Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disclosure of Internet Users’ Identities in the US, EU and China

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Regulating Hosting ISPs’ Responsibilities for Copyright Infringement

Abstract

The Internet users, who commit infringement directly, as primary infringers, should be liable for the infringement. However, Internet is characterized with anonymization, which means that Internet users can easily hide their identities on the Internet. Without knowing the identities of infringers in suspect, copyright owners cannot launch lawsuits. In order to ensure the copyright owners’ right to sue Internet users, the laws require ISPs to disclose the Internet users’ identities under certain circumstances. At international level, Trips-plus provisions such as ACTA also include a clause which requires ISPs to disclose the identity information of suspected infringers to intellectual property owners. However, Internet users’ identities fall within the privacy which should be protected as one of the fundamental rights. Therefore, certain degree of restriction has to be rendered on identity disclosure in the context of copyright enforcement. From the perspective of avoiding conflicts with copyright owners, hosting ISPs are more willing to disclose the identity information requested by them, but such disclosure ought to follow due process because of privacy concerns. This chapter explores the identity disclosure mechanisms in the US, EU and China, and then discusses how to regulate hosting ISPs’ duties in identity disclosure mechanisms from the perspective of preserving their freedom to operate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Art. 4.

  2. 2.

    DMCA, Sec. 512 (h)(1).

  3. 3.

    Ibid., (h)(2).

  4. 4.

    Ibid., (h)(3).

  5. 5.

    Ibid., (h)(4).

  6. 6.

    Ibid., (h)(5).

  7. 7.

    RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services, 240 F. Supp. 2d 24, at 24–26 (D.D.C. 2003).

  8. 8.

    See RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services, 240 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003), 257 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D.D.C. 2003), 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir 2003).

  9. 9.

    RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services, 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir 2003), at 1236. According to DMCA, Sec. 512 (c)(3)(A)(iii), a notification must identify “the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.” Nevertheless, Verizon, as an Internet access provider, was not involved in storing the infringing materials, so it was impossible for Verizon to remove or disable the access to the infringing materials, and thus notifications send by RIAA could not be competent under Sec. 512 (c)(3)(A)(iii).

  10. 10.

    Shanahan (2011), at 472.

  11. 11.

    Peguera M (2009), at 492.

  12. 12.

    Cuban’s film studio subpoenas Google over videos, Reuters (2007), available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/07/google-cuban-idUSN0726738220070307 quoting Kim (2007).

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    Gleicher (2008).

  15. 15.

    Shanahan, ‘ACTA Fool or: How Rights Holders Learned to Stop Worrying and Love 512’s Subpoena Provisions’ (n10), at 472.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    Artista Records, LLC v. Does 1–12, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82548, at 5.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., at 5–6.

  19. 19.

    United States, Electronic Frontier Foundation, available at https://www.eff.org/issues/mandatory-data-retention/us (last visited 20-08-2014).

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Helft (2008).

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Directive 95/46/EC, Art. 13 (g).

  24. 24.

    Kuner (2008), at 199.

  25. 25.

    E-commerce Directive, Art. 15(2).

  26. 26.

    Directive 2004/48/EC, Art. 8.

  27. 27.

    According to Article 13 of General Data Protection Directive, a restriction can be rendered on personal data protection when such a restriction constitutes a necessary measure to safeguard: (a) national security; (b) defence; (c) public security; (c) the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, or of breaches of ethics for regulated professions; (e) an important economic or financial interest of a Member State or of the European Union, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters; (f) a monitoring, inspection or regulatory function connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority in cases referred to in (c), (d) and (e); (g) the protection of the data subject or of the rights and freedoms of others. In light of Article 15 of E-privacy Directive, the restriction on personal data protection must constitute a necessary, appropriate and proportionate measure within a democratic society to safeguard national security (i.e. State security), defence, public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communication system.

  28. 28.

    Article 15(2) of E-commerce Directive only indicates that an ISP can pass on Internet users’ personal data to competent authorities upon request. Article 8 of IP Enforcement Directive only prescribes that in a proceeding about IP infringement, courts may issue an order to disclose the identities of persons who conduct infringement on a commercial scale, but does not clarify whether such disclosure can be made in civil procedure.

  29. 29.

    Kuner et al. (2009), at 9.

  30. 30.

    Case C-275/06 Productores de Música de España v Telefónica de España Sau (‘Promusicae’) [2008] ECR I-00271, para. 71.

  31. 31.

    Case C-557/07, LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH v. Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH [2009] ECR I-01227, para. 47.

  32. 32.

    See Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v. Telefónica de España SAU (n896), LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH v. Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH (n897).

  33. 33.

    Tasillo and Sterpi (2015), at 216.

  34. 34.

    See Kuner C, et al., Study on online copyright enforcement and data protection in selected Member States (n29), at 24.

  35. 35.

    Mitsui Limited v Nexen Petroleum UK Limited [2005] EWHC 625 (Ch), quoting Kuner C, et al., Study on online copyright enforcement and data protection in selected Member States (n29), at 25.

  36. 36.

    Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, Sec. 101 (1). As provided in this Article, any person who infringes copyright or another right protected under this Act on a commercial scale may be required by the injured party to provide information without delay as to the origin and the distribution networks of infringing copies or other products.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    Council Directive 2006/24/EC of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, OJ L 105/54, Art. 1 and Art. 6.

  39. 39.

    Case C-461/10, Bonnier Audio AB v Perfect Communication Sweden AB [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:2190.

  40. 40.

    See Directive 2006/24/EC (n38), Art. 5. See also Feiler (2010), Para. 7.3.4.

  41. 41.

    Ibid.

  42. 42.

    Maxwell (2014), at 7.

  43. 43.

    Blakeney (2007), at 153. In Germany, the Constitutional Court even held that the two new Articles, which aimed at transposing the provisions in the Data Retention Directive, were are null and void, since they conflict with the right to privacy of telecommunications protected in Article 10 of the German Constitution. See Kaiser (2011), at 509.

  44. 44.

    In the light of this Article, personal data “must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law.”

  45. 45.

    Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications and others [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:238.

  46. 46.

    Kuner C, et al., Study on online copyright enforcement and data protection in selected Member States (n29), at 4.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., at 28.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., at 29.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., at 35.

  52. 52.

    Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (n36), Sec. 101 (1).

  53. 53.

    Criminal Procedure Code (Strafprozeßordnung, StPO), Sec. 100b (1).

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Kuner C, et al., Study on online copyright enforcement and data protection in selected Member States (n29), 22.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., at 24.

  57. 57.

    Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v. Telefónica de España SAU (n30), para. 68 and 70.

  58. 58.

    State Council (国务院), People’s Republic of China (中华人民共和国), Regulation on the Protection of the Right of Dissemination via Information network (信息网络传播权保护条例), Order No. 468 of the State Council (国务院 468号令), May 18, 2006, Art. 13.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., Art. 25.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Supreme People’s Court (最高人民法院), Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues Related to the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Computer Network Copyright Disputes (最高人民法院关于审理涉及计算机网络著作权纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释) (thereafter Internet Interpretation (2006) (网络解释 (2006)), Fa Shi [2006] No. 11 (法释[2006]11号), November 22, 2006, Art. 5.

  62. 62.

    Qiao v. tiexue.net (乔某某 v. 铁血网), Beijing Haidian District Court (北京市海淀区基层人民法院), (2006) Hai Min Chu Zi, No. 15350 ((2006)海民初字第15350号).

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Qiao v. china.com (乔某某 v. 中华网), Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court (北京市海淀区中级人民法院), (2006) Er Zhong Min Chu Zi, No. 8997 ((2006)二中民初字第8997号).

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    In this case, the plaintiff is a copyright agency company, and it got authorization to sue infringers from copyright owners whose books were unlawfully transmitted in question.

  67. 67.

    3rd Mian Xiang v. Great Wall Broadband (三面向诉长城宽带), Hubei Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court (湖北省武汉市中级人民法院), (2009) Wu Zhi Chu Zi, No. 18 ((2009)武知初字第18号).

  68. 68.

    Ibid.

  69. 69.

    Supreme People’s Court, Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues Related to the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Disputes over Infringement of the Right of Dissemination through Information Networks (最高人民法院关于审理侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定) (thereafter “Internet Provisions (网络规定)”), Fa Shi [2012] No. 20 (法释〔2012〕20号) November 26, 2012, Art. 4.

  70. 70.

    “Real-name registration (网络实名制)” means that when Internet users register for ISPs’ services, they need to provide their real identity information. According to Article 6 of Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Strengthening Network Information Protection (全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于加强网络信息保护的决定), When processing website access services, or landline or mobile phone network access formalities, or providing information release services for users, network service providers shall require the users to provide real identity information when entering into agreements with the users or when confirming the provision of such services. After then, blogs, BBS and other hosting services has started to implement “real-name registration” policy.

  71. 71.

    Qiao v. china.com (乔某某 v. 中华网), Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court (北京市海淀区中级人民法院), (2006) Er Zhong Min Chu Zi, No. 8997 ((2006)二中民初字第8997号).

  72. 72.

    joy.cn v. tudou.com (激动网v.土豆网), First People’s Intermediary Court of Shanghai (上海市第一中级人民法院), (2009) HuYiZongMinWu(Zhi)ZhongZi No. 79 ((2009)沪一中民五(知)终字第79号).

  73. 73.

    In the other two disputes between joy.cn and toudou.com, the defendant toudou.com even failed to disclose the alleged infringing users’ registration information because these information has been lost, and the courts still held toudou.com fulfilled its obligation of identity disclosure. See Cases: joy.cn v. tudou.com (激动网v.土豆网), First People’s Intermediary Court of Shanghai (上海市第一中级人民法院), HuYiZongMinWu(Zhi)ZhongZi No. 53 ((2009)沪一中民五(知)终字第53号); joy.cn v. tudou.com (激动网v.土豆网), First People’s Intermediary Court of Shanghai (上海市第一中级人民法院), HuYiZongMinWu(Zhi)ZhongZi No. 102 ((2009)沪一中民五(知)终字第102号).

  74. 74.

    3rd Mian Xiang v. Great Wall Broadband (三面向v.长城宽带) (n67).

  75. 75.

    After the implementation of a “real-name registration” policy, there is still no case in which copyright owners request hosting ISPs to disclose Internet users’ identity information. The possible reason might be that it is inefficient to sue Internet users.

  76. 76.

    Internet Provisions (网络规定) (n69). According to the last Article of this Judicial Interpretation, it replaces the Internet Interpretation (2006).

  77. 77.

    A search on the website of “Judicial Opinions of China” on which the judicial decisions are published, did not reveal any case involving identity disclosure in the case of online copyright infringement after the enactment of the latest Judicial Interpretation. See http://www.court.gov.cn/zgcpwsw/, (last visited, August 6, 2015).

  78. 78.

    Kuner C, et al., Study on online copyright enforcement and data protection in selected Member States (n29).

  79. 79.

    Gorski (2005). In terms of DMCA 512(h), the subpoena can be ordered by a clerk rather than a judge.

  80. 80.

    Bretan J (2003), at 52–53. Katyal S (2004), at 330.

  81. 81.

    3rd Mian Xiang (三面向诉长城宽带) v. Great Wall Broadband (n67).

  82. 82.

    Vincents (2008), at 270.

  83. 83.

    Cohen JE (2002), at 101. Katyal, ‘Privacy vs. Piracy’ (n80), at 335 and 345. Edwards L (2009).

  84. 84.

    Gray (2002).

  85. 85.

    DMCA Sec. 512 (h).

  86. 86.

    Ibid.

  87. 87.

    Williams KS (2005), at 687.

  88. 88.

    United States, Electronic Frontier Foundation, available at https://www.eff.org/issues/mandatory-data-retention/us (last visited 20-08-2014).

  89. 89.

    Feiler L (2010).

  90. 90.

    See Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications and others (n45).

References

  • Blakeney S (2007) The data retention directive: combating terrorism or invading privacy? Comput Telecommun Law Rev 13:153

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretan J (2003) Harboring Doubts about the Efficacy of 512 Immunity under the DMCA. Berkeley Technol Law J 18:43

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JE (2002) Overcoming property: does copyright trump privacy? J Law, Technol & Policy 2002:375

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards L (2009) Should ISPs be Compelled to Become Copyright Cops? File-Sharing, the Music Industry and Enforcement Online. J Soc Comput Law 19:29

    Google Scholar 

  • Feiler L (2010) The legality of the data retention directive in the light of the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection. Eur J Law Technol 1:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleicher N (2008) John Doe subpoenas: toward a consistent legal standard. The Yale Law Journal

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorski D (2005) Future of the digital millennium copyright act (DMCA) subpoena power on the internet in light of the verizon cases. Rev Litig 24:158

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray ME (2002) Fatwallet victorious in challenge to Wal-Mart’s frivolous DMCA subpoena. BerkleyLaw. Available at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/4719.htm (last visited 20 Aug 2014)

  • Helft M (2008) Google told to turn over user data of YouTube. The New York Times. Available at http://agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/constitution_1/1G_2008_Viacom_Lawsuit_Google_YouTube_July_4_2008_NYTimes.pdf (last visited 20 Aug 2014)

  • Kaiser AB (2011) German data retention provisions unconstitutional in their present form; decision of 2 March 2010, NJW 2010, p. 833. Eur Const Law Rev 6:503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katyal S (2004) Privacy vs. Piracy. Yale J Law & Technol 7:222

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim EC (2007) YouTube: Testing the safe harbors of digital copyright law. South Calif Interdisc Law J 17:142

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuner C (2008) Data protection and rights protection on the internet: the promusicae judgment of the European court of justice. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 30:199

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuner C et al (2009) Study on online copyright enforcement and data protection in selected Member States. DG Internal Market and Service of European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell W (2014) Systematic government access to private-sector data in France. Int Data Priv Law 4:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peguera M (2009) The DMCA safe harbors and their European counterparts: a comparative analysis of some common problems. Columbia J Law & Arts 32:481

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan CE (2011) ACTA fool or: How rights holders learned to stop worrying and love 512’s subpoena provisions. Mar Intell Prop Law Rev 15:465

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasillo A, Sterpi M (2015) Italy. In: Calame TJ, Sterpi M (eds) Copyright litigation: jurisdictional comparisons. European Lawyer

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincents OB (2008) When rights clash online: the tracking of P2P copyright infringements vs. the EC personal data directive. Int J Law Inf Technol 16:270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams KS (2005) On-line anonymity, deindividuation and freedom of expression and privacy. Penn State Law Rev 110:687

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KoGuan School of Law, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    Jie Wang

Authors
  1. Jie Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jie Wang .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wang, J. (2018). Disclosure of Internet Users’ Identities in the US, EU and China. In: Regulating Hosting ISPs’ Responsibilities for Copyright Infringement. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8351-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8351-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8350-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8351-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation