Through an empirical comparison between U.S and Canadian copyright law, this paper examines how lawmakers in both countries should deal with copyright liability issues in the cloud while maintaining a proper balance between content owners and Internet intermediaries. This paper proposes to answer this question throughout the study of the liability of Internet intermediaries. Drawing on copyright statutory provisions, case law and scholars articles, this paper examines the issue of online piracy, defines cloud computing and identifies the copyright liability issues posed by the cloud. It then compares U.S and Canadian copyright laws and discusses the new reform proposed in both countries in relation with the liability of Internet intermediaries. It concludes that new statutory reform might not be necessary except for clarification purposes. Indeed current copyright laws deal efficiently with copyright liability issues in the cloud while maintaining a proper balance between content owners and Internet intermediaries.

Through an empirical comparison between U.S and Canadian copyright law, this paper examines how lawmakers in both countries should deal with copyright liability issues in the cloud while maintaining a proper balance between content owners and Internet intermediaries. This paper proposes to answer this question throughout the study of the liability of Internet intermediaries. Drawing on copyright statutory provisions, case law and scholars articles, this paper examines the issue of online piracy, defines cloud computing and identifies the copyright liability issues posed by the cloud. It then compares U.S and Canadian copyright laws and discusses the new reform proposed in both countries in relation with the liability of Internet intermediaries. It concludes that new statutory reform might not be necessary except for clarification purposes. Indeed current copyright laws deal efficiently with copyright liability issues in the cloud while maintaining a proper balance between content owners and Internet intermediaries.

La responsabilité des intermédiaires d'Internet fait débat dans un univers numérique de plus en plus complexe. Les intermédiaires offrent des services en ligne. Ils créent ou facilitent des transactions entre des parties tierces (hébergement, e-commerce, fournisseurs d'accès…). A la fin des années 1990, un consensus s'est établi sur l'instauration d'une responsabilité limitée pour ces acteurs, dans le but de favoriser leur développement ainsi que celui d'Internet par des externalités croisées. Cependant, l'apparition régulière de nouveaux usages a induit des externalités négatives affectant certains agents économiques. La multiplication récente de décisions de jurisprudence parfois contradictoires, en particulier dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle, vient désormais remettre en cause cette exemption. Elle fait naître un risque juridique pour les intermédiaires d'Internet. Ces-derniers doivent alors prendre en compte ce nouveau contexte dans leurs modèles d'affaires. Notre recherche étudie les comportements spécifiques que la responsabilité des intermédiaires d'Internet engendre à travers l'exemple de la propriété intellectuelle. En premier lieu nous décrivons l'évolution historique de cette responsabilité. Nous développons ensuite un modèle théorique simple qui explore l'influence du risque légal dans un contexte de concurrence entre un intermédiaire et un ayant droit du copyright. Enfin nous étendons ce modèle de concurrence aux différents comportements de protection que peuvent choisir les intermédiaires. / Internet intermediaries' liability is a rising issue in a more and more complex digital environment. Intermediaries provide online services. They create or facilitate transactions between third parties (hosting, online shops, ISPs...). At the end of the 1990s, a limited liability has been established for these actors with the aim of developing intermediaries and Internet through cross externalities. However, the arrivals of new uses and functions have created negative externalities for some economic agents. The new increase of case law sometimes contradictory, in particular for intellectual property rights, questions this exemption. It creates legal risk for Internet intermediaries. Thus, they have to take into account this new situation in their business models. This thesis studies specific behaviors that Internet intermediaries' liability creates with the example of intellectual property rights. First we describe the historic evolution of this liability. Then we develop a simple theoretical model in order to explore the influence of legal risk when there is competition between an intermediary and a copyright holder. Finally, the model is extended to take into account avoidance activities of Internet intermediaries.

La propriété intellectuelle est un des droits fondamentaux. Conformément à l’esprit résultant de la théorie de l’ordre de valeur objectif, les intermédiaires de l’Internet doivent assumer une obligation de protection active en matière de propriété intellectuelle. Cependant, en raison d’une relation de répartition des obligations entre les titulaires de droits de propriété intellectuelle, les usagers, l’État et les intermédiaires de l’Internet, l’obligation de protection qui incombe à ces derniers doit être limitée. Afin d’éviter que les obligations des intermédiaires de l’Internet ne soient ni excessives ou ni insuffisantes, un certain nombre de principes juridique et économique et de critères permettant d’adapter l’obligation aux objets de diffusion, aux modes d’exploitation ainsi qu’au caractère lucratif doit être prise en compte lors de la mise en place de ces obligations. Plus précisément, les intermédiaires de l’Internet ne doivent pas prendre en charge une seule et unique obligation mais de multiples obligations, y compris l’obligation de filtrage. Ces obligations forment un système complet leur permettant d’assurer de manière active la protection des droits de propriété intellectuelle / Intellectual property is one of fundamental rights. By developing and applying the objective value order theory, the internet intermediaries should assume the obligation to actively protect the intellectual property. Meanwhile, as shared obligations distributed among the government, the right holder, the internet intermediaries, and the user, the active obligation of IP protection that the internet intermediaries can carry out is limited. In order to insure the moderation of obligation, it would be preferable to respect the pertinent legal and economic principles, and distinguish the target of dissemination, the business model, and the profit factor in choosing the type of obligations. It should be noted that this active protection would not be accomplished only through a unique obligation. It should articulate several types of obligation, including but not limited to filtering obligation. These obligations, all together, form an obligation system which enables internet intermediaries to actively protect intellectual property

Internet intermediaries facilitate a wide range of conduct using services supplied over the layered architecture of modern communications networks. Members of this class include search engines, social networks, internet service providers, website operators, hosts, and payment gateways, which together exert a critical and growing influence upon national and global economies, governments and cultures. This research examines who should face legal responsibility when wrongdoers utilise these services tortiously to cause harm to others. It has three parts. Part 1 seeks to understand the nature of an intermediary and how its liability differs from the liability of primary defendants. It classifies intermediaries according to a new layered, functional taxonomy and argues that many instances of secondary liability in English private law reflect shared features and underlying policies, including optimal loss-avoidance and derivative liability premised on an assumption of responsibility. Part 2 analyses intermediaries’ monetary liability for secondary wrongdoing in two areas of English law: defamation and copyright. It traces the historical evolution of these doctrines at successive junctures in communications technology, before identifying and defending limits on that liability which derive from three main sources: (i) in-built limits contained in definitions of secondary wrongdoing; (ii) European safe harbours and general limits on remedies; and (iii) statutory defences and exceptions. Part 3 examines intermediaries’ non-monetary liability, in particular their obligations to disclose information about alleged primary wrongdoers and to cease facilitating wrongdoing where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. It proposes a new suite of non-facilitation remedies designed to restrict access to tortious internet materials, remove such materials from search engines, and reduce the profitability of wrongdoing. It concludes with several recommendations to improve the effectiveness and proportionality of remedies by reference to considerations of architecture, anonymity, efficient procedures, and fundamental rights.