In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to the fourth question referred in each of the two cases is that Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive must be interpreted as not precluding a situation under national law whereby a copyright holder or holder of a related right may not obtain an injunction against an intermediary whose service has been used by a third party to infringe his or her right, that intermediary having had no knowledge or awareness of that infringement, within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a) of the Directive on Electronic Commerce, unless, before court proceedings are commenced, that infringement has first been notified to that intermediary and the latter has failed to intervene expeditiously in order to remove the content in question or to block access to it and to ensure that such infringements do not recur. It is, however, for the national courts to satisfy themselves, when applying such a condition, that that condition does not result in the actual cessation of the infringement being delayed in such a way as to cause disproportionate damage to the rightholder.


The sooner we all switch to peertube, the better.


An important caveat is " insofar as it is just a host, and not contributing to giving access." Content recommendation algorithms may be a clear way where YouTube would lose their intermediary liability protection. I also wonder if a creator can provide copies of their work to YouTube in advance as a condition of prewarned.

Subscribe to see more stories about technology on your homepage

  • 0 users online
  • 10 users / day
  • 33 users / week
  • 115 users / month
  • 397 users / 6 months
  • 6 subscribers
  • 1.24K Posts
  • Modlog