Show simple item record

dc.creatorLodder, Arno
dc.creatorMurray, Andrew
dc.descriptionCommunication on the internet is unprecedented in its scale, scope, speed, and anonymity. Online words immediately reach the whole globe, can have tremendous impact, and the author is not always known. Our legal system is not naturally fit to deal with these characteristics of the internet. In this paper we address internet communication and content issues from a legal angle. Our discussion reveals the struggle of the law with getting control over what happens on the internet. It is no matter of favouring the law or the internet, the two should act in tandem to realize a safe and just society. The final word on how strict or free legal control should be, has not been said determined. We contribute to this discussion in our paper by discussing UK and Dutch case law and doctrine on threats, defamation, grooming, and ISP blocking.en-US
dc.descriptionLa comunicación en internet no tiene precedentes en cuanto a su escala, diseño, velocidad y anonimato. Las palabras puestas online alcanzan inmediatamente el globo entero pudiendo tener tremendo impacto y el autor no siempre es conocido. Nuestro sistema legal no es naturalmente apropiado para tratar con las características de internet. En este artículo, abordamos las cuestiones de comunicación y contenidos de internet desde un punto de vista jurídico. Nuestra discusión revela la batalla del derecho para conseguir control sobre lo que sucede en internet. No se trata de favorecer el derecho o el Internet, los dos deben actuar en conjunto para lograr una sociedad justa y segura. La última palabra sobre cómo debiera ser un control legal estricto o libre, no ha sido dicha aún. Aquí contribuimos a esa discusión presentando casos jurídicos tanto de Holanda como del Reino Unido sobre amenazas, difamación, engaño a menores y bloqueo de ISP (Internet Service Providers).es-ES
dc.publisherUniversidad Librees-ES
dc.relation/*ref*/Articles, Books and Reports
dc.relation/*ref*/Allen Green, D. [2012], The High Court is unable to agree on Twitter Joke Trial appeal, New Statesman, 28 May 2012: twitter-joke-trial-appeal-no-decision
dc.relation/*ref*/Angelopoulos, C [2013], Beyond the safe harbours: harmonising substantive intermediary liability for copyright infringement in Europe [2013] 3 Intellectual Property Quarterly 253.
dc.relation/*ref*/Barlow, J.P., [1996], A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, 8 February 1996. https://w2.eff. org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/barlow_0296.declaration
dc.relation/*ref*/Berg, T [2000], The Impact of the Internet on State Power to Enforce the Law (2000) Brigham Young Univeristy Law Review 1305.
dc.relation/*ref*/Bernal, P. [2014], A Defence of Responsible Tweeting, 19 Communications Law 12.
dc.relation/*ref*/Doherty, B., [2004], John Perry Barlow 2.0: The Thomas Jefferson of cyberspace reinvents his body — and his politics’, Reason (August–September 2004) john-perry-barlow-20
dc.relation/*ref*/Goldsmith, J. & Wu, T, [2006] Who Controls the Internet? Oxford, OUP.
dc.relation/*ref*/Handman, L., Reid, E, and Balin, R., Libel tourism and the Duke’s manservant - an American perspective, [2009] European Human Rights Law Review 303.
dc.relation/*ref*/Johnson, D.R. & Post, D.G., [1996], Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stanford Law Review 1367 (1996).
dc.relation/*ref*/Khan, S., [2012], The threat posed to reputation by the emergence of social web technologies, 23 Entertainment Law Review 126.
dc.relation/*ref*/Lessig, L., [1999], Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, New York, Basic Books.
dc.relation/*ref*/Lodder, A.R. [2010], Schadelijke of ongewenste informatie op sociale netwerksites. Computerrecht, 2010(3), 107-114.
dc.relation/*ref*/Lodder, A.R. & Meulen, N.S. van der (2013). Evaluation of the role of access providers. Discussion of Dutch Pirate Bay case law and introducing principles on directness, effectiveness, costs, relevance, and time. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 4(2), 130-141.
dc.relation/*ref*/Look, J.J. [2001] Law and order on the wild, wild west (www) 24 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review 817
dc.relation/*ref*/Murray, A.D. [2013], Information Technology Law: The Law and Society, 2ed, Oxford, OUP.
dc.relation/*ref*/Pink, A.S. [1995], Copyright Infringement Post Isoquantic Shift: Should Bulletin Board Services Be Liable, 43 UCLA Law Review 587.
dc.relation/*ref*/Russell, A. and Smillie, M. [2005], Freedom of Expression v. The Multiple Publication Rule, 2005 The Journal of Information, Law and Technology: russellandsmillie/.
dc.relation/*ref*/Savola, P., [2014] Blocking Injunctions and Website Operators’ Liability for Copyright Infringement for User-Generated Links, 36 European Intellectual Property Review 279.
dc.relation/*ref*/Wainwright, M. [2010], Twitter joke trial: Paul Chambers loses appeal against conviction, The Guardian, 11 November 2010: Cases
dc.relation/*ref*/1967 Ltd. & Ors. v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors. [2014] EWHC 3444 (Ch).
dc.relation/*ref*/A&M Records v Napster 239 F.3d 1004 (2001).
dc.relation/*ref*/Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157.
dc.relation/*ref*/Don King v Lennox Lewis & Ors. [2004] EWHC 168 (QB)
dc.relation/*ref*/Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56.
dc.relation/*ref*/DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40.
dc.relation/*ref*/Dramatico Entertainment Ltd. & Ors. v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd. & Ors. [2012] EWHC (Ch.).
dc.relation/*ref*/EMI Records Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch).
dc.relation/*ref*/Harrods Ltd. v Dow Jones & Co. Inc. [2003] EWHC 1162 (QB).
dc.relation/*ref*/Jameel v Dow Jones & Co. Inc. [2005] EWCA Civ 75.
dc.relation/*ref*/Johanna Kaschke v David Osler [2010] EWHC 1075 (QB)
dc.relation/*ref*/Lord McAlpine of West Green v. Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB).
dc.relation/*ref*/R. v Duffy [2011], unrpt., Reading Magistrates Court, 13 September 2011.
dc.relation/*ref*/R. v G. [2010] EWCA Crim 1693.
dc.relation/*ref*/R. v Nimmo and Sorley [2014], unrpt., Westminster Magistrates Court, 24 January 2014: http://www.
dc.relation/*ref*/R. v Stacey [2012], Appeal No: A20120033, Swansea Crown Court, 30 March 2012: http://www.judiciary.
dc.relation/*ref*/Sanders v Percy [2009] EWHC 1870 (QB)
dc.relation/*ref*/Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM (C-70/10) [2012] ECDR 4.
dc.relation/*ref*/Sweden v Neij et al., Stockholms Tingsrätt No B 13301-06, 17 April 2009
dc.relation/*ref*/Twentieth Century Fox & Ors. v British Telecommunications [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch).
dc.relation/*ref*/Twentieth Century Fox & Ors. v Newzbin Limited [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch).
dc.relation/*ref*/Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 1242. 12. Secretaria de Salud de Cartagena. Perfil epidemioló- gico del distrito de Cartagena – año 2014. Consultado en: docs/saludpublica/perfil_epidemiologico_2014.pdf 13. Rodríguez A. Manual de enfermedades transmitidas por vector. Dengue. Madrid: CTO editorial; 2016. 14. Villanueva A. Manual de enfermedades transmitidas por vector. Zika. Madrid: CTO editorial; 2016.
dc.sourceDiálogos de saberes; No 41 (2014): Núm. 41 (2014): Diálogos de saberes - Edición 41; 173-188en-US
dc.sourceDiálogos de saberes; Núm. 41 (2014): Núm. 41 (2014): Diálogos de saberes - Edición 41; 173-188es-ES
dc.subjectcomunicación en internetes-ES
dc.subjectamenazas criminaleses-ES
dc.subjecttecnología de bloqueoes-ES
dc.subjectengaño a menoreses-ES
dc.titleA primer on the law of internet communication and contenten-US
dc.titleUna introducción al derecho de comunicación y contenidos por Internetes-ES
dc.typeArtículo revisado por pareses-ES
dc.rights.licenseAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia*

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as