University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Na nivou Europske unije davatelji internet usluga su duži vremenski
period u pogledu odgovornosti za sadržaje koje korisnici učitavaju uživali
pogodnosti „sigurne luke“. Njihova uloga je bila pasivna a do odgovornosti
je dolazilo samo u slučaju ukoliko bi na bilo koji način bili involvirani u
nezakonite aktivnosti svojih korisnika. Usvajanjem Direktive o autorskom i
srodnim pravima na jedinstvenom digitalnom tržištu, došlo je do potpunog
zaokreta. Članom 17. je odgovornost davatelja usluga pojačana, tako da sada
imaju obavezu proaktivnog djelovanja sa ciljem onemogućavanja dostupnosti
sadržaja zaštićenih autorskim ili srodnim pravima. Ovakva obaveza cijenjena
je kao uvođenje filtera za praćenje, što se smatra ugrožavanjem slobode
izražavanja i informiranja, radi čega je član 17. Direktive osporavan ne
samo u teoriji, već i pred Sudom Europske unije. Ispostavlja se da Direktiva
pruža dovoljno garancija slobodi izražavanja i informiranja, te da eventualna
ograničenja imaju opravdanje i proporcionalna su cilju koji se želi postići a to
je poboljšanje pozicije nositelja prava intelektualnog vlasništva.
At the level of the European Union, providers of online - internet services
have enjoyed the benefits of a “safe harbor” for a longer period of time in
terms of responsibility for content uploaded by users. Their role was passive,
and responsibility arose only in the event that they somehow became involved
in the illegal activities of their users. With the adoption of the Directive on
copyright and related rights in the digital single market, a complete turnaround
took place. Article 17 strengthens the responsibility of service providers, so
that they now have the obligation to act proactively with the aim of preventing
the availability of content protected by copyright or related rights. Such an
obligation is regarded as an obligation to introduce a monitoring filter, which
is regarded as a threat to freedom of expression and information, and Article
17 of the Directive was challenged not only in theory, but also before the
Court of the European Union. It turns out that the Directive provides sufficient
guarantees of freedom of expression and information, and that any restrictions
are justified and are proportionate to the goal it seeks to achieve, which is to
improve the position of intellectual property rights holders.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.