dirightDigital Law JournalЦифровое право2686-9136Maxim Inozemtsev10.38044/2686-9136-2024-5-1-2diright-204Research ArticleARTICLESСТАТЬИGrounds for Holding Online Intermediary Liable in Connection with Intellectual Property Rights InfringementОснования ответственности информационного посредника в связи с нарушением интеллектуальных правАксененкоА. А.AksenenkoA. A.

Аксененко А.А. — магистрант, юридический факультет

119234, Москва, Ленинские горы, д. 1/51

Alexandra A. Aksenenko — Master Student (LL.M.), Law Faculty

1-51, Leninskie Gory str., Moscow, 119234

alexandra.a@newskylaw.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0005-8312-7377КуликовО. А.KulikovO. A.

Куликов О.А. — магистрант, Российская школа частного права

103132, Москва, ул. Ильинка, д. 8/2

Oleg A. Kulikov — Master Student (LL.M.), Russian School of Private Law

8-2, Ilyinka str., Moscow, 103132

olzkulikov@yandex.ruМосковский государственный университет имени М.В. ЛомоносоваРоссияLomonosov Moscow State UniversityRussian FederationИсследовательский центр частного права имени С.С. Алексеева при Президенте Российской ФедерацииРоссияPrivate Law Research CentreRussian Federation202415112024512354Copyright © Aksenenko A.A., Kulikov O.A., 20252025Аксененко А.А., Куликов О.А.Aksenenko A.A., Kulikov O.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.digitallawjournal.org/jour/article/view/204

The present study analyses the grounds on which an online intermediary can be held liable in connection with intellectual property rights infringement. Its purpose was to establish the forms of unlawful behavior in which the intermediary’s violation can be expressed and their influence on intermediary’s liability. This problem is of particular importance due to the fact that the Russian legal order has not yet formulated a sustainable approach to its resolution. The negative consequences of this gap are unjustified expansion of intermediaries’ liability and uncertainty of its regulation. In authors’ opinion, the expression «on general grounds» used by the legislator in Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation indicates the heterogeneity of the grounds of intermediary’s liability. Bearing this in mind, the article builds a system that would take into account the diversity of forms of intermediary’s participation in transmission of infringing content. The paper considers the most common options of the grounds of liability of online intermediaries. Using the experience of foreign legal orders, the possibility of their implementation in the Russian legal system is assessed. The authors come to the conclusion that the system of grounds of online intermediary liability should include unlawful use, failure to take measures to prevent or suppress infringement, participation in joint infringement of exclusive rights, as well as material contribution or inducement, which cannot be considered as joint tortfeasor ship. At the same time, the authors consider the application of such grounds as infringement of the right of authorisation and vicarious liability of intermediary for user’s actions to be inappropriate in the paradigm of Russian law. Each of the proposed grounds has its own scope of application, and the regime of liability arising from them is differentiated. In the framework of the proposed model, the scope of liability, its nature and available legal remedies are made dependent on the specific ground.

Настоящее исследование посвящено анализу оснований, по которым информационный посредник может быть привлечен к ответственности в связи с нарушением интеллектуальных прав. Его цель состояла в установлении форм противоправного поведения, в которых может выражаться нарушение посредника, и их влияния на режим ответственности. Особое значение данная проблема приобретает в связи с тем, что российский правопорядок еще не сформулировал устойчивого подхода к ее разрешению. Негативными последствиями этого пробела являются необоснованное расширение ответственности посредников и неопределенность в ее регулировании. По мнению авторов, использованное законодателем в ст. 1253.1 ГК РФ выражение «на общих основаниях» указывает на разнородность оснований ответственности информационного посредника. С учетом этого в исследовании выстраивается система возможных нарушений посредника, которая учитывает многообразие форм его участия в передаче нарушающего интеллектуальные права контента. В работе рассматриваются наиболее распространенные варианты оснований ответственности информационных посредников. С использованием опыта зарубежных правопорядков оценивается возможность их реализации в российской правовой системе. Авторы приходят к выводу, что система оснований ответственности информационного посредника по российскому праву должна включать неправомерное использование, непринятие мер по предотвращению или пресечению нарушения, участие в совместном нарушении исключительного права, а также не являющиеся участием в совместном нарушении содействие или провокацию. Применение таких оснований, как посягательство на правомочие авторизации и фиктивное признание действий пользователя действиями посредника, в парадигме российского права признается авторами нецелесообразным. Каждому из предложенных оснований отводится собственная сфера применения, а режим ответственности, вытекающей из них, дифференцируется. В рамках предлагаемой модели в зависимость от конкретного основания поставлены объем ответственности, ее характер и доступные средства защиты нарушенного права.

информационный посредникгражданско-правовая ответственностьнарушение интеллектуальных правсовместное нарушение исключительного правасолидарная ответственностьдолевая ответственностьсредства правовой защитыonline intermediarycivil liabilityintellectual property rights infringementjoint violation of exclusive rightssolidary liabilityseparate liabilitylegal remediesReferencesAleksejchuk, A. A. (2023). Osobennosti otvetstvennosti informacionnyh posrednikov za narusheniya v seti [Features of liability of online intermediaries for violations in the network]. In M. A. Rozhkova (Ed.), Intellectual rights in the digital age: Selected aspects (pp. 212–229). GAUGN Press.Aleksejchuk, A. A. (2023). Osobennosti otvetstvennosti informacionnyh posrednikov za narusheniya v seti [Features of liability of online intermediaries for violations in the network]. In M. A. Rozhkova (Ed.), Intellectual rights in the digital age: Selected aspects (pp. 212–229). GAUGN Press.Amadei, X. (2002). 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), 190–229.Amadei, X. (2002). 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), 190–229.Angelopoulos, C. (2017). European Intermediary Liability in Copyright: A Tort-Based Analysis. Alphen van den Rijn: Kluwer Law International BV.Angelopoulos, C. (2017). European Intermediary Liability in Copyright: A Tort-Based Analysis. Alphen van den Rijn: Kluwer Law International BV.Angelopoulos, C. (2020). Harmonizing intermediary copyright liability in the EU: A summary. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 314-334). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.16Angelopoulos, C. (2020). Harmonizing intermediary copyright liability in the EU: A summary. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 314-334). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.16Aristi, R. S. (2007). El intercambio de obras protegidas a través de las plataformas peer-to-peer [The exchange of protected works through peer-to-peer platforms]. Instituto de Derecho de Autor.Aristi, R. S. (2007). El intercambio de obras protegidas a través de las plataformas peer-to-peer [The exchange of protected works through peer-to-peer platforms]. Instituto de Derecho de Autor.Arnold, R. (2020). Intermediary liability and trade mark infringement: A common law perspective. In G. Frosio, The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 404–420). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.21Arnold, R. (2020). Intermediary liability and trade mark infringement: A common law perspective. In G. Frosio, The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 404–420). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.21Barazza, S. (2012). Secondary liability for IP infringement: Сonverging patterns and approaches in comparative case law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 7(12), 879–889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPS164Barazza, S. (2012). Secondary liability for IP infringement: Сonverging patterns and approaches in comparative case law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 7(12), 879–889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPS164Bartholomew, M., & McArdle, P. F. (2011). Causing infringement. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64(3), 675–746.Bartholomew, M., & McArdle, P. F. (2011). Causing infringement. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64(3), 675–746.Bayer, A. (2009). Liability 2.0 — does the internet environment require new standards for secondary liability? An overview of the current legal situation in Germany. In W. P. Waldeck und Pyrmont, M. Adelmann, R. Brauneis, J. Drexl & R. Nack, Patents and technological progress in a globalized world (pp. 365–377). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88743-0_26Bayer, A. (2009). Liability 2.0 — does the internet environment require new standards for secondary liability? An overview of the current legal situation in Germany. In W. P. Waldeck und Pyrmont, M. Adelmann, R. Brauneis, J. Drexl & R. Nack, Patents and technological progress in a globalized world (pp. 365–377). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88743-0_26De Beer, J., & Clemmer, C. (2008). Global trends in online copyright enforcement: A non-neutral role for network intermediaries. Jurimetrics, 49(4), 375–409.De Beer, J., & Clemmer, C. (2008). Global trends in online copyright enforcement: A non-neutral role for network intermediaries. Jurimetrics, 49(4), 375–409.Blevins, J. (2013). Uncertainty as enforcement mechanism: The new expansion of secondary copyright liability to internet platforms. Cardozo Law Review, 34(1), 1823–1887.Blevins, J. (2013). Uncertainty as enforcement mechanism: The new expansion of secondary copyright liability to internet platforms. Cardozo Law Review, 34(1), 1823–1887.Bogdanova, O. (2017). Zashchita intellektual’nyh avtorskikh prav grazhdansko-pravovymi sposobami [Copyright protection by civil law remedies]. Yusticinform.Bogdanova, O. (2017). Zashchita intellektual’nyh avtorskikh prav grazhdansko-pravovymi sposobami [Copyright protection by civil law remedies]. Yusticinform.Burk, D. L., & Cohen, J. E. (2001). Fair use infrastructure for rights management systems. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 15(1), 41–83.Burk, D. L., & Cohen, J. E. (2001). Fair use infrastructure for rights management systems. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 15(1), 41–83.Bustos, A. A. B. (2018). Evolución de la jurisprudencia sobre la responsabilidad de los intermediarios de la sociedad de la información como facilitadores de infracciones directas [Developments in case law on the liability of information society intermediaries as facilitators of direct infringement]. Informática y Derecho: Revista Iberoamericana de Derecho Informático (segunda época) [Informatics and Law: Iberoamerican Review of IT Law (second period)], (4), 71–92.Bustos, A. A. B. (2018). Evolución de la jurisprudencia sobre la responsabilidad de los intermediarios de la sociedad de la información como facilitadores de infracciones directas [Developments in case law on the liability of information society intermediaries as facilitators of direct infringement]. Informática y Derecho: Revista Iberoamericana de Derecho Informático (segunda época) [Informatics and Law: Iberoamerican Review of IT Law (second period)], (4), 71–92.Bustos, A. A. B. (2018). Las infracciones indirectas como mecanismo para la adecuada remuneración de los autores [Indirect copyright infringement as a mechanism for the adequate remuneration of the authors] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Salamanca]. Credos [University of Salamanca Campus Repository]. http://hdl.handle.net/10366/139099Bustos, A. A. B. (2018). Las infracciones indirectas como mecanismo para la adecuada remuneración de los autores [Indirect copyright infringement as a mechanism for the adequate remuneration of the authors] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Salamanca]. Credos [University of Salamanca Campus Repository]. http://hdl.handle.net/10366/139099Cascón, F. C. (2015). Delimitación de la responsabilidad de los servicios de intermediación de la sociedad de la información (II) (Segunda parte) (Especial atención a la infracción de derechos de propiedad industrial e intelectual a través de servicios Hosting-Web 2-0) [Delimitation of the liability of intermediation services of the information society (II) (Part Two) (Special attention to the infringement of industrial and intellectual property rights through Hosting-Web 2-0 services)]. Iustitia, (13), 217–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.15332/IUST.V0I13.1542Cascón, F. C. (2015). Delimitación de la responsabilidad de los servicios de intermediación de la sociedad de la información (II) (Segunda parte) (Especial atención a la infracción de derechos de propiedad industrial e intelectual a través de servicios Hosting-Web 2-0) [Delimitation of the liability of intermediation services of the information society (II) (Part Two) (Special attention to the infringement of industrial and intellectual property rights through Hosting-Web 2-0 services)]. Iustitia, (13), 217–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.15332/IUST.V0I13.1542Castello P. J. J. (2016). La responsabilidad indirecta de los prestadores de servicios de la sociedad de la información e intermediarios a la luz del artículo 138. II de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual [Indirect liability of ISPs and intermediaries in light of article 138.II of the Spanish Intellectual Property Law]. Revista Aranzadi de derecho patrimonial [Aranzadi Review of Patrimonial Law], (41), 175–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3142326Castello P. J. J. (2016). La responsabilidad indirecta de los prestadores de servicios de la sociedad de la información e intermediarios a la luz del artículo 138. II de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual [Indirect liability of ISPs and intermediaries in light of article 138.II of the Spanish Intellectual Property Law]. Revista Aranzadi de derecho patrimonial [Aranzadi Review of Patrimonial Law], (41), 175–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3142326Davies, P. S. (2015). Accessory liability. Bloomsbury Publishing.Davies, P. S. (2015). Accessory liability. Bloomsbury Publishing.Arnold, R., & Davies, P. (2017). Accessory liability for intellectual property infringement: The case of authorisation. Law Quarterly Review, 133(1), 442–468.Arnold, R., & Davies, P. (2017). Accessory liability for intellectual property infringement: The case of authorisation. Law Quarterly Review, 133(1), 442–468.Dinwoodie, G. B. (2017). A comparative analysis of the secondary liability of online service providers. In G. B. Dinwoodie (Ed.), Secondary liability of internet service providers (pp. 1–72). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_1Dinwoodie, G. B. (2017). A comparative analysis of the secondary liability of online service providers. In G. B. Dinwoodie (Ed.), Secondary liability of internet service providers (pp. 1–72). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_1Elkin-Koren, N. (2014). After twenty years: Copyright liability of online intermediaries. In S. Frankel, & D. Gervais (Eds.), The evolution and equilibrium of copyright in the digital age (pp. 29–51). Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477179.005Elkin-Koren, N. (2014). After twenty years: Copyright liability of online intermediaries. In S. Frankel, & D. Gervais (Eds.), The evolution and equilibrium of copyright in the digital age (pp. 29–51). Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477179.005Elkin-Koren, N. (2006). Making technology visible: Liability of internet service providers for peer-to-peer traffic. New York University Journal Legislation and Public Policy, 9(1), 2–60.Elkin-Koren, N. (2006). Making technology visible: Liability of internet service providers for peer-to-peer traffic. New York University Journal Legislation and Public Policy, 9(1), 2–60.Feder, J. M. (2004). Is Betamax obsolete: Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. in the Age of Napster. Creighton Law Review, 37, 859–913.Feder, J. M. (2004). Is Betamax obsolete: Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. in the Age of Napster. Creighton Law Review, 37, 859–913.Frosio, G. F. (2018). Why keep a dog and bark yourself? From intermediary liability to responsibility. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 26(1), 1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eax021Frosio, G. F. (2018). Why keep a dog and bark yourself? From intermediary liability to responsibility. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 26(1), 1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eax021Fuentes, J. M. (2003). La responsabilidad de los prestadores de servicios en línea por las infracciones al derecho de autor y los derechos conexos en el ámbito digital. El Tratado OMPI sobre Derecho de Autor (WCT) y el Tratado OMPI sobre Interpretación o Ejecución y Fonogramas (WPPT) [The liability of online service providers for infringements of copyright and related rights in the digital environment. The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)]. Revista de Propiedad Intelectual [Intellectual Property Review], (13), 11–48.Fuentes, J. M. (2003). La responsabilidad de los prestadores de servicios en línea por las infracciones al derecho de autor y los derechos conexos en el ámbito digital. El Tratado OMPI sobre Derecho de Autor (WCT) y el Tratado OMPI sobre Interpretación o Ejecución y Fonogramas (WPPT) [The liability of online service providers for infringements of copyright and related rights in the digital environment. The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)]. Revista de Propiedad Intelectual [Intellectual Property Review], (13), 11–48.Giliker, P. (2010). Vicarious liability in tort: A comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779008Giliker, P. (2010). Vicarious liability in tort: A comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779008Ginsburg, J. C., & Ricketson, S. (2006). Inducers and authorisers: A comparison of the US Supreme Court’s Grokster decision and the Australian Federal Court’s Kazaa ruling. Media & Arts Law Review, 11(1), 2–25.Ginsburg, J. C., & Ricketson, S. (2006). Inducers and authorisers: A comparison of the US Supreme Court’s Grokster decision and the Australian Federal Court’s Kazaa ruling. Media & Arts Law Review, 11(1), 2–25.Goold, P. R. (2013). Corrective justice and copyright infringement. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 16(2), 251–294.Goold, P. R. (2013). Corrective justice and copyright infringement. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 16(2), 251–294.Gorodov, O. A. (2017). Otvetstvennost’ informacionnykh posrednikov [Liability of information intermediaries]. Patenty i licenzii. Intellektual’nye prava [Patents and licenses. Intellectual property rights], (7), 2–8.Gorodov, O. A. (2017). Otvetstvennost’ informacionnykh posrednikov [Liability of information intermediaries]. Patenty i licenzii. Intellektual’nye prava [Patents and licenses. Intellectual property rights], (7), 2–8.Hamdani, A. (2002). Who’s liable for cyberwrongs. Cornell Law Review, 87(4), 901–957.Hamdani, A. (2002). Who’s liable for cyberwrongs. Cornell Law Review, 87(4), 901–957.Helman, L., & Parchomovsky, G. (2011). The best available technology standard. Columbia Law Review, 111, 1194–1243.Helman, L., & Parchomovsky, G. (2011). The best available technology standard. Columbia Law Review, 111, 1194–1243.Husovec, M. (2017). Injunctions against intermediaries in the European Union: Accountable but not liable? Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108227421Husovec, M. (2017). Injunctions against intermediaries in the European Union: Accountable but not liable? Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108227421Husovec, M. (2019). Remedies first, liability second: Or why we fail to agree on optimal design of intermediary liability? In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary Liability (pp. 90–103). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.4Husovec, M. (2019). Remedies first, liability second: Or why we fail to agree on optimal design of intermediary liability? In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary Liability (pp. 90–103). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.4Ivanov, N. V. (2023). Osobennosti otvetstvennosti informacionnogo posrednika za narushenie isklyuchitel’nogo prava [Peculiarities of liability of the information intermediary for violation of an exclusive right]. Zakon [The Law], (5), 37–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-5-37-52Ivanov, N. V. (2023). Osobennosti otvetstvennosti informacionnogo posrednika za narushenie isklyuchitel’nogo prava [Peculiarities of liability of the information intermediary for violation of an exclusive right]. Zakon [The Law], (5), 37–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-5-37-52Kalyatin, V. O. (2012). O nekotorykh tendenciyakh razvitiya zakonodatelstva ob otvetstvennosti internet-provaydera [On some trends in the development of legislation on the liability of Internet service providers]. Zakon [The Law], (7), 27–34.Kalyatin, V. O. (2012). O nekotorykh tendenciyakh razvitiya zakonodatelstva ob otvetstvennosti internet-provaydera [On some trends in the development of legislation on the liability of Internet service providers]. Zakon [The Law], (7), 27–34.Kalyatin, V. O. (2012). Problemy opredeleniya predelov otvetstvennosti internet-provajdera [Problems of determining the limits of liability of an Internet provider]. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda [Bulletin of the Highest Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation], (3), 125–132.Kalyatin, V. O. (2012). Problemy opredeleniya predelov otvetstvennosti internet-provajdera [Problems of determining the limits of liability of an Internet provider]. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda [Bulletin of the Highest Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation], (3), 125–132.Katyal, N. K. (2001). Criminal law in cyberspace. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149(4), 1003–1114.Katyal, N. K. (2001). Criminal law in cyberspace. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149(4), 1003–1114.Konarski, X., & Targosz, T. (2017). Secondary liability of internet service providers in Poland. In G. Dinwoodie (Ed.), Secondary liability of internet service providers (pp. 73–91). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_2Konarski, X., & Targosz, T. (2017). Secondary liability of internet service providers in Poland. In G. Dinwoodie (Ed.), Secondary liability of internet service providers (pp. 73–91). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_2Korolev, M. (2014). Ispolzovanie proizvedeniy pri okazanii uslugi kabelnogo televideniya [The use of the works in the provision of cable television services]. Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’. Avtorskoe Pravo i Smezhnye Prava [Intellectual Property. Copyright Law and Related Rights], (3), 50–54.Korolev, M. (2014). Ispolzovanie proizvedeniy pri okazanii uslugi kabelnogo televideniya [The use of the works in the provision of cable television services]. Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’. Avtorskoe Pravo i Smezhnye Prava [Intellectual Property. Copyright Law and Related Rights], (3), 50–54.Kraakman, R. H. (1986). Gatekeepers: The anatomy of a third-party enforcement strategy. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2(1), 53–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036906Kraakman, R. H. (1986). Gatekeepers: The anatomy of a third-party enforcement strategy. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2(1), 53–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036906Krokida, Z. (2022). Internet service provider liability for copyright and trade mark infringement: Towards an EU co-regulatory framework. Bloomsbury Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.48683/1926.00094852Krokida, Z. (2022). Internet service provider liability for copyright and trade mark infringement: Towards an EU co-regulatory framework. Bloomsbury Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.48683/1926.00094852Laidlaw, E. B. (2015). Regulating speech in cyberspace: Gatekeepers, human rights and corporate responsibility. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107278721Laidlaw, E. B. (2015). Regulating speech in cyberspace: Gatekeepers, human rights and corporate responsibility. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107278721Leistner, M. (2012). Common principles of secondary liability? In A. Ohly (Ed.), Common principles of European intellectual property (pp. 117–146). Mohr Siebeck.Leistner, M. (2012). Common principles of secondary liability? In A. Ohly (Ed.), Common principles of European intellectual property (pp. 117–146). Mohr Siebeck.Leistner, M. (2014). Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 9(1), 75–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt213Leistner, M. (2014). Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 9(1), 75–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpt213Letai, P. (2012). La infracción de derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre la obra musical en Internet [Infringement of intellectual property rights on musical works on the Internet]. Comares.Letai, P. (2012). La infracción de derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre la obra musical en Internet [Infringement of intellectual property rights on musical works on the Internet]. Comares.Lichtman, D., & Posner, E. A. (2006). Holding internet service providers accountable. Supreme Court Economic Review, 14, 221-259. https://doi.org/10.1086/scer.14.3655313Lichtman, D., & Posner, E. A. (2006). Holding internet service providers accountable. Supreme Court Economic Review, 14, 221-259. https://doi.org/10.1086/scer.14.3655313Lorents, D. V. (2020). Informatsionnye posredniki (provajdery) v Rossii i zarubezhnykh stranakh: Priroda, sushchnost’ i tipologiya [Information intermediaries (providers) in Russia and foreign countries: Nature, essence and typology]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossijskoj Federatsii [Bulletin of Economic Justice in Russian Federation], (5), 136–163.Lorents, D. V. (2020). Informatsionnye posredniki (provajdery) v Rossii i zarubezhnykh stranakh: Priroda, sushchnost’ i tipologiya [Information intermediaries (providers) in Russia and foreign countries: Nature, essence and typology]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossijskoj Federatsii [Bulletin of Economic Justice in Russian Federation], (5), 136–163.Lukhmanov, M. I. (2022). Model’ deliktnoj otvetstvennosti v situatsiyakh kumulyativnoj prichinnoj neopredelennosti [A model of tort liability in situations of cumulative causal uncertainty]. In D. A. Monakhov, & N. V. Tololaeva (Eds.), Aktual’nye problemy grazhdanskogo prava: sbornik rabot vypusknikov Rossijskoj shkoly chastnogo prava. Vypusk 16 [Current problems of civil law: Collection of works by graduates of the Russian School of Private Law. Issue 16] (pp. 470–511). Statut.Lukhmanov, M. I. (2022). Model’ deliktnoj otvetstvennosti v situatsiyakh kumulyativnoj prichinnoj neopredelennosti [A model of tort liability in situations of cumulative causal uncertainty]. In D. A. Monakhov, & N. V. Tololaeva (Eds.), Aktual’nye problemy grazhdanskogo prava: sbornik rabot vypusknikov Rossijskoj shkoly chastnogo prava. Vypusk 16 [Current problems of civil law: Collection of works by graduates of the Russian School of Private Law. Issue 16] (pp. 470–511). Statut.Meier, S. (2018). Plurality of parties. In N. Jansen, & R. Zimmermann (Eds.), Commentaries on European contract laws (pp. 1557–1625). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198790693.003.0011Meier, S. (2018). Plurality of parties. In N. Jansen, & R. Zimmermann (Eds.), Commentaries on European contract laws (pp. 1557–1625). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198790693.003.0011Markelova, A. A. (2021). Civil liability of taxi aggregators: Between contract and tort law. Digital Law Journal, 2(4), 8–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2021-2-4-8-19Markelova, A. A. (2021). Civil liability of taxi aggregators: Between contract and tort law. Digital Law Journal, 2(4), 8–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2021-2-4-8-19Markesinis, B. (1994). The German law of torts (3rd ed.). Clarendon Press.Markesinis, B. (1994). The German law of torts (3rd ed.). Clarendon Press.Marsoof, A. (2019). Internet intermediaries and trade mark rights. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351208512Marsoof, A. (2019). Internet intermediaries and trade mark rights. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351208512Mikhailov, V. S. (2021). Prichinno-sledstvennaya svyaz’ kak usloviye deliktnoy otvetstvennosti [Causation as a condition of tort liability] [Doctoral dissertation, Lomonosov Moscow State University]. Istina — Lomonosov Moscow State University Repository. https://istina.msu.ru/download/353652622/1sred0:RpW4jwtIeYahSBAVKZoFMhcOe7o/Mikhailov, V. S. (2021). Prichinno-sledstvennaya svyaz’ kak usloviye deliktnoy otvetstvennosti [Causation as a condition of tort liability] [Doctoral dissertation, Lomonosov Moscow State University]. Istina — Lomonosov Moscow State University Repository. https://istina.msu.ru/download/353652622/1sred0:RpW4jwtIeYahSBAVKZoFMhcOe7o/Morgunova, E. A., & Shakhnazarov, B. A. (2023). Pravo intellektual’noj sobstvennosti v usloviyakh razvitiya novykh tekhnologij [Intellectual property law in the conditions of development of new technologies]. Norma, INFRA-M.Morgunova, E. A., & Shakhnazarov, B. A. (2023). Pravo intellektual’noj sobstvennosti v usloviyakh razvitiya novykh tekhnologij [Intellectual property law in the conditions of development of new technologies]. Norma, INFRA-M.Mostert, F. (2020). Intermediary liability and online trade mark infringement: Emerging international common approaches. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 369–380). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.19Mostert, F. (2020). Intermediary liability and online trade mark infringement: Emerging international common approaches. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 369–380). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.19Mukhgalin, A. (2018). Nekotorye problem primeneniya stat’i 1253.1 Grazdanskogo Kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Certain issues related to application of article1253.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’. Avtorskoe Pravo i Smezhnye Prava [Intellectual Property. Copyright Law and Related Rights], (12), 7–14.Mukhgalin, A. (2018). Nekotorye problem primeneniya stat’i 1253.1 Grazdanskogo Kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Certain issues related to application of article1253.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’. Avtorskoe Pravo i Smezhnye Prava [Intellectual Property. Copyright Law and Related Rights], (12), 7–14.Netanel, N. W. (2003). Impose a noncommercial use levy to allow free peer-to-peer file sharing. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 17(1), 1–83.Netanel, N. W. (2003). Impose a noncommercial use levy to allow free peer-to-peer file sharing. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 17(1), 1–83.Nordemann, J. B. (2018). Recent CJEU case law on communication to the public and its application in Germany: A new EU concept of liability. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13(9), 744–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy093Nordemann, J. B. (2018). Recent CJEU case law on communication to the public and its application in Germany: A new EU concept of liability. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13(9), 744–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy093Nurullaev, R. T. (2018). Informatsionny posrednik kak sub”ekt informatsionnogo prava [Information intermediary as a subject of information law] [Doctoral dissertation, Higher School of Economics]. HSE Repository. https://www.hse.ru/sci/diss/224091382Nurullaev, R. T. (2018). Informatsionny posrednik kak sub”ekt informatsionnogo prava [Information intermediary as a subject of information law] [Doctoral dissertation, Higher School of Economics]. HSE Repository. https://www.hse.ru/sci/diss/224091382Oddi, A. S. (1989). Contributory copyright infringement: The tort and technological tensions. Notre Dame Law Review, 64(1), 47–104.Oddi, A. S. (1989). Contributory copyright infringement: The tort and technological tensions. Notre Dame Law Review, 64(1), 47–104.Ohly, A. (2018). The broad concept of “communication to the public” in recent CJEU judgments and the liability of intermediaries: primary, secondary or unitary liability? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13(8), 664–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy083Ohly, A. (2018). The broad concept of “communication to the public” in recent CJEU judgments and the liability of intermediaries: primary, secondary or unitary liability? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13(8), 664–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy083O’Sullivan, K. T. (2019). Copyright and internet service provider “liability”: The emerging realpolitik of intermediary obligations. IIC — International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 50(5), 527–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00816-xO’Sullivan, K. T. (2019). Copyright and internet service provider “liability”: The emerging realpolitik of intermediary obligations. IIC — International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 50(5), 527–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00816-xOswald, L. J. (2008). International issues in secondary liability for intellectual property rights infringement. American Business Law Journal, 45(2), 247–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1714.2008.00055.xOswald, L. J. (2008). International issues in secondary liability for intellectual property rights infringement. American Business Law Journal, 45(2), 247–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1714.2008.00055.xPappalardo, K. (2014). Duty and control in intermediary copyright liability: An Australian perspective. In B. Fitzgerald, & J. Gilchrist (Eds.), Copyright perspectives: Past, present and prospect (pp. 241–259). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15913-3_11Pappalardo, K. (2014). Duty and control in intermediary copyright liability: An Australian perspective. In B. Fitzgerald, & J. Gilchrist (Eds.), Copyright perspectives: Past, present and prospect (pp. 241–259). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15913-3_11Peguera, M. (2010) Enlaces, descargas y puesta a disposición en redes P2P (Comentario a la Sentencia del Juzgado de lo Mercantil núm. 7 de Barcelona, de 9 de marzo de 2010, sobre el sitio web elrincondejesus.com) [Links, downloads and making available on P2P networks (Commentary on the Judgment of the Commercial Court № 7 of Barcelona, of 9 March 2010, on the website elrincondejesus.com)]. Diario La Ley [Diary of Law], (7462), 1–15.Peguera, M. (2010) Enlaces, descargas y puesta a disposición en redes P2P (Comentario a la Sentencia del Juzgado de lo Mercantil núm. 7 de Barcelona, de 9 de marzo de 2010, sobre el sitio web elrincondejesus.com) [Links, downloads and making available on P2P networks (Commentary on the Judgment of the Commercial Court № 7 of Barcelona, of 9 March 2010, on the website elrincondejesus.com)]. Diario La Ley [Diary of Law], (7462), 1–15.Peguera, M. (2018). Hyperlinking under the lens of the revamped right of communication to the public. Computer law and security review, 34(5), 1099–1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.029Peguera, M. (2018). Hyperlinking under the lens of the revamped right of communication to the public. Computer law and security review, 34(5), 1099–1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.029Riordan, J. (2016). The liability of internet intermediaries. Oxford University Press.Riordan, J. (2016). The liability of internet intermediaries. Oxford University Press.Riordan, J. (2020). A theoretical taxonomy of intermediary liability. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 57–89). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.3Riordan, J. (2020). A theoretical taxonomy of intermediary liability. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 57–89). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.3Ríos, J. A. X. (2011). El intercambio de ficheros de obras protegidas por la LPI desde el punto de vista del derecho civil [The exchange of files of works protected by the LPI from a civil law perspective]. In X. O’Callghan, Muñoz (Ed.), Los derechos de propiedad intelectual en la obra audiovisual [Intellectual property rights in audiovisual works] (pp. 259–278). Dykinson.Ríos, J. A. X. (2011). El intercambio de ficheros de obras protegidas por la LPI desde el punto de vista del derecho civil [The exchange of files of works protected by the LPI from a civil law perspective]. In X. O’Callghan, Muñoz (Ed.), Los derechos de propiedad intelectual en la obra audiovisual [Intellectual property rights in audiovisual works] (pp. 259–278). Dykinson.Rosati, E. (2020). The direct liability of intermediaries. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 335–348). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.17Rosati, E. (2020). The direct liability of intermediaries. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability (pp. 335–348). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.17Rosati, E. (2017). The CJEU Pirate Bay judgment and its impact on the liability of online platforms. European Intellectual Property Review, 39(12), 737–748.Rosati, E. (2017). The CJEU Pirate Bay judgment and its impact on the liability of online platforms. European Intellectual Property Review, 39(12), 737–748.Savel’ev, A. (2015). Kriterii nalichiya dejstvitel’nogo i predpolagaemogo znaniya kak usloviya privlecheniya k otvetstvennosti informatsionnogo posrednika [Criteria of actual and constructive knowledge as a condition for bringing an online intermediary to responsibility]. Zakon, (11), 48–60.Savel’ev, A. (2015). Kriterii nalichiya dejstvitel’nogo i predpolagaemogo znaniya kak usloviya privlecheniya k otvetstvennosti informatsionnogo posrednika [Criteria of actual and constructive knowledge as a condition for bringing an online intermediary to responsibility]. Zakon, (11), 48–60.Savola, P. (2017). EU copyright liability for internet linking. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information and Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 8(2), 139–150.Savola, P. (2017). EU copyright liability for internet linking. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information and Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 8(2), 139–150.Semenova, A. E. (1928). Obyazatel’stva, voznikayushchie vsledstvie neosnovatel’nogo obogashcheniya, i obyazatel’stva, voznikayushchie iz prichineniya vreda [Obligations arising from unjust enrichment and obligations arising from the infliction of harm]. Yurid. izd-vo NKYU RSFSR.Semenova, A. E. (1928). Obyazatel’stva, voznikayushchie vsledstvie neosnovatel’nogo obogashcheniya, i obyazatel’stva, voznikayushchie iz prichineniya vreda [Obligations arising from unjust enrichment and obligations arising from the infliction of harm]. Yurid. izd-vo NKYU RSFSR.Shapiro, A. L. (1999). The control revolution: How the internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know. PublicAffairs.Shapiro, A. L. (1999). The control revolution: How the internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know. PublicAffairs.Smith, J. C., & Burns, P. (1983). Donoghue v. Stevenson: The not so golden anniversary. The Modern Law Review, 46(2), 147–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1983.tb02511.xSmith, J. C., & Burns, P. (1983). Donoghue v. Stevenson: The not so golden anniversary. The Modern Law Review, 46(2), 147–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1983.tb02511.xSmith, E. (2011). Lord of the files: International secondary liability for internet service providers. Washington and Lee Law Review, 68(3), 1555–1588.Smith, E. (2011). Lord of the files: International secondary liability for internet service providers. Washington and Lee Law Review, 68(3), 1555–1588.Spier, J., & Haazen, O. A. (2000). Comparative conclusions on causation. In J. Spier (Ed.), Unification of tort law: Causation (pp. 43–63). Kluwer Law International.Spier, J., & Haazen, O. A. (2000). Comparative conclusions on causation. In J. Spier (Ed.), Unification of tort law: Causation (pp. 43–63). Kluwer Law International.Spinello, R. A. (2008). Intellectual property: Legal and moral challenges of online file sharing. In K. Himma & H. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 553–569). Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137349088_20Spinello, R. A. (2008). Intellectual property: Legal and moral challenges of online file sharing. In K. Himma & H. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 553–569). Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137349088_20Sukhanov, E. A. (Ed.). (2019). Grazhdanskoe pravo: T. I. Obshchaya chast’ [Civil Law: Vol. I. The General Part]. Statut.Sukhanov, E. A. (Ed.). (2019). Grazhdanskoe pravo: T. I. Obshchaya chast’ [Civil Law: Vol. I. The General Part]. Statut.Suzor, N., & Fitzgerald, B. (2011). The legitimacy of graduated response schemes in copyright law. The University of New South Wales Law Journal, 34(1), 1–40.Suzor, N., & Fitzgerald, B. (2011). The legitimacy of graduated response schemes in copyright law. The University of New South Wales Law Journal, 34(1), 1–40.Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2016). The debate on the moral responsibilities of online service providers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(6), 1575–1603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9734-1Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2016). The debate on the moral responsibilities of online service providers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(6), 1575–1603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9734-1Tololaeva, N. V. (2023). Kommentarij k stat’e 1080 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii [Commentary on article 1080 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 23(2), 112–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2023-23-2-112-144Tololaeva, N. V. (2023). Kommentarij k stat’e 1080 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii [Commentary on article 1080 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 23(2), 112–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2023-23-2-112-144Tololaeva, N. V. (2020). Passivnye solidarnye obyazatel’stva: rossijskij podkhod i kontinental’no-evropejskaya traditsiya [Passive solidary obligations: Russian approach and continental European tradition]. Statut.Tololaeva, N. V. (2020). Passivnye solidarnye obyazatel’stva: rossijskij podkhod i kontinental’no-evropejskaya traditsiya [Passive solidary obligations: Russian approach and continental European tradition]. Statut.Tortajada, P. E. (2016). La responsabilidad civil por infracción de los derechos de autor en internet: Estado de la cuestión [Civil liability for copyright infringement on the internet: State of the matter]. In A. Fayos Gardó, La propiedad intelectual en la era digital [Intellectual property in the digital era] (pp. 169–190). Dykinson.Tortajada, P. E. (2016). La responsabilidad civil por infracción de los derechos de autor en internet: Estado de la cuestión [Civil liability for copyright infringement on the internet: State of the matter]. In A. Fayos Gardó, La propiedad intelectual en la era digital [Intellectual property in the digital era] (pp. 169–190). Dykinson.Tret’yakov, S. V. (2023). Uchenie S.N. Bratusya o sub”ektivnom prave — povorotny punkt v razvitii otechestvennoj tsivilistiki [S.N. Bratus’s concept of subjective right as a turning point in the development of Russian civil law]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 23(2), 145–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2023-23-2-145-189Tret’yakov, S. V. (2023). Uchenie S.N. Bratusya o sub”ektivnom prave — povorotny punkt v razvitii otechestvennoj tsivilistiki [S.N. Bratus’s concept of subjective right as a turning point in the development of Russian civil law]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 23(2), 145–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2023-23-2-145-189Ullrich, C. (2017). Standards for duty of care: Debating intermediary liability from a sectoral perspective. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 8(2), 111–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3037744Ullrich, C. (2017). Standards for duty of care: Debating intermediary liability from a sectoral perspective. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 8(2), 111–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3037744Fomina, O. N. (2022). Pravovaya priroda otvetstvennosti informatsionnogo posrednika [Legal nature of online intermediary liability]. Grazhdanskoe pravo [Civil law], (2), 33–36.Fomina, O. N. (2022). Pravovaya priroda otvetstvennosti informatsionnogo posrednika [Legal nature of online intermediary liability]. Grazhdanskoe pravo [Civil law], (2), 33–36.Fomina, O. N. (2019). Pravovoj status informatsionnogo posrednika [Legal status of online intermediary]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 19(3), 171–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2019-19-3-171-191Fomina, O. N. (2019). Pravovoj status informatsionnogo posrednika [Legal status of online intermediary]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 19(3), 171–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2019-19-3-171-191Van Eecke, P. (2011). Online service providers and liability: A plea for a balanced approach. Common Market Law Review, 48(5), 1455–1502. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011058Van Eecke, P. (2011). Online service providers and liability: A plea for a balanced approach. Common Market Law Review, 48(5), 1455–1502. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011058Van Gerven, W., Lever, J., & Larouche, P. (2000). Cases, materials and text on national, supranational and international tort law. Hart Publishing.Van Gerven, W., Lever, J., & Larouche, P. (2000). Cases, materials and text on national, supranational and international tort law. Hart Publishing.Wang, J. (2016). Regulating hosting ISPs’ responsibilities for copyright infringement: The freedom to operate in the US, EU and China. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8351-8Wang, J. (2016). Regulating hosting ISPs’ responsibilities for copyright infringement: The freedom to operate in the US, EU and China. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8351-8Weiskopf, D. (1998). The risks of copyright infringement on the internet: A practitioner’s guide. University of San Francisco Law Review, 33(1), Article 1.Weiskopf, D. (1998). The risks of copyright infringement on the internet: A practitioner’s guide. University of San Francisco Law Review, 33(1), Article 1.Yen, A. C. (2008). Torts and the construction of inducement and contributory liability in Amazon and Visa. Columbia Journal of Law and Arts, 34(4), 513–530.Yen, A. C. (2008). Torts and the construction of inducement and contributory liability in Amazon and Visa. Columbia Journal of Law and Arts, 34(4), 513–530.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.