks. The Parliament’s proposed
amendment is that the law applicable should be
that of the country to which “the publication or
broadcast is most directed,” which is to be determined “by the language of the publication or
broadcast, or by sales or audience size in a given
country as a proportion of total sales or audience
size, or by a combination of these factors.”
Further, the amendment suggests that if these
are not easy to determine, “the relevant law will
be the one of the country where editorial control
is exercised.” With regard to the right to reply, it is
suggested that the applicable law should be that
of the country in which the publisher or broadcaster has its “habitual residence.” The text,
which has been adopted by the Parliament, is not
expected to find easy favor with the European
Council and must undergo a standard conciliatory procedure where member states and
Members of European Pariliament, in equal representation, debate the proposal, and it will be
approved as a regulation if an acceptable compromise is reached. 40
In their current form, defamation laws at the
country level, particularly in the UK, have been
criticized for leading to a “Web takedown” culture
where ISPs immediately remove content that is
allegedly defamatory when brought to their
notice, for fear of facing law suits. The concern in
the UK, as in other nations, is that this can have
a “chilling effect” on lawful online content and
behavior. 41
A landmark precedent in the UK led the way
for the establishment of a notice-and-takedown
system. In Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet
Limited, a defamatory statement was made on a
posting to a newsgroup called “soc.culture.thai,”
available on a server at the provider Demon
Internet Limited. The message was found to be
forged and only appeared to come from Godfrey.
Despite a request by Godfrey to take down the
content, as it was defamatory of him, the ISP did
not comply. As a result, he claimed damages for
libel under §1 of the Defamation Act, 1996, and
settled with Demon out of court. 42
Libel law in the UK has been known to be
particularly sympathetic to libel plaintiffs—and is
often contrasted with the law in the United States
in this context—such that many individuals from
outside countries have sued publications in the
UK, despite a relatively small circulation there, for
a better chance of winning. However, the Jameel
v. Wall Street Journal Europe case significantly
increased press protections against libel claims
in October 2006. 43 There has also been debate
over whether the protection of the reputation of
individuals is in conflict with the Human Rights
Act of 1998, insofar as it might infringe upon the
right to free speech. 44
Copyright
A few countries in Europe have begun to employ
Internet filtering to combat copyright infringement, evolving toward the notice-and-takedown
approach used in the United States. In Denmark,
as per a ruling of the Copenhagen City Court on
October 2006, TDC, the country’s largest ISP,
blocked access to a Web site that distributes illegally copied music. 45 In February 2007, as mentioned earlier, Norway proposed filtering on a
much larger scale that would include blocking of
peer-to-peer sites offering illegal downloads of
music, movies, and television shows. 46
Regional Overviews
191