Functional Equivalence: An Exploration Through Shortcomings to Solutions

Veerpalu, Anne

doi:10.2478/bjlp-2019-0015

References

1. Berarducci, Patrick. “Collaborative Approaches to Blockchain Regulation: The Brooklyn Project Example.” Cleveland State Law Review Vol. 67 (2019): 22-30 // https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4022&context=clevstlrev.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Davidson, Sinclair, Primavera De Filippi, and Jason Potts. “Economics of Blockchain” (March 8, 2016) // http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2744751.10.2139/ssrn.2744751
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. EBA. “Report with advice for the European Commission” (9 January 2019) // https://eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/2545547/EBA+Report+on+crypto+assets.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. ESMA. “Initial Coin Offerings and Crypto-Assets.” Advice (9 January 2019) // https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma50-157-1391_crypto_advice.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. European Commission. “Online Platforms, and the Digital Single Market.” Communication, 25.5.2016 COM(2016) 288 final // https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-288-ENF1-1.PDF.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. FATF. “Virtual Currencies Key Definitions and Potential AML/CFT Risks.” FATF Report (June 2014) // https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Virtual-currency-key-definitions-and-potential-aml-cft-risks.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Fenwick, Mark, Joseph McCahery, and Erik Vermeulen. “The End of ‘Corporate’ Governance: Hello ‘Platform’ Governance.” European Business Organization Law Review Vol. 20 (2019): 171-199 // https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-019-00137-z.10.1007/s40804-019-00137-z
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Finck, Michele. Blockchain Regulation and Governance in Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2019.10.1017/9781108609708
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Furrer, Andreas, and Luka Müller. “‘Functional equivalence’ of digital legal transactions – A fundamental principle for assessing the legal validity of legal institutions and legal transactions under Swiss law.” Jusletter (18 June 2018): 1-20 // https://www.mme.ch/fileadmin/files/documents/MME_Compact/2018/180619_Funktionale_AEquivalenz.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Gudkov, Aleksei. “Control on Blockchain Network.” Nova Law Review Vol. 42 (2018): 353-374 // https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/novalr42&div=18&id=&page=.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Hacker, Philipp, Ioannis Lianos, Georgios Dimitropoulos, and Stefan Eich, eds. Regulating Blockchain Techno-Social and Legal Challenges. 1^st edition. Oxford University Press, 2019.10.1093/oso/9780198842187.003.0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Harvey, David John. Collisions in the Digital Paradigm: Law and Rule Making in the Internet Age. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Hildebrandt, Mireille, and Laura Tielemans. “Data protection by design and technology neutral law.” Computer Law & Security Review Vol. 29 (2013): 509-521 // https://www.academia.edu/20491832/Data_protection_by_design_and_technology_neutral_law.10.1016/j.clsr.2013.07.004
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Klaris, Edward, and Alexia Bedat. “Copyright liability for linking and embedding: an E.U. versus U.S. comparison and guide” (March 12, 2018): 1-22 // https://klarislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/klarislaw-copyright-liability-for-linking-and-embedding.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Koopman, Christopher, Matthew Mitchell, and Adam Thierer. “The Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection Regulation: The Case for Policy Change.” Journal of Business Entrepreneurship and Law Vol. 8 (2015): 529-545 // https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=jbel.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Koops, Bert-Jaap. “Should ICT Regulation Be Technology-Neutral?”: 77-108. In: Bert-Jaap Koops, Miriam Lips, Corien Prins, and Maurice Schellekens, eds. Starting Points for Ict Regulation. Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-Liners, It & Law Series, Vol. 9. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2006 // https://ssrn.com/abstract=918746.10.1007/978-90-6704-665-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Lessig, Lawrence. Code version 2.0. 2^nd Revised Edition. Basic Books, 2006 // http://codev2.cc/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Lielacher, Alex. “An Introduction to Cryptoeconomics.” BTCMANAGER (June 14, 2017) // https://btcmanager.com/an-introduction-to-cryptoeconomics/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Maume, Philipp, and Mathias Fromberger. “Initial Coin Offerings: Are Tokens Securities under EU Law?” Blog, University of Oxford, Faculty of Law (September 7, 2018) // https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2018/09/initial-coin-offerings-are-tokens-securities-under-eu-law.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Maume, Philipp, and Mathias Fromberger. “Regulation of Initial Coin Offerings: Reconciling US and EU Securities Laws.” Chicago Journal of International Law Vol. 19.2 (2019): 548-585 // http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3200037.10.2139/ssrn.3200037
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton University Press, 2009.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Metjahic, Laila. “Deconstructing the DAO: The Need for Legal Recognition and the Application of Securities Laws to Decentralized Organizations.” Cardozo Law Review Vol. 39 (2018): 1533-1567 // http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/METJAHIC.39.4.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Mik, Eliza. “Smart Contracts: Terminology, Technical Limitations and Real World Complexity.” Law, Innovation and Technology Vol. 9.2 (2017): 269-300 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3038406.10.1080/17579961.2017.1378468
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Murray, Andrew. The Regulation of Cyberspace. 1^st edition. Routledge-Cavendish, 2006.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Nakamoto, Satoshi. “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” // https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Oren, Ori. “ICO’s, DAO’S, and the SEC: A Partnership Solution.” Columbia Business Law Review (2018): 617-658 // https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/d8-vc3y-e307.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Papadaki, Evangelia. “Hyperlinking, making available and copyright infringement: lessons from European national courts.” European Journal of Law and Technology Vol. 8, No. 1 (2017) // http://ejlt.org/article/view/549/732.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. Reed, Chris. Making Laws for Cyberspace. 1^st edition. Oxford University Press, 2012.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. Reed, Chris. “Online and Offline Equivalence: Aspiration and Achievement.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology Vol. 18, Issue 3 (2010): 248-273 // https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaq006.10.1093/ijlit/eaq006
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. Reed, Chris. “Taking Sides on Technology Neutrality.” SCRIPT-ed Volume 4, Issue 3 (September 2007) // DOI: 10.2966/scrip.040307.263.10.2966/scrip.040307.263
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
31. Reed, Eric. “Equity Tokens vs. Security Tokens: What’s the Difference?” Bitcoin Market Journal [online] (February 13, 2019) // https://www.bitcoinmarketjournal.com/equity-token/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
32. Rodrigues, Usha. “Law and the Blockchain.” Iowa Law Review Vol. 104 (2019): 679-729 // https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-104-issue-2/law-and-the-blockchain/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
33. Savin, Andrej. “Rule Making in the Digital Economy: Overcoming Functional Equivalence as a Regulatory Principle in the EU.” Journal of Internet Law Vol. 22, Issue 8 (2019) [Copenhagen Business School, CBS LAW Research Paper 19-10]: 1-31 // https://ssrn.com/abstract=3340886.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
34. SEC. “SEC Issues Investigative Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities.” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release (July 25, 2017) // https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-131.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
35. SEC. “SEC Orders Blockchain Company to Pay $24 Million Penalty for Unregistered ICO.” Press Release (September 30, 2019) // https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-202.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
36. Sklaroff, Jeremy M. “Smart Contracts and the Cost of Inflexibility.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 166 (2018): 263-303 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3008899.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
37. Walden, Ian. “Press regulation in a converging environment”: 61-82. In: L. Gillies and D. Mangan, eds. Mapping the rule of law for the Internet. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2717734.10.4337/9781785364518.00017
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
38. Zetzsche, Dirk A., Ross Buckley, and Douglas Arner. “The Distributed Liability of Distributed Ledgers: Legal Risks of Blockchain.” University of Illinois Law Review (2018): 1361-1407 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3018214.10.2139/ssrn.3018214
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
1. Barrick Gold Corp v Lopehandia. (2004) 71 OR 3d 416 (ON CA).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Crookes v Newton. [2011] 3 SCR 269.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast). PE/52/2018/REV/1 OJ L 321 // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1575871089458&uri=CELEX:32018L1972.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018L0843.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Dow Jones v Gutnik. [2002] 210 CLR 575; [2002] HCA 56.10.1554/0014-3820(2002)056[0210:TSFTSO]2.0.CO;2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others. C-160/15, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) (2015).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Kent Pharmaceuticals Limited v Director of Serious Fraud Offences and Others. [2002] EWHC 3023 Admin.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Metropolitan Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corporation and Google. [2011] 1 WLR 1743, [2009] MLR 27; [2009] EWHC QB.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retriever Sverige AB. C466/12 (2014) OJ C 379/31.10.1007/s40319-014-0210-2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Ishayev. 963 F. Supp. 2d 239, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. 416 F. Supp. 2d 828, 838 n.9 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. R v Misic. [2001] 3 NZLR 1.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. R(H) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue. (2002) EWHC 2164 Admin.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Riley v California. 134 SCt 2473 (2014) 42 Media LR 1925.10.2307/4074330
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SA. C-306/05 (2006) ECR I-11519.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Tamiz v Google. [2012] EMLR 24; [2012] EWHC 449 (QB).10.1007/s15014-012-0305-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.Com, Inc. No. CV 99-7654 HLH(BQRX), 2000 WL 525390, (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2000).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to Enactment 1996 with additional article 5 bis as adopted in 1998 // http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/V1504118_Ebook.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article