Judit Bayer's paper explores the role that alternative dispute resolution can play in regulating platforms. The paper identifies the limitations of ADR: their remit does not extend to overseeing the regulation of ranking algorithms; it is doubtful whether the adjudication of user complaints is a realistic objective in terms of quantity; and in the case of decisions in principle, it will be necessary to develop a way of ensuring legal consistency while taking into account local specificities. The paper also examines the feasibility of combining a private body with the dispute resolution bodies to be set up under the EU's Digital Services Act.
Péter Mezei and Péter Lábody discuss the conflict between copyright and freedom of expression. The DSM Directive is the result of more than half a decade of copyright reform in the European Union. The most controversial of the DSM Directive's provisions are the copyright rules in Article 17, which set a new basis for the activities of 'online content sharing service providers'. One of the most obvious reasons for this, apart from the rewriting of two decades of 'best practice', was that most of the platforms concerned were backed by overseas companies, which themselves lobbied hard to influence the new provisions imposing a licensing obligation and direct liability in the absence of a licence. The aim of this paper is firstly to explain how the EU arrived at the current content of Article 17; secondly, to briefly outline the main provisions of Article 17; and finally, to present two challenges that immediately arise from the provisions of Article 17, which relate to the issue of content filtering mechanisms and the balance of fundamental rights.
Zsolt Ződi's paper deals with the problem of algorithmic explainability, which has become one of the hot topics of the last decade. Within the vast discourse, there is an important subfield that deals with the explainability of machine decisions or outputs that affect a person's legal situation or have a legal implication in general - in short, the field of algorithmic legal decisions. This article introduces this discourse. It argues that 'intelligibility' has become a semantically overloaded concept. This realisation leads to theories of legal reasoning: why and how do we justify decisions (human or machine)? What is the need for justification at all? What is convincing reasoning?
Anikó Grad-Gyenge's study deals with the question to what extent certain acts of EU legal harmonisation - in particular the decisions of the European Court of Justice in the past - affect the exclusive nature of copyright. It is necessary to examine this problem in the context of Article 17 of the DSM Directive from the point of view of how the limitation of the exclusive right to make available for downloading by means of a very strong liability limitation regime affects the possibility of interpretation as an exclusive right. Another question is, in the new terminology of the literature, how the enabling of algorithmic enforcement (or rather enforcement) and the almost complete closure of traditional enforcement channels affects the possibility of interpretation as an exclusive right. The paper explores the question by means of a mainly doctrinal analysis, by means of the preparatory documents of the Directive, by analysing the Communication issued by the Commission after the transposition deadline and the opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU, Henrik Saugsmansgaard, and by examining the literature.
Bernát Török's contribution argues that social media can be seen not only as a political requirement to respect the freedom of expression of others and to promote the cause of social dialogue, but also as a legal requirement. Social media, in its early days, created a sphere of social dialogue without gatekeepers, where it is not up to newspaper or television owners, nor to editorial boards, nor even to journalists, but above all to the speaker to comment on our public affairs. It would be a shame to argue that there is a risk in this.
Zsolt Körtvélyesi points out that while there is a lot of criticism of social media, less attention is paid to the fact that there are significant differences between the regulatory proposals in terms of how they would affect the functioning of the internet and the IT world, and the decision-making possibilities, or freedom of users. Among the many solutions that have emerged, the author examines one promising proposal: the requirement of interoperability and, in this context, the use of open formats. ■
Visszaugrás
