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

IF 3.2 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Computer Law & Security Review Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-14 DOI:10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106094
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":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","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":"2024/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从欧盟版权法的角度看互联网中介机构的“粗暴正义”模式
互联网中介机构的内容审核提出了两个主要问题。第一个问题涉及审核实践的准确性,这是一个关于中介机构是否过度执行或执行不足的问题。第二个问题涉及司法的固有私营化,当权利的执行留给私人方时,这种私营化就会产生。本文的目的是为互联网中介机构的内容审核实践开发一个“粗略正义”模型,考虑到这种内容审核不符合民事诉讼法中已知的正义程度这一明显事实。我们没有理由相信,互联网中介机构会努力在内容审核中实现最高程度的公正。因此,粗略司法模式预设了与三组不同条款相关的立法干预:1)程序规则,2)实体规则,以及3)涉及内容节制的人员的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Adjudicative AI and distributive justice Legal process mining for the analysis of public procurement workflows How transparent are social media platforms? A legal and empirical evaluation of Brazil's regulatory landscape A methodology for compliance of AI systems Age restrictions as a tool for enhancing children’s online safety: an analysis with special reference to Australian law
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1