English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There is a prominent trend of legal actions being taken against globally active Internet intermediaries. This article discusses the extent to which Internet intermediaries should be required to block or remove third-party content, and places emphasis on the geographical limitations that reasonably may be placed on such blocking/removal. Where an Internet intermediary is ordered to block or remove certain Internet content, global blocking/removal cannot be the default response to every such order. We need a more measured and more sophisticated approach. This paper canvasses and analyses three such structures. One option is to delineate the reach of the blocking/removal by reference to country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) – “ccTLD-blocking”. For example, where a French court requests that Google blocks/removes content in France, Google may do so in relation to www.google.fr, while the relevant content is unmodified for the rest of the world. Yet, it is also necessary to look beyond ccTLD-blocking. Geo-location technologies may determine an Internet user‟s geographical location, for example, by reference to the user‟s IP address. Such technologies can, of course, be used to delineate the accessibility of Internet content. Indeed, such technologies can be used in various ways to achieve such a result and I will consider both a “strict geo-location blocking” and a more nuanced “country lens” approach. To prepare ground for that discussion, the article first starts with a few appropriate words about the role Internet intermediaries play and why litigants target Internet intermediaries in the first place.  Professor and Co-Director, Centre for Commercial Law, Faculty of Law, Bond University (Australia). Researcher, Swedish Law & Informatics Research Institute, Stockholm University (Sweden). Professor Svantesson is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT120100583). The views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council. The author sincerely thanks the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. (2014) 11:2 SCRIPTed 154 DOI: 10.2966/scrip.110214.153 © Dan Svantesson 2014. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Please click on the link to read the terms and conditions. (2014) 11:2 SCRIPTed 155

Delineating the Reach of Internet Intermediaries’ Content Blocking – “ccTLD Blocking”, “Strict Geo-location Blocking” or a “Country Lens Approach”?