Caching in the Jordanian Author’s Right and Neighboring Rights Protection Law: A Comparative Study with the American and European Legislation
Keywords:
Caching, communication right, reproduction rightAbstract
This study is based on the argument that there is a real problem in the Jordanian law for the protection of copyright and related rights, which is the direct liability of telecommunications companies and search engines due to caching. This study will show that these acts, according to the Jordanian Copyright Law, constitute an infringement. Therefore, there is a real need for the legislator to intervene in order to ensure a balance between their interests and the interests of the content providers, so that the ISPs and search engines can work within a certain area without being held liable for the infringement of copyright. Both the American and European legislators have presented solutions that could serve as models for the Jordanian lawmaker if there was an intention to amend the law. By analysing the texts of these legislations, we will conclude that this legislation does not include the acts of caching done by search engines. Therefore, this study argues that this gap can be overcome by the implementation of the rule of “estoppel”, which states that "whoever sought to overturn what was done on his part, his endeavour is returned" stipulated in the Jordanian Civil Law, so that it gives the search engines enough space to practice temporary storage works. This study also recommends the necessity of introducing a special exception for ISPs that enables them to carry out intermediate caching without establishing responsibility for them, in order to protect national companies operating in this field from legal liability.
Downloads
References
Books and Papers
Al-Aqaileh, Z. M. (2013). The English Law Doctrine of Proprietary Estoppel and the Extent to which it could be applied in the Jordanian Law. Dirasat: Shari’a and Law Sciences, 23.
Al-Jami, A., and Madkour, M. S., and Hathout, A. (1978). Alwaseet in explaining the Jordanian Civil Law, Section III. Cairo: Arab House of Encyclopedias.
Al-Sanhoury, A. (1967). Alwaseet for explaining the civil law. Arab Heritage Revival House.
Amadei, X. (2001). Standards of Liability for Internet Service Providers: A Comparative Study of France and the United States with a Specific Focus on Copyright, Defamation, and Illicit Content. Cornell International Law Journal, 35(1).
Baistrocchi, P. A. (2002). Liability of Intermediary Service Providers in the EU Directive on Electronic Commerce. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 19(1), 111-130.
Band, J. (2008). Google and fair use, Google: An Intersection of Business and Technology. J. Bus. & Tech. L, 3(1).
Baz, S. R. (n. d.) Shu’h Almajallah. (3rd Ed.). Al-Halabi Publications.
Belkadhi, A. (1997). The concept of copyright and the limits of its criminal protection, a critical analytical study. Rabat: Dar Al-Aman.
Bennett, J. S. Caching in on the Google Books Library Project: A Novel Approach to the Fair Use Defense and the DMCA Caching Safe Harbors. Florida State University Law Review, 35(4), 1003-1040.
Bolin, R. (2006). Locking Down the Library: How Copyright, Contract, and Cybertrespass Block Internet Archiving, HASTINGS COMM. & ENT L.J., 29(1), 24.
Bouzat, P. (1972). La présomption de mauvaise foi en matière de contrefaçon de propriété littéraire et artistique. RIDA.
Bulck, P. D. (2007). Copiepresse contre Google : les limites du « caching » ? Revue Le Lamy Droit de l'immatériel.
Carmichael, J. (1996). In Support of the White Paper: Why Online Service Providers Should Not Receive Immunity from Traditional Notions of Vicarious and Contributory Liability for Copyright Infringement. L.A. ENT. L.J. 759, 771-85.
Christian, Tamber. (1999). Internet Caching: Something to Think About. UMKC L. REV, 67, 477-494.
David Cook, Searching for Answers in A Digital World: How Field v. Google Could Affect Fair Use Analysis in the Internet Age, (2007) 11 SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 77.
Desurment, T. (1995). Qualification juridique de la transmission numérique.
Dobbins, M. D. (1995). Computer Bulletin Board Operator Liability for Users' Infringing Acts. MICH. L. REV, 222-24.
Dock, M. (1974). Genèse et évolution de la propriété littéraire, RIDA n° 79, (n° spécial Histoire internationale du droit d'auteur – Des origins à nos jours). Janv.
Dreyer, E. Fasc. (n. d.). 1610: PROCÉDURES ET SANCTIONS. – Contrefaçon. Éléments constitutifs, Juris Classeur Civil Annexes. V°Propriété littéraire et artistique.
Durrande, S. (1999). L’élément intentionnel de la contrefaçon et le nouveau code penal.
Eid, I. (2001). Copyright and related rights in Lebanese and Arab and foreign laws. (1st Ed.). Daar Sader.
Elkin-Koren, N. (1995). Copyright Law and Social Dialogue on the Information Superhighway: The Case Against Copyright Liability of Bulletin Board Operators. Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J, 13, 345, 351.
Ficsor, M. (2002). How much of what? Three-step test and its application in recent WTO dispute settlement cases. RIDA, 192(3).
Gaches, S. W. Balancing Interests: The DMCA Debacle in Viacom v. Youtube. U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L.J., 19.
Gagne, C., & Canon, A. EDE: Publishers' Protections from Digital Reproductions of Works by Search Engines under European Copyright Law. Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, 29(2), 203-238.
Gautier, P. (2002). L'indifférence de la bonne foi dans le procès civil pour contrefaçon, Propr. Intell.
Gendreau, Y. (1994). Le critère de fixation en droit d'auteur. RIDA.
Ginsburg, J. C. (1995). Putting Cars on the “Information Superhighway”: Authors, Exploiters, and Copyright in Cyberspace, COLUM. L. Rev, 95, 1492-95.
Goldstein, M. P. Service Provider Liability for Acts Committed by Users: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You. J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L, 18, 627-32.
Hagen, E. (1996). On-line service provider liability: the latest US copyright conundrum. Ent. L.R, 7(7), 274-279;
Hardy, T. (1997). Computer RAM Copies: Hit or Myth - Historical Perspectives on Caching as a Microcosm of Current Copyright Concerns. Dayton L Rev, 22, 423-464.
Hasan, N. P. (2018). Defenses in the preliminary investigation stage of copyright crimes and their impact on the course of the public right case. Dirasat: Shari’a and Law Sciences, 45(4), 154. Retrieved from https://archives.ju.edu.jo/index.php/law/article/view/13277
Hayes, D. L. (1998). Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 7(1), 1-104.
Hugenholtz, B. (2000). Caching and copyright: the right of temporary copying. E.I.P.R, 22(10), 482-493.
Hugenholtz, P. B. (2000). Caching and copyright: the right of temporary copying. E.I.P.R., 22(10), 482-493.
Jacob, A., & Argento, Z. (2010). To Cache or Not to Cache - That is the Question; P2P System Caching - The Copyright Dilemma. Whittier Law Review.
Kociubinski, B. (2006). Copyright and the Evolving Law of Internet Search - Field v. Google, Inc. and Perfect Google, Inc, J. SCI. & TECH. L, 372, 387.
Kohler, C. (2000). Copyright Liability on the Internet Today in Europe. Intl Intellectual Property L & Policy, 4, 1-63.
Laporte-Legeais , M. E. (2001). note sous CA Paris, 4e ch. 12 déc.
Lasar, M. (2011). Google v. Belgium "link war" ends after years of conflict. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/google-versus-belgium-who-is-winning-nobody
Lotf, M. M. (2012). Intellectual property rights, basic concepts: a study of the provisions of Law No. 82 of 2002, in the light of the views of jurisprudence and the provisions of the comparative judiciary. (2nd Ed.). Cairo.
Mahmassani, P. (1983). The general theory of obligations and contracts in Islamic sharia. (3rd Ed.). Daar ale’lem lilmalayeen
Makki, A. M. (1985). Ghamiz ‘oyuun albasa’er fi sharih alashbaah wa alnaza’er. Beirut: Daar Alkutub Al’elmiyah.
Mamoun, P., and Abdel-Sadiq, M. S. (2006). Copyright and neighboring rights: copyright. Arab Renaissance House.
Meyer, D. (2012). Google reaches deal with Belgian publishers, avoids paying 'link tax'. http://www.zdnet.com/google-reaches-deal-withbelgian-publishers-avoids-paying-link-tax-7000008737/
Nimmer, D. (2002). Appreciating Legislative History: The Sweet and Sour Spots of the DMCA's Commentary. Cardozo L Rev.
Null, L. A., & Labur, J. (2003). The essentials of computer organization and architecture. Jones and Bartlett 2003.
Olwan, R. (2016). The adoption of the American fair use in Gulf states: a comparative analysis of authors' exceptions in common law and civil law countries. E.I.P.R., 38(7), 416-436.
Passa, J. (2001). La directive sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins dans la société de l’information.
Peguera, M. (2009). When the Cached Link is the Weakest Link: Search Engine Caches under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. J. COPYRIGHT SOC'Y, 56, 589, 646.
Peguera, M. When the Cached Link is the Weakest Link: Search Engine Caches under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., 56(2), 589-646.
Pellegrini, F., & Canevet, S. (2013). Logiciels privatifs et logiciels libres. PUF.
Pink, A. S. (1995). Copyright Infringement Post Isoquantic Shift: Should Bulletin Board Services Be Liable? UCLA L. Rev. 587, 489.
Quoy, N. (1999). La responsabilité en matière de contrefaçon par reproduction. RIDA.
Reese, R. A. (2008). The Relationship between the ISP Safe Harbors and the Ordinary Rules of Copyright Liability. Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, 32(4), 427-444.
Rognstad, O. (2014). Legally Flawed but Politically Sound: Digital Exhaustion of Copyright in Europe after UsedSoft. Oslo Law Review, 1, 1-19.
Sanford, B. W. & Lorenger, M. J. (1996). Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks: The First Amendment in an Online World. CONN. L. REV. 1137, 1164.
Scruers, M. (2002). The History and Economics of ISP Liability for Third Party Content. Virginia Law Review, 88(1), 205-264.
Sganga, C. (2018). A Plea for Digital Exhaustion in EU Copyright Law. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 9(3), 211-239.
Thibault, V., & Etienne Wéry. (2001). Les copies provisoires techniques confrontées au droit de reproduction, Légicom n°25.
Tickle, K.(1995). Comment, The Vicarious Liability of Electronic Bulletin Board Operators for the Copyright Infringement Occurring on Their Bulletin Boards. Iowa L. RaV, 8, 391, 416.
Urban, J. M., & Quilter, L. Efficient Process or "Chilling Effects"? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. L.J., 22, 631-35
Vermut, R. S. (1997). File Caching on the Internet: Technical Infringement or Safeguard for Efficient Network Operation? J. Intell. Prop. L., 4, 273.
Waelde, C., & Edwards, L. (2005). Online Intermediaries and Copyright Liability. WIPO Workshop, Geneva. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1159640
Williamson, J. (2000). Online Service Provider Copyright Liability: Is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act the Answer? Ky. L.J, 88, 987, 988.
Yen, A. C. (2000). Internet Service Provider Liability for Subscriber Copyright Infringement, Enterprise Libility, and the First Amendment.
Zarqa, M. A. (1989). Explanation of legal rules. (2nd Ed.) Daar Alqalam.
Court Rulings
Ruling No. (3078/2016) Discrimination of Rights, Qestas Publications.
Ruling No. (3287/2013) Beginning of Rights Oman Qastas Publications.
Ruling No. (43729/2014) Amman Court of Appeal, Qastas Publications.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
