WIPO LLM 21 (8) (DSM)

17(8)

The application of this Article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation.

?

from ex-ante to ex-post

"it is not enough for the transposition and application of Article 17(7) to only restore legitimate content ex post, once it has been blocked. When service providers apply automated content recognition technologies under Article 17(4), on the basis of the relevant and necessary information provided by the rightholders, legitimate uses should also be considered at the upload of content"

automated filtering should be limited to ‘likely infringing uploads’

Rebecka Jonsson v. Les Editions de L’Avenir

Attunda District Court, 13 October 2016

YouTube video was embedded on the website of L'Avenir, a Belgian media company.

According to the court, it was “obvious” that L’Avenir had published the link with the intention of pursuing a profit.

Johnson had sent cease-and-desist letters

L’Avenir therefore not able to rebut the presumption

The court also ruled that, by failing to acknowledge the name of author, the defendant had also infringed the claimant’s moral right of attribution

Bangoura

Vs

"Even if the connection is significant, however, the case for assuming jurisdiction is proportional to the degree of damage sustained within the jurisdiction. It is difficult to justify assuming jurisdiction against an out-of-province defendant unless the plaintiff has suffered significant damage within the jurisdiction"

Court of Appeal for Ontario 2005

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/our-work/projects/world-intermediary-liability-map-wilmap

Dart

V.

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

No Liability, Even Upon Notice

No effect on IP law

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

(2) Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)

No effect on privacy law

The Congress shall have the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)

(1)

had been informed that their platform provides access to infringing content;

(2)

could not in any case have been unaware that the platform provides access to infringements, given that a very large amount of infringing content was shared using the platform;

(3)

had expressly displayed on blogs and forums on the platform their purpose to make protected works available to the users;

(4)

encouraged users to infringe; and

(5)

operated for profit.

[2016] IECA 231

"Because the defendant is the company which profits - albeit indirectly - because it derives revenue from its subscribers who are engaged in this practice, it is the defendant who should, in my view, be primarily liable for the costs."

80%

(1)

‘essential’ intervention, i.e. such that in the absence of that intervention, the public would not, in principle, be able to enjoy the work or would be able to do so only with difficulty

imposing an obligation to implement a "Graduated Response Strategy" (GRS):

Step 1

R would furnish all relevant infringement

Step 2

AP would send 1st letter requesting to cease and desist.

Step 3

AP would send 2nd letter to its subscriber requesting to cease and desist.

Step 4

AP would send to the plaintiffs a notification that a subscriber account has been the subject matter of three such notifications.

Step 5

R, having been informed of the relevant IP addresses etc, could make a Norwich Pharmacal type application to ascertain the subscriber’s identity and address and the could then seek an order for the suspension and/or termination of the subscriber’s service.

V.

Sony Music

(Ireland)

“That would undermine the objective of EU legislation in the relatively abundant field of copyright, which is precisely to harmonise the scope of the rights enjoyed by authors and other rightholders within the single market. That is why the answer to the problems raised in the present case must, in my view, be sought rather in EU law.”

AG Szpunar

Case C-610/15, Ziggo (14 June 2017)

"The question is: in a digital world, where copying and distribution are more or less free, what does an effective regime look like? No one doubts that a great deal of copyright piracy is taking place, but reliable data about scale and trends is surprisingly scarce. Estimates of the scale of illegal digital downloads in the UK ranges between 13 per cent and 65 per cent in two studies published last year. A detailed survey of UK and international data finds that very little of it is supported by transparent research criteria. Meanwhile sales and profitability levels in most creative business sectors appear to be holding up reasonably well. We conclude that many creative businesses are experiencing turbulence from digital copyright infringement, but that at the level of the whole economy, measurable impacts are not as stark as is sometimes suggested." (p. 10)

Not necessary that the link itself be provided “for financial gain”, e.g. through cost-per-click calculations.

It is instead sufficient that the link is provided on a website that is operated for financial gain, i.e. run with the intention to realising profits, irrespective of the commercial impact of the particular link. 

(1) D was offering educational material via his website, therefore intended profit (2) D could not rebut the presumption due to notification

The applicant argued that imposing liability would infringe his fundamental rights. Court said that the CJEU had already struck the right balance.

LG Hamburg, Case no. 310 O 402/16,

18 November 2016 [47]-[48]

Speech

‘I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet’

GEMA

Vs

The act of making the work available to the public had been committed by the YouTube uploader, not by YouTube itself.

YT also had not ‘adopted’ the content as its own

(‘Zu-Eigen-Machen’, see BGH, marions-kochbuch.de, 12 November 2009, I ZR 166/07).

(1)

YouTube is a “service inclined to infringement”, but also has a business model “in the mainstream of society”

(2)

When YT receives notification of a clear infringement, not only take-down is necessary but also stay-down, incl. other infringements on the same work and other recordings

(3)

Word-based filter and Content ID necessary

Fundamental rights were not relevant

OLG Hamburg, 1 July 2015, 5 U 87/12

Extra-territorial Application of Intermediary Liability Rulings

Graduated Response

Administrative Enforcement

This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement, nor does it affect the possibility for Member States of establishing procedures governing the removal or disabling of access to information.”

Art. 21(2) - 2. In examining the need for an adaptation of this Directive, the report shall in particular analyse the need for proposals concerning the liability of providers of hyperlinks and location tool services, "notice and take down" procedures and the attribution of liability following the taking down of content.

Privacy & Data

(1)

if platforms use automated decision making to restrict content,

(i)

they should flag at which step of the process algorithmic tools were used,

(ii)

be transparent in the processing of algorithms and of the data used to train them, (iii)

explain the logic behind the automated decisions taken, and

(iv)

also explain how users can contest their decisions.

(2)

the decision-making process should be subject to human control.

(3)

automated removal and blocking mechanisms should be subject to external audits by independent entities or by an EU oversight structure.

(4)

there should be clear accountability, liability and redress mechanisms to deal with potential harm resulting from the use of AI applications, automated decision-making and machine learning tools.

(5)

the DSA should impose upon DSPs an obligation to submit annual transparency reports.

‘online content sharing service provider’

means a provider of an information society service of which the main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users, which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes.

Online Content Sharing Service Provider

(OCSSP)

BUT NOT

Providers of services, such as not-for-profit online encyclopedias, not-for-profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software-developing and-sharing platforms, providers of electronic communications services as defined in Directive (EU) 2018/1972, online marketplaces, business-to-business cloud services and cloud services that allow users to upload content for their own use, [...].

(1)

Complaint and Redress Mechanism

(cooperation cannot result in unavailability of lawful content)

(1)

(4)

Public Interest Safegards

Directly Liable

(3)

provide adequate information to rightholders on functioning of OCSSP practices

(2)

inform users in T&Cs they can use protected content under exceptions and limitations

(2)

made best efforts to ensure the unavailability of protected content

(1)

made best efforts to secure a licence**

(3)

(2)

Secure a Licence

Otherwise, OCSSP are liable, UNLESS

ineligible for the liability exemption

(4)

made best efforts to prevent future uploads**

(3)

acted expeditiously, upon receiving sufficiently substantiated notice to take down content**

Limitations

(a)

service available in the EU for less then 3 years and (1,3)

(b)

with an annual turnover below €10M (1,3) and

(c)

average number of monthly visitors above 5M (1,3,4)

In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.

called to adopt effective voluntary ‘proactive measures to detect and remove illegal content online’ by using automatic detection and filtering technologies (3.3.2)

Filtering

and Monitoring

Obligations

Licensing

"economic impacts are mostly assessed from a qualitative point of view, considering how the different policy options would affect the negotiations between those creating or investing in the creation of content and those distributing such content online. The limited availability of data in this area [. . .] did not allow to elaborate a quantitative analysis of the impacts of the different policy options." (p. 136)

Vs

Cross-border portability of online content services

Empirical

Pie Theory

Member States shall ensure that authors receive an appropriate share of the additional revenues press publishers receive for the use of a press publication by information society service providers

Non

Retroactive

Scope

20 March 2018

enable their subscribers who are temporarily present in a Member State to access and use the online content service in the same manner as in the Member State of residence

Online services such as

(1) video-on-demand platforms (such as Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon Prime, Mubi, Chili TV);

(2) online TV services (such as Viasat's Viaplay, Sky's Now TV, Voyo)

(3) music streaming services (such as Spotify, Deezer, Google Music) or

(4) game online marketplaces (such as Steam, Origin).

Press Publishers' Neighbouring Rights for Digital Uses

DSM Reform

Enforcement

“we are disappointed to see that the proposals are not grounded in any solid scientific (in particular, economic) evidence.”

General Monitoring

Specific Monitoring

key weakness of Article 17 would be the absence of measures other than upload filters to effectively comply with the ‘best efforts’ obligation

No Proactive Monitoring

Online Search Manipulation

The ECJ decided that European law must be interpreted as precluding a national court from issuing an injunction against a hosting (or access) service provider which requires it to install a system for filtering:

(1) information which is stored on its servers by its service users;

(2) which applies indiscriminately to all of those users;

(3) as a preventative measure;

(4) exclusively at its expense; and

(5) for an unlimited period,

(6) which is capable of identifying electronic files containing musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which the applicant for the injunction claims to hold intellectual property rights, with a view to preventing those works from being made available to the public in breach of copyright.

Vs

"[l]iability rules are more appropriate, since they do not fundamentally change the decentralised nature of the internet by giving trade mark proprietors general – and virtually absolute – control over the use in cyberspace of keywords which correspond to their trade marks. Instead of being able to prevent, through trade mark protection, any possible use – including, as has been observed, many lawful and even desirable uses – trade mark proprietors would have to point to specific instances giving rise to Google’s liability in the context of illegal damage to their trademarks."

Monitoring

&

Filtering

Voluntary Measures

Courts

what “technically possible” and “reasonable.”

(1)

precautions against clearly noticeable infringements—such as blatant counterfeit items—reasonable

(2)

it would be unreasonable a filtering obligation questioning the business model of the intermediary.

(3)

manually checking and visually comparing each product offered in an online auction against infringement—which was not clear or obvious would be unreasonable.

(4)

obligations are unreasonable if due to the substantial amount of products offered, the platform’s business model would be endangered

“Kerntheorie”, i.e. infringements similar in their core (Kern)

trigger a duty to review & notice-and-stay-down

‘consideration must be given to the fact that the defendant participates in the sale of the pirate goods in the form of the commission payable […] Whenever the defendant's attention has been drawn to a clear infringement of rights not only is it obliged to block access to the specific offer […], it must also ensure that such trade mark infringements will as far as possible not occur in the future. […] The defendant is obliged to react to these cases by subjecting offers of Rolex watches to a special examination.’

‘A business that, like the defendant, operates a platform on the internet for third-party auctions cannot reasonably be expected to examine every offer for sale for a possible infringement of rights before publication on the internet. Such an obligation would jeopardise the entire business model.’

Internet Auction I-III

Remedies:

(1)

expeditious removal;

(2)

word filter;

(3)

subsequent manual reassessment for the avoidance of over-blocking;

(4)

general “Marktbeobachtungspflicht”, i.e. market monitoring duty through Google, Facebook or Twitter for illegal links to its service

NTD

R’s business model not a priori designed to facilitate infringement, i.e. deserving of protection,

but

R increased risk of the illegal use of its services, i.e. significantly facilitated copyright infringement.

• R advertised the fact that certain files on its platform had been downloaded 100.000 times
• R’s services could also be used anonymously
• points awarded to users depending on number of downloads

As a result it had lost its neutrality.

Professional but “offensive and vulgar” rather than hate speech

(1)

a duty could only arise once R made aware of a clear infringement through notification.

(2)

Once notification received the provider can not simply rest at deleting existing infringing files, but must go further and perform searches for future infringements of the notified content, as well as take all reasonable measures to make sure users could not proceed with such infringements in the first place, as long as these did not threaten Rapidshare’s business model.

(3)

This could include automatic word filters supplemented by subsequent manual controls.

Non Professional (Blog)

(1)

In a situation of higher than-average

risk of defamation or hate speech,

(2)

if comments from non-registered users are allowed,

(3)

a professionally managed and commercially based

Internet news portal

should exercise the full extent

of control at its disposal and must go beyond automatic keyword-based filtering or ex-post notice-and-take-down procedures to avoid liability

NTD

BGH, 12 July 2012, I ZR 18/11

“[d]defamatory and other types of clearly unlawful speech, including hate speech and speech inciting violence, can be disseminated like never before, worldwide, in a matter of seconds, and sometimes remain persistently available online.”

Voluntary Measures

Payment Blockades

and

Rethinking Copyright Law: Online Enforcement, Platforms and Algorithms

WIPO LLM, Turin

(Spring 2021)

by Giancarlo Frosio

cost of enforcement

Knowledge and Take Down

“given that the internet service provider is an inevitable actor in any transmission of an infringement over the internet between one of its customers and a third party, since, in granting access to the network, it makes that transmission possible ( . . . ), it must be held that an internet service provider ( . . . ) is an intermediary whose services are used to infringe a copyright or related right within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29.”

Private DNS Content Regulation

"[an injunction] constrains its addressee in a manner which restricts the free use of the resources at his disposal because it obliges him to take measures which may represent a significant cost for him.”

Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1) and 14bis(1)

Right of communication to the public

the authors of literary works, artistic works, dramatic and dramatico-musical works, musical works and cinematographic works

communication to the public by wire, communication to the public by wireless means & communication to the public by loudspeaker or analogous instruments, broadcasting, rebroadcasting

Blocking Orders

Intermediary Liability

C-494/15

“Nor can the intermediary be required to exercise general and permanent oversight over its customers. By contrast, the intermediary may be forced to take measures which contribute to avoiding new infringements of the same nature by the same market-trader from taking place.”

Broad Notion of Intermediary

Delta Center

Vs

What?

Art. 14 applies to ISPs who do not play an active role that give it knowledge or control over the data stored

but not an active monitoring of all the data of each of its customers in order to prevent any future infringement

The intermediary must be neutral

Adwords

injunctions ex Art 11 Dir. 04/48/EC to take measures that contribute not only to bringing to an end infringements committed through that marketplace, but also to preventing further infringements would be available

ISP can be ordered (injunction) to suspend the perpetrator of the infringement of intellectual property rights in order to prevent (1) further infringements of that kind (2) by the same seller (3) in respect of the same trade marks

(Keyword=Trademark)

the operator has provided assistance which entails, in particular, optimising the presentation of the offers for sale in question or promoting those offers, it must be considered not to have taken a neutral position between the customer-seller concerned and potential buyers but to have played an active role

The mere facts that (1) Adwords is subject to payment, (2) Google sets the payment terms, or (3) provides general information to its clients do not deprive from the liability exemption

Trademark

BSkyB

Vs

"the ordinary principle is that unless there are good reasons for a different order an innocent intermediary is entitled to be indemnified by the rights-holder against the costs of complying with a website-blocking order"

Centralization

Taxonomy

"could potentially undermine freedom of information, since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications. Indeed, it is not contested that the reply to the question whether a transmission is lawful also depends on the application of statutory exceptions to copyright which vary from one Member State to another. In addition, in some Member States certain works fall within the public domain or may be posted online free of charge by the authors concerned." (Netlog, 50)

monitoring all the electronic communications made through the network, without any limitation in time, directed to all future infringements of existing and yet to create works “would result in a serious infringement of the freedom of the hosting service provider to conduct its business.” (Netlog 46)

Online Intermediaries

Fundamental Rights

ICANN-Registry Agreement (2013) 2.17 Specification 11 (requiring registry operators to include in their contracts with registrars a provision requiring registrars to include in their contracts with registrants “a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from […] piracy, trademark or copyright infringement […] and providing [...] consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name.”

ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (2013) 3.18.

Communication to the Public

What is communication to the public?

Authorization Liability

Member States shall provide authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works,

(a)

by wire or wireless means,

(b)

including the making available to the public of their works

(c)

in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

(A)

Recital 27: The mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication does not in itself amount to communication within the meaning of this Directive.’

(B)

Recital 23: ‘This Directive should harmonise further the author's right of communication to the public. This right should be understood in a broad sense covering all communication to the public not present at the place where the communication originates. This right should cover any such transmission or retransmission of a work to the public by wire or wireless means, including broadcasting. This right should not cover any other acts.’

Right of communication to the public of works

and

right of making available to the public other subject-matters

Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the making available to the public, (a) by wire or wireless means, (b) in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them:

(a)

for performers, of fixations of their performances;

(b)

for phonogram producers, of their phonograms;

(c)

for the producers of the first fixations of films, of the original and copies of their films;

(d)

for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their broadcasts, whether these broadcasts are transmitted by wire or over the air, including by cable or satellite.

Intra-copyright solutions

Why not primary liability?

The rights referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be exhausted by any act of communication to the public or making available to the public as set out in this Article.

When is one person liable for a copyright infringement where the material act of infringement was performed by somebody else?

(i)

(ii)

(aka accessory liability, indirect liability, third party, i.e. cases where the defendant is held liable for the infringement of somebody else)

esp. intermediary liability

‘broadcasting’

‘making available’

History, Theory

and Jurisdiction

Each member of the public at a time and place of their own choosing

for all members of the public simultaneously

‘linear transmissions’ or

‘push services’

‘on-demand’ or

‘pull’ services or

‘non-linear’ transmissions

Secondary Liability

Tort and

Extra-Contractual Liability

Conditions

Svensson v. Retriever Sverige

Deep Linking

Hyperlinking

an ‘act of communication’, as it ‘affords users of the [site with the hyperlink] direct access’ to the works’

SGAE v. Rafael Hoteles, C-306/05

Airfield NV v. SABAM, Joined Cases C-431/09 and C-432/09

Società Consortile Fonografici v. Marco del Corso, C-135/10

Is linking communication to the public?

Strict Liability v. Negligence Standards

(1)

Installation of facilities that allow distribution of a TV or radio signal (not mere provision of physical facilities)

(1)

‘indispensable’ intervention, i.e. such that in the absence of that intervention, the public would not, in principle, be able to enjoy the work

‘[I]n order to assess whether a user is making a communication to the public […] the situation of a specific user and of all the persons to whom he communicates the protected phonograms must be assessed. For the purposes of such an assessment, account must be taken of several complementary criteria, which are not autonomous and are interdependent. Consequently, they must be applied individually and in the light of their interaction with one another, given that in different specific situations, they may be met to varying degrees.’

The 4th Revolution and the Infosphere

(2)

in the case of satellite broadcastings,

when the initial communication to the public is not carried out by the copyright holder,

the “new public” is the “public which was not taken into account by the authors of the protected works within the framework of an authorization given to another person”.

Linking

(1)

The provision of physical or digital phonograms and apparatus on which these may be played

(1)

the defendant must make a ‘intervention’ to give access to or experience of works to a public that is not present at the place where the work or subject matter originate

(2)

cumulative effects are important: must consider not only for how many persons have access to the same work at the same time, but also how many of them have access to it in succession.

GS Media v Sanoma, C-160/15, 8 September 2016

(2)

private nature of hotel room does not preclude cttp

(1)

that is ‘deliberate’ i.e. done in full knowledge of the consequences of the action

(2)

• indeterminate and fairly large number of people
• private dental practice is not a public space

(2)

There is a de minimis threshold  must be a fairly large number of people, not groups of persons which are too small or insignificant

(3)

• profit-making nature (equitable remuneration)
• there was no communication for profit

(1)

Role of the user:

intervention necessary for consumers to enjoy the works

(2)

There must be an indeterminate number of potential users, i.e. not ‘specific individuals belonging to a private group’

(2)

new public

Phonographic Performance (Ireland) v General, C-162/10, 15 March 2012

(7 Mar)

2013

(24 Nov)

2011

(4 Oct)

2011

‘[W]here it is established that [the linker] knew or ought to have known that the hyperlink he posted provides access to a work illegally placed on the internet, for example owing to the fact that he was notified thereof by the copyright holders, it is necessary to consider that the provision of that link constitutes a “communication to the public”’

‘[W]hen the posting of hyperlinks is carried out for profit, it can be expected that the person who posted such a link carries out the necessary checks to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published on the website to which those hyperlinks lead, so that it must be presumed that that posting has occurred with the full knowledge of the protected nature of that work and the possible lack of consent to publication on the internet by the copyright holder. In such circumstances, and in so far as that rebuttable presumption is not rebutted, the act of posting a hyperlink to a work which was illegally placed on the internet constitutes a ‘communication to the public’

General Principles of Private (Tort) Law

BestWater Int'l v. Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch, C-348/13, 21 October 2014

ITV v. TV Catch-up, C‑607/11

FAPL v. QC Leisure,C-403/08 and C-429/08

(26 April 2017)

2006

(7 Dec)

Circul Globus Bucuresti v. UCMR - ADA, C-283/10

2012

(15 Mar)

2011

(12 Oct)

Case C-527/15,

(1)

streaming is a cttp: any transmission or retransmission of TV broadcast over the Internet

(1)

intentional transmission

Does a link to materials that the copyright holder DID NOT authorize infringe communication to the public?

May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of authors by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(2) of the Information Society Directive?

(1)

covering transmission of the broadcast works, via a television screen and speakers

(2)

New public ? even though those subscribers are within the area of reception of that terrestrial television broadcast and may lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver.

(1)

Dir. 2001/29 only refers to communication to a public which is not present at the place where the communication originates

(2)

Communication carried out in a place open to the public by public performance or direct presentation of the work is not harmonised.

(2)

to customers present in a public house

(3)

it is not irrelevant that a communication is of profit-making nature

Why 3(2), rather than 3(1)?

(3)

it is irrelevant whether the retrasmission

• is funded by advertizing and is therfore of a profit-making nature or
• is made by an organization which is acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster.

(2)

unless different means of transmission are used

C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg, C-279/13, 26 March 2015

Contributory, Vicarious, and Inducement Liability

Vertical

Horizontal

Conditions

Why were liability exemptions given to intermediaries?

Penalties should be imposed on intermediaries in hopes of suppressing infringing behaviors by users only if:

(1)

otherwise, the incidence of infringement would be unacceptably high, because direct infringers cannot be controlled by socially acceptable sanctions;

(2)

the intermediaries, on their own, would not intervene to curb infringement—and instead, might foster it;

(3)

the intermediaries can effectively suppress infringement with minimal capacity for direct infringers to circumvent them;

(4)

the social and economic cost of penalizing intermediaries are not unacceptably high. *

* This last cost benefit analysis would be especially relevant in the case of so called dual-use technologies—technologies that can be used both to infringe others’ rights and facilitate social beneficial uses

Copyright

Committee on Internet Violations of Intellectual Property (CIVIP)

From Liability to Responsibility

Utilitarian/Welfare

Theories

Liability

Liability Exemptions

Moral Theories

Exemptions

Negligence

Strict Liability

Vs

“a teaspoon solution to an ocean problem.”