Digital piracy, i.e., large-scale commercial copyright infringement online, is a constantly evolving phenomenon. Following the enactment and expansion of online intermediary liability rules, professional pirates have shifted away from easily blockable websites and services. Streaming piracy on dedicated platforms, monetised through embedded services, has become the prevalent model in Europe, as is well illustrated by the Mobdro case study analysed in this article. These dedicated platforms are supported by embedded service providers who, as they are not online intermediaries, can avoid the online intermediary liability regime. One potential solution to this issue could be the application of contributory copyright infringement rules, which are well-established in US copyright law but absent in EU law, to all parties that contribute to digital piracy. The CJEU has opened expressly this path in the recent C-682/18 YouTube and C-683/18 Cyando cases. Based on the CJEU's initiative and the existing precedent of harmonising intellectual property tort rules within EU law, further contributory liability rules could be modelled after US rules by updating the Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC. Addressing this gap in EU copyright law is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness of digital copyright enforcement against evolving digital piracy.
{"title":"Addressing Evolving Digital Piracy Through Contributory Liability for Copyright Infringement: The Mobdro Case Study","authors":"Mindaugas Kiškis","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-2-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-2-3","url":null,"abstract":"Digital piracy, i.e., large-scale commercial copyright infringement online, is a constantly evolving phenomenon. Following the enactment and expansion of online intermediary liability rules, professional pirates have shifted away from easily blockable websites and services. Streaming piracy on dedicated platforms, monetised through embedded services, has become the prevalent model in Europe, as is well illustrated by the Mobdro case study analysed in this article. These dedicated platforms are supported by embedded service providers who, as they are not online intermediaries, can avoid the online intermediary liability regime. One potential solution to this issue could be the application of contributory copyright infringement rules, which are well-established in US copyright law but absent in EU law, to all parties that contribute to digital piracy. The CJEU has opened expressly this path in the recent C-682/18 YouTube and C-683/18 Cyando cases. Based on the CJEU's initiative and the existing precedent of harmonising intellectual property tort rules within EU law, further contributory liability rules could be modelled after US rules by updating the Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC. Addressing this gap in EU copyright law is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness of digital copyright enforcement against evolving digital piracy.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136343249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Artificial Intelligence and its subfield, Machine Learning are areas of computer science; thus, they rely on algorithms, models, computer programs and software applicable in numerous areas. Since respective creations involve resources and shift from hardware to software, there is an incentive to protect them legally. Due to their dual nature, the algorithms, models, computer programs, and software might be too “technical” to avail copyright protection but not “technical” enough for a patent. Whereas trade secret protection might not be sufficient means of protection in all cases.The article explores the issues and, as its main argument, builds further on the academic proposals on the sui generis mechanism. It also suggests certification as the potential approach to avail the desired protection instead of diluting the existing protection frameworks. An alternative would be to lie on the complete availability or trade secret protection, none of which would be an adequate balance.
{"title":"Patent-Eligible Invention Requirement Under the European Patent Convention and its Implications on Creations Involving Artificial Intelligence","authors":"Liva Rudzite-Celmina","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-2-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-2-4","url":null,"abstract":"Artificial Intelligence and its subfield, Machine Learning are areas of computer science; thus, they rely on algorithms, models, computer programs and software applicable in numerous areas. Since respective creations involve resources and shift from hardware to software, there is an incentive to protect them legally. Due to their dual nature, the algorithms, models, computer programs, and software might be too “technical” to avail copyright protection but not “technical” enough for a patent. Whereas trade secret protection might not be sufficient means of protection in all cases.The article explores the issues and, as its main argument, builds further on the academic proposals on the sui generis mechanism. It also suggests certification as the potential approach to avail the desired protection instead of diluting the existing protection frameworks. An alternative would be to lie on the complete availability or trade secret protection, none of which would be an adequate balance.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136343254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jan Kolouch, Daniel Tovarňák, Tomáš Plesník, Michal Javorník
The article deals with the issue of the terminology used in the implementation and provision of cyber and information security. Although this terminology is understood as notoriety, practice shows that there are different perspectives on defining "the same". Nowadays, mainly in the context of the adoption of Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures to ensure a high common level of cybersecurity in the Union (NIS 2), there is a need for a consistent interpretation and, in particular, understanding of the terminology used so that cybersecurity and information security can be truly ensured. After analyzing and comparing the various definitions, the paper presents clear, general but universally applicable definitions of key terms. The relationship of these terms is presented within a conceptual model and also through a practical example.
{"title":"Cybersecurity: Notorious, but Often Misused and Confused Terms","authors":"Jan Kolouch, Daniel Tovarňák, Tomáš Plesník, Michal Javorník","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-2-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-2-5","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the issue of the terminology used in the implementation and provision of cyber and information security. Although this terminology is understood as notoriety, practice shows that there are different perspectives on defining \"the same\". Nowadays, mainly in the context of the adoption of Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures to ensure a high common level of cybersecurity in the Union (NIS 2), there is a need for a consistent interpretation and, in particular, understanding of the terminology used so that cybersecurity and information security can be truly ensured. After analyzing and comparing the various definitions, the paper presents clear, general but universally applicable definitions of key terms. The relationship of these terms is presented within a conceptual model and also through a practical example.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136343256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
3D printing, or additive manufacturing, is a fast-evolving technology that is transforming the way humans create things. Anyone can buy a 3D printer for private usage, allowing them to produce totally personalized things in the comfort of their own homes. One 3D-printed commodity, unfortunately, is provoking a huge debate: firearms. Any person may build a completely functional firearm only with a 3D printer, the necessary designs and filament. Thus, bypassing governmental licensing, registration, and fabrication regulations. A surge of scholarships appeared nine years back, alerting people about the dangers of 3D-printed firearms. Following the widespread hysteria, this work offers commentary on the issue of 3D-printed firearms, as well as lessons learnt for a better regulatory framework for these firearms. To establish effective regulatory oversight over illicit ownership and usage of 3D-printed guns, existing law may have to be enhanced. Furthermore, any prospective regulations will almost definitely be closely scrutinized in order to strike a balance between public security concerns and personal liberty. Additionally, many conceivable technological regulations would be unfeasible and would contradict the public interest objective of safeguarding technological development. To better control 3D-printed guns while preserving basic freedoms and technological development, a three-pronged approach has been proposed.
{"title":"(Un)lock and (Un)loaded: Regulating 3D-Printed Firearms in the Open-source Era after the 2013 Hysteria","authors":"David Tan, Ampuan Situmeang, Hari Sutra Disemadi","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-2-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-2-1","url":null,"abstract":"3D printing, or additive manufacturing, is a fast-evolving technology that is transforming the way humans create things. Anyone can buy a 3D printer for private usage, allowing them to produce totally personalized things in the comfort of their own homes. One 3D-printed commodity, unfortunately, is provoking a huge debate: firearms. Any person may build a completely functional firearm only with a 3D printer, the necessary designs and filament. Thus, bypassing governmental licensing, registration, and fabrication regulations. A surge of scholarships appeared nine years back, alerting people about the dangers of 3D-printed firearms. Following the widespread hysteria, this work offers commentary on the issue of 3D-printed firearms, as well as lessons learnt for a better regulatory framework for these firearms. To establish effective regulatory oversight over illicit ownership and usage of 3D-printed guns, existing law may have to be enhanced. Furthermore, any prospective regulations will almost definitely be closely scrutinized in order to strike a balance between public security concerns and personal liberty. Additionally, many conceivable technological regulations would be unfeasible and would contradict the public interest objective of safeguarding technological development. To better control 3D-printed guns while preserving basic freedoms and technological development, a three-pronged approach has been proposed.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136343253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The author intends to assess the approach to finding originality in photographic works in the courts of the United States of America and the approach developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The means through which such assessment is to be made are two cases, each decided in a respective jurisdiction; nonetheless they are connected via both factual and legal circumstances - both involving child abuse and a dispute regarding a copyright infringement in a photographic work. The article will thoroughly assess the legal circumstances of each case and describe the methods of identification of originality applied therein. Following the said assessment, an analysis of the possible merger of both methods will be conducted, with emphasis on the possible added value for the test of originality applied to photographic works within the copyright framework of the European Union. The author’s intention is to conduct a comparison between both approaches to highlight their individual advantages and disadvantages, with a final assessment of their possible joint application in cases involving copyright infringement of photographic works within the copyright framework of the European Union.
{"title":"How the Two Child Abuse Cases Helped to Shape the Test of Originality of Photographic Works","authors":"Marian Jankovic","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-2-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-2-2","url":null,"abstract":"The author intends to assess the approach to finding originality in photographic works in the courts of the United States of America and the approach developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The means through which such assessment is to be made are two cases, each decided in a respective jurisdiction; nonetheless they are connected via both factual and legal circumstances - both involving child abuse and a dispute regarding a copyright infringement in a photographic work. The article will thoroughly assess the legal circumstances of each case and describe the methods of identification of originality applied therein. Following the said assessment, an analysis of the possible merger of both methods will be conducted, with emphasis on the possible added value for the test of originality applied to photographic works within the copyright framework of the European Union. The author’s intention is to conduct a comparison between both approaches to highlight their individual advantages and disadvantages, with a final assessment of their possible joint application in cases involving copyright infringement of photographic works within the copyright framework of the European Union.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136343258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Svantesson, S. Haataja, Danielle Ireland-Piper, Kuan-Wei (David) Chen
The concept of sovereignty is more important than ever in the Cyber context, yet it is poorly understood. With this article, we are seeking to contribute towards a shared understanding of the concept of sovereignty by succinctly addressing the following six, interrelated, questions: Who can claim to have sovereignty; Over what can one have sovereignty; What are the consequences of having sovereignty over something; Who can violate sovereignty; What is the threshold for violating sovereignty; and What are the consequences of violating sovereignty? However, this article is not limited to a descriptive account of the law as it stands today. A purely descriptive account would not provide a full picture of the complex concept of sovereignty, and we have felt it appropriate to enter the territory of law reform options in parts of the discussion. While sovereignty is a technology-neutral concept and the article addresses it as such, particular attention is directed at sovereignty in the cyber context.
{"title":"On sovereignty","authors":"D. Svantesson, S. Haataja, Danielle Ireland-Piper, Kuan-Wei (David) Chen","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-1-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-1-2","url":null,"abstract":"The concept of sovereignty is more important than ever in the Cyber context, yet it is poorly understood. With this article, we are seeking to contribute towards a shared understanding of the concept of sovereignty by succinctly addressing the following six, interrelated, questions:\u0000\u0000Who can claim to have sovereignty;\u0000Over what can one have sovereignty;\u0000What are the consequences of having sovereignty over something;\u0000Who can violate sovereignty;\u0000What is the threshold for violating sovereignty; and\u0000What are the consequences of violating sovereignty?\u0000\u0000However, this article is not limited to a descriptive account of the law as it stands today. A purely descriptive account would not provide a full picture of the complex concept of sovereignty, and we have felt it appropriate to enter the territory of law reform options in parts of the discussion.\u0000While sovereignty is a technology-neutral concept and the article addresses it as such, particular attention is directed at sovereignty in the cyber context.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47599855","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It’s been a few years since Facebook (Meta) instituted its Oversight Board as a new quasi-judicial and regulatory body of one of the most important contemporary cyberspaces. It’s long established that social media platforms, such as Facebook, pose certain challenges to democracies as they, among other issues, allow for spread of fake news and hate speech, shift our perception of reality, or create echo chambers. In reaction to talks of regulating similar platforms, Meta’s self-regulatory attempt of instituting the Oversight Board appears to tackle the issue of content moderation by the platform itself. As the content moderation is one of the main sources of Meta’s problematic reputation (taking down posts, pages of various more or less known persons), the board is potentially significant. The paper analyses the board’s mandate, governance structure and procedures. We look at standard elements of independence of decision-making bodies (such as courts) to establish whether the Oversight Board is structured in a way conducive to independent decision making. We conclude that that structure of the Oversight Board fulfils some of the elements of the de jure judicial independence, however there is a room for improvement. Independence of the Oversight Board from Meta is a vital element of the institution, however we detect connections and dependencies on Meta (Meta needs to agree on changes of the Charter as well as the Bylaws, Meta was profoundly involved in the initial selection of the members, etc.). The whole structure of Oversight Board is heavily impacted by the private law institutes – trust, company, contracts – which might not be able to fully facilitate all the needs of an independent quasi-judicial body. The private structure, lacking necessary participatory mechanisms, does not permit the Oversight Board to gain necessary legitimacy. We also review the Oversight Board’s setup in light of the EU’s 2022 Digital Services Act (DSA), which represents one of the most comprehensive regulations of the social media platforms, including content moderation issues. We conclude that the Oversight Board would also not be compliant with requirements set forth in the DSA. After the adoption of the DSA, a question of compatibility of the Oversight Board with the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies opened.
{"title":"New Regulatory Force of Cyberspace: The Case of Meta’s Oversight Board","authors":"Jan Mazur, Barbora Grambličková","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-1-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-1-1","url":null,"abstract":"It’s been a few years since Facebook (Meta) instituted its Oversight Board as a new quasi-judicial and regulatory body of one of the most important contemporary cyberspaces. It’s long established that social media platforms, such as Facebook, pose certain challenges to democracies as they, among other issues, allow for spread of fake news and hate speech, shift our perception of reality, or create echo chambers. In reaction to talks of regulating similar platforms, Meta’s self-regulatory attempt of instituting the Oversight Board appears to tackle the issue of content moderation by the platform itself. As the content moderation is one of the main sources of Meta’s problematic reputation (taking down posts, pages of various more or less known persons), the board is potentially significant. The paper analyses the board’s mandate, governance structure and procedures. We look at standard elements of independence of decision-making bodies (such as courts) to establish whether the Oversight Board is structured in a way conducive to independent decision making. We conclude that that structure of the Oversight Board fulfils some of the elements of the de jure judicial independence, however there is a room for improvement. Independence of the Oversight Board from Meta is a vital element of the institution, however we detect connections and dependencies on Meta (Meta needs to agree on changes of the Charter as well as the Bylaws, Meta was profoundly involved in the initial selection of the members, etc.). The whole structure of Oversight Board is heavily impacted by the private law institutes – trust, company, contracts – which might not be able to fully facilitate all the needs of an independent quasi-judicial body. The private structure, lacking necessary participatory mechanisms, does not permit the Oversight Board to gain necessary legitimacy. We also review the Oversight Board’s setup in light of the EU’s 2022 Digital Services Act (DSA), which represents one of the most comprehensive regulations of the social media platforms, including content moderation issues. We conclude that the Oversight Board would also not be compliant with requirements set forth in the DSA. After the adoption of the DSA, a question of compatibility of the Oversight Board with the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies opened.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48396020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the first part of the study, we summarize the existing types of copyright bots. In the second part, we present the current state of legal research on the implementation of copyright bots and our own analysis which focuses on the Czech Supreme Court’s decision concerning copyright bots. The core of this paper concerns the impact of copyright bots on the work of sampling musicians and how the creativity of musicians is shaped by their struggle to avoid detection of sampled music by bots in the online environment.
{"title":"Playing the System","authors":"Iván David, R. Leška","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-1-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-1-5","url":null,"abstract":"In the first part of the study, we summarize the existing types of copyright bots. In the second part, we present the current state of legal research on the implementation of copyright bots and our own analysis which focuses on the Czech Supreme Court’s decision concerning copyright bots. The core of this paper concerns the impact of copyright bots on the work of sampling musicians and how the creativity of musicians is shaped by their struggle to avoid detection of sampled music by bots in the online environment.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47318348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article aims to analyse the relationship between data protection and online platforms’ zero-price business model. This business model functions in a way that online platforms provide their services “free of charge”, but in exchange for personal data. This business model may not only come with competition problems, but also is detrimental to data protection principles, such as the principle of data minimisation. Users are unaware of the value of the personal data they provide, partly due to the false illusion of the service being free of charge. This market failure could be remedied by regulations that would ensure that users are able to use online services that are currently zero-price without providing personal data.
{"title":"Strengthening of EU regulatory intervention against data exploitations by online platforms with a zero-price business model","authors":"A. Tóth","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-1-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-1-4","url":null,"abstract":"The article aims to analyse the relationship between data protection and online platforms’ zero-price business model. This business model functions in a way that online platforms provide their services “free of charge”, but in exchange for personal data. This business model may not only come with competition problems, but also is detrimental to data protection principles, such as the principle of data minimisation. Users are unaware of the value of the personal data they provide, partly due to the false illusion of the service being free of charge. This market failure could be remedied by regulations that would ensure that users are able to use online services that are currently zero-price without providing personal data.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48966244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Lusine Vardanyan, Hovsep Kocharyan, Ondrej Hamuľák, Matúš Mesarčík, T. Kerikmäe, Tea Kookmaa
The dynamic development of digital and informational technologies raises the issue of proper and effective protection of human privacy, which, in turn, is gradually turning from a real fundamental right into a kind of illusion. Just a piece of information about an individual distributed on the Internet may leave its negative and often indelible mark on the life and reputation of the addressee of such information, regardless of the legality and reliability of such information. And even if such information is subsequently recognized as false and/or vicious and even removed from public access, the addressee of the information will still be associated with such information in the social consciousness. In this regard, each person is at risk on the Internet, where anyone can potentially become the victim of a single publication or a post of an Internet user. In this context the emergence of the phenomenon of the right to be forgotten in European legal reality may be considered as a step forward in the question of human privacy protection in the digital age. However, this right is not without drawbacks. The most significant of these drawbacks will be analyzed in this paper, such as the practical difficulties of thoroughly exercising this right and the difficulties posed by new technological developments.
{"title":"The Unwanted Paradoxes Of the Right to Be Forgotten","authors":"Lusine Vardanyan, Hovsep Kocharyan, Ondrej Hamuľák, Matúš Mesarčík, T. Kerikmäe, Tea Kookmaa","doi":"10.5817/mujlt2023-1-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5817/mujlt2023-1-3","url":null,"abstract":"The dynamic development of digital and informational technologies raises the issue of proper and effective protection of human privacy, which, in turn, is gradually turning from a real fundamental right into a kind of illusion. Just a piece of information about an individual distributed on the Internet may leave its negative and often indelible mark on the life and reputation of the addressee of such information, regardless of the legality and reliability of such information. And even if such information is subsequently recognized as false and/or vicious and even removed from public access, the addressee of the information will still be associated with such information in the social consciousness. In this regard, each person is at risk on the Internet, where anyone can potentially become the victim of a single publication or a post of an Internet user. In this context the emergence of the phenomenon of the right to be forgotten in European legal reality may be considered as a step forward in the question of human privacy protection in the digital age. However, this right is not without drawbacks. The most significant of these drawbacks will be analyzed in this paper, such as the practical difficulties of thoroughly exercising this right and the difficulties posed by new technological developments.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43644945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：