首页> 外文OA文献 >Delineating the reach of internet intermediaries\u27 content blocking-\u22ccTLD blocking\u22, Strict Geo-location blocking: or a \u22country lens approach\u22?
【2h】

Delineating the reach of internet intermediaries\u27 content blocking-\u22ccTLD blocking\u22, Strict Geo-location blocking: or a \u22country lens approach\u22?

机译:划定互联网中介的范围,内容阻止-严格的地理位置阻止,严格的地理位置阻止:还是采用国家镜头方法?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

There is a prominent trend of legal actions being taken against globally active Internet intermediaries. This article discusses the extent to which Internet intermediaries should be required to block or remove third-party content, and places emphasis on the geographical limitations that reasonably may be placed on such blocking/removal. Where an Internet intermediary is ordered to block or remove certain Internet content, global blocking/removal cannot be the default response to every such order. We need a more measured and more sophisticated approach. This paper canvasses and analyses three such structures. One option is to delineate the reach of the blocking/removal by reference to country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) – “ccTLD-blocking”. For example, where a French court requests that Google blocks/removes content in France, Google may do so in relation to www.google.fr, while the relevant content is unmodified for the rest of the world. Yet, it is also necessary to look beyond ccTLD-blocking. Geo-location technologies may determine an Internet user‟s geographical location, for example, by reference to the user‟s IP address. Such technologies can, of course, be used to delineate the accessibility of Internet content. Indeed, such technologies can be used in various ways to achieve such a result and I will consider both a “strict geo-location blocking” and a more nuanced “country lens” approach. To prepare ground for that discussion, the article first starts with a few appropriate words about the role Internet intermediaries play and why litigants target Internet intermediaries in the first place.
机译:针对全球活跃的互联网中介机构采取法律行动的趋势非常明显。本文讨论了在何种程度上应要求Internet中介阻止或删除第三方内容,并着重于合理地可能对此类阻止/删除施加的地理限制。如果Internet中介被命令阻止或删除某些Internet内容,则全局阻止/删除不能成为对每个此类命令的默认响应。我们需要一种更衡量,更复杂的方法。本文探讨并分析了三种这样的结构。一种选择是通过参考国家/地区代码顶级域(ccTLD)–“ ccTLD阻止”来描述阻止/删除的范围。例如,在法国法院要求Google阻止/删除法国境内的内容的情况下,Google可能会针对www.google.fr这样做,而世界其他地方的相关内容均未修改。但是,也有必要超越ccTLD阻止。地理位置技术可以例如通过参考用户的IP地址来确定Internet用户的地理位置。当然,此类技术可用于描述Internet内容的可访问性。的确,可以以各种方式使用此类技术来实现这样的结果,我将同时考虑“严格的地理位置阻止”和更为细微的“乡村视角”方法。为了为讨论奠定基础,本文首先以一些适当的词开始,这些词涉及互联网中介机构所扮演的角色,以及为什么诉讼人首先将互联网中介机构作为目标。

著录项

  • 作者

    Svantesson, Dan;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2014
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号