A model of ‘rough justice’ for internet intermediaries from the perspective of EU copyright law

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Thomas Riis
{"title":"A model of ‘rough justice’ for internet intermediaries from the perspective of EU copyright law","authors":"Thomas Riis","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Internet intermediaries’ content moderation raises two major problems. The first relates to the accuracy of the moderation practices, which is an issue on whether the intermediaries over-enforce or under-enforce. The second problem concerns the inherent privatization of justice that results when enforcement of rights is left to a private party. The purpose of the article is to develop a model of ‘rough justice’ for internet intermediaries’ content moderation practices taking into account the obvious fact that such content moderation cannot comply with the degree of justice known from civil procedural law. There is no reason to believe that internet intermediaries strive to achieve the highest level of justice in their content moderation. As a consequence, the model of rough justice presupposes legislative intervention related to 3 different groups of provisions: 1) Procedural rules, 2) substantive rules, and 3) competences of persons involved in content moderation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"56 ","pages":"Article 106094"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924001596","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Internet intermediaries’ content moderation raises two major problems. The first relates to the accuracy of the moderation practices, which is an issue on whether the intermediaries over-enforce or under-enforce. The second problem concerns the inherent privatization of justice that results when enforcement of rights is left to a private party. The purpose of the article is to develop a model of ‘rough justice’ for internet intermediaries’ content moderation practices taking into account the obvious fact that such content moderation cannot comply with the degree of justice known from civil procedural law. There is no reason to believe that internet intermediaries strive to achieve the highest level of justice in their content moderation. As a consequence, the model of rough justice presupposes legislative intervention related to 3 different groups of provisions: 1) Procedural rules, 2) substantive rules, and 3) competences of persons involved in content moderation.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信