data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/60ad1/60ad19ecc95fb18de29f015c9ca6807e3bc4b48a" alt=""
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Research objective
1.2. Methodology
1.3. Structure of the thesis
1.4. Setting the stage
1.5. Limitations and scope
1.6. Research questions
2. Analysis of the Existing System
2.1. Hosting intermediary liability exemption under Article 14
2.2. Knowledge and awareness
2.3. Hosting vs. communicating to the public
2.4. Reaction of intermediaries and notice-and-takedown mechanism
2.5. General monitoring prohibition
2.6. A shift in the discourse
3. The New Regime
3.1. Online content-sharing service providers - Who are these players?
3.2. Type of liability under Article 17 and the act of communication to the public
3.3. How to not be liable?
3.3.1. Best efforts to obtain an authorisation
3.3.2. Best efforts to prevent upload and re-upload of infringing content
3.4. Right to freedom of expression v. IP rights
3.5. The Proposal for the Digital Services Act
3.5.1. Provisions on intermediary liability regime
3.5.2. Provisions on due diligence obligations
4. How do the old and new regimes compare to each other and interact?
4.1. Was there a need for a harmonized liability regime under the EU framework?
4.2. Type of liability
4.3. The act of communication to the public
4.4. Liability exemptions and general monitoring prohibition
4.5. How do the old and the new regimes interact?
5. Conclusion
Bibliography