Misplaced Pages

#558441

123-533: The 1998 DMCA was the U.S. implementation of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) directive to "maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information" when updating copyright norms for the digital age. In the context of Internet intermediaries, OCILLA attempts to strike this balance by immunizing OSP's for copyright liability stemming from their own acts of direct copyright infringement (as primary infringers of copyright), as well as from

246-533: A broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair and voluntary multi-industry process, are available to anyone on reasonable nondiscriminatory terms, and do not impose substantial costs or burdens on service providers. OSPs may qualify for one or more of the Section 512 safe harbors under § 512(a)-(d), for immunity from copyright liability stemming from: transmitting, caching, storing, or linking to infringing material. An OSP who complies with

369-493: A complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District. IO Group alleged that Veoh was responsible for copyright infringement by allowing videos owned by IO Group to be accessed through Veoh's online service without permission over 40,000 times between the dates June 1 and June 22. Veoh is a Flash video site relying on user contributed content. IO Group argued that since Veoh transcoded user uploaded videos to Flash format it became

492-598: A condition for limited liability online hosts must expeditiously remove or disable access to content they host when they are notified of the alleged illegality. The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act , passed into law in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides safe harbour protection to "online service providers" for "online storage" in section 512(c). Section 512(c) applies to online service providers that store copyright infringing material. In addition to

615-454: A copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly authorized the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use authorizations." In 2007, Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to the Prince song " Let's Go Crazy " and posted a 29-second video on

738-412: A copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent (a "notice and takedown" process). OCILLA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users' identity. DMCA Title III modified section 117 of

861-472: A copyright infringement suit in federal court that might revolve around a minor technicality of the law. Indeed, one of the purposes of this section was to remove a large number of potential infringement suits from the courts when the facts revolving around infringement were basically undisputed and the damages could be minimized within a short period without the intervention of a US federal district court judge. A copyright holder may be more than happy to know that

984-401: A copyright owner to force an OSP to reveal identifying information about the user who allegedly infringed the owner's copyright, through the use of a subpoena issued by a federal court at the owner's request. Part (h)(2)(A) requires that the owner's request include "a copy of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A)" (a takedown notice, see above). Note that 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) states that

1107-420: A counter notification process is not a requirement for the safe harbor protections. A service provider may decline to restore the allegedly infringing material, or to notify the subscriber at all, limiting the recourse available to the subscriber. If the court determines that the copyright owner misrepresented the claim of copyright infringement, the copyright owner becomes liable for any damages that resulted to

1230-497: A determination by a court. The basis for notice and takedown procedures under EU law is article 14 of the Electronic Commerce Directive , adopted in 2000. Article 14 applies to content hosts in relation to all "illegal activity or information". Online hosts are not liable for the illegal activity, or information placed on its systems by a user, so long as the online host does not have "actual knowledge" of

1353-530: A different method to acquire their desired information. They began suing multiple "Doe" defendants at a time and issuing third-party discovery subpoenas to ISPs for the customer details. On 6 October 2003 Charter Communications became the first cable Internet provider to challenge the RIAA use of this provision, when it filed for a motion to quash the subpoenas to obtain the identities of 150 of its customers. Although Charter Communications initially lost this motion and

SECTION 10

#1732772337559

1476-405: A direct infringer and the materials were under their direct control, thereby disqualifying them for DMCA safe harbor protection. The ruling judge disagreed with the argument, stating that Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users. Veoh preselects the software parameters for

1599-470: A few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in narrowly prescribed circumstances. It is considered a violation when the owner of a website has been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website, and then links to the same material to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent digital rights management devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose

1722-505: A home or business computer connected to the Internet. Legal liability may result if access to material is disabled or identity disclosed in this case. If a notice which substantially complies with these requirements is received the OSP must expeditiously remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing material. So long as the notice substantially complies with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv)

1845-670: A permanent exception. Entertainment Software Association gives a vivid and detailed description of a flourishing market which is only possible because of DMCA. They are deeply concerned about people with disabilities, but that concern is already being taken care of by the copyright holders, so that no permanent exception is needed. Comments have also been submitted by, among others, R Street Institute American Association of Law Libraries , Business Software Alliance , Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers , Association of American Universities et al. , Copyright Alliance , Association for Computing Machinery U.S. Public Policy Council,

1968-474: A program in the printer along with an electronic chip on the cartridge to validate the authenticity of the product. Static Control Components reverse engineered the chip using the program from the printer and were able to make their own ink cartridges compatible with Lexmark printers. Lexmark sued, claiming a DMCA violation, and won at the District Court. However, the case was overturned shortly after by

2091-471: A repeat infringer policy must adhere to, and only specifies that users must be informed of its existence. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a repeat infringer policy did not necessarily need to be documented and publicized (as long as users are informed of its presence), and that a website owner's efforts to moderate and manually ban repeat infringers on a case-by-case basis

2214-481: A result of taking down the material: After the notice has been complied with the OSP must take reasonable steps to promptly notify the alleged infringer of the action. Note that the OSP is not prohibited from doing so in advance, only required to do so afterward. If there is a counter notification from the alleged infringer, the OSP must respond appropriately to it. Restoring the removed allegedly infringing material in compliance with this process does not cause liability of

2337-405: A result of the infringing material. To qualify for the § 512(c) safe harbor, the OSP must not have actual knowledge that it is hosting infringing material or be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent. It is clear from the statute and legislative history that an OSP has no duty to monitor its service or affirmatively seek infringing material on its system. However,

2460-514: A service provider's ineligibility for a safe harbor from monetary damages under this section does not affect the validity of any other legal defenses that may be applicable (notably the CDA, although it isn't specifically identified). Section 512(m) notes that OSPs retain the protections of parts (a) through (d) even if they don't monitor their service looking for infringing activity, as long as they comply Section 512(i)'s general requirements relating to

2583-448: A third party, not by the provider itself. Also, the content of the material must not be modified as a result of the caching process. Section 512(d) eliminates copyright liability for an OSP who links users, through a tool such as a web search engine , to an online location that contains infringing material, provided that the OSP does not know the material is infringing. There are several other conditions for this immunity to apply. Once

SECTION 20

#1732772337559

2706-475: A variety of door openers. Chamberlain developed a security protocol for its remotes that matched the remote to the door via software-based rolling code ; this was intended to prevent unauthorized opening. Skylink utilized a resynchronization feature of the Chamberlain security software to create a universal remote that worked with the Chamberlain openers. Chamberlain sued Skylink, arguing that the rolling code

2829-628: A whole, OCILLA's passage represented a victory for telecom and Internet related industry groups over powerful copyright interests who had wanted service providers to be held strictly liable for the acts of their users. However, copyright owners also obtained concessions. In addition to the general and specific preconditions on the created immunity, OCILLA requires OSP's seeking an immunity to designate an agent to whom notices of copyright infringement can be sent, and to disclose information about those users who are allegedly infringers. Section 512(c) applies to OSPs that store infringing material. In addition to

2952-450: Is apparent." The "red flag" test contains both a subjective and an objective element. Subjectively, the OSP must have knowledge that the material resides on its system. Objectively, the "infringing activity would have been apparent to a reasonable person operating under the same or similar circumstances." Here's an example of how the takedown procedures would work: Even if a copyright holder does not intend to cause anything other than

3075-404: Is difficult to determine whether the copyright has expired on a material without access to complete information such as publication date, and because even copyrighted material can be used in some cases under the doctrine of fair use , the applicability of which is difficult to evaluate. Instead of making a complex legal determination, OCILLA allows OSPs to avoid liability provided they comply with

3198-442: Is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement , as well as for libel and other illegal content. In United States and European Union law, notice and takedown is mandated as part of limited liability , or safe harbour , provisions for online hosts (see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 and the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000). As

3321-449: Is incorrect. The ISP must act expeditiously. The ten-day period refers to the counter notification procedure described in Section 512(g) after the infringing material has been removed, offering them an opportunity to counter the allegations presented to the ISP not during the stage of the so-called "take down" procedure. It is sometimes suggested that content must be taken down before notifying

3444-581: Is misleading to conclude that these problems do not arise under the E-Commerce Directive, which does not provide for a statutory notice and take-down procedure, since these chilling effects are a specific problem of provider liability as such. In 2007 numerous US based online service providers hosting user generated content implemented content recognition technology to screen uploaded content for possible copyright infringement. These content ID systems, such as operated by YouTube , are outside

3567-514: Is protected by the safe harbor of the DMCA. Viacom appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On April 5, 2012, the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Louis Stanton's ruling, and instead ruled that Viacom had presented enough evidence against YouTube to warrant a trial, and the case should not have been thrown out in summary judgment. The court did uphold

3690-462: Is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material. In July 2002, American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Benjamin Edelman, a computer researcher at Berkman Center for Internet and Society, seeking a declaratory judgment to affirm his first amendment rights when reverse engineering the censorware product of defendant N2H2 in case he intended to publish

3813-559: The Copyright Clause has limitations. Association of American Publishers et al. hold there is no need to amend the statute or to significantly alter the rulemaking. They are happy with the protection they are being granted, including anti-trafficking provisions, and talk of placing the cart before the horse, when they argue about requiring a proof of the mindset that consumers would have when utilizing circumvention tools before actual acts of circumvention occur. In their opinion,

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

3936-509: The DSL ISP Verizon prevailed on appeal in its case seeking to prevent the use of this section for transitory network communications, the decision reversing a court order to supply customer details. The appeal decision accepted the argument that the key distinction was the location of the files, with this section applying only when the material is stored on equipment controlled by the OSP. However, in response, RIAA member labels turned to

4059-591: The European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Delfi AS v. Estonia case that the Estonian news website Delfi was liable for defamatory comments by users in an article. The court stated that the company "should have expected offensive posts, and exercised an extra degree of caution so as to avoid being held liable for damage to an individual’s reputation" and its notice and take down comments moderation system

4182-596: The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs ) against copyright infringement liability, provided they meet specific requirements. OSPs must adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from

4305-626: The Software and Information Industry Association , DVD Copy Control Association ("DVD CCA") et al. , Microsoft Corporation , Association for Competitive Technology, Public Knowledge , American Automobile Association . In June 2017, the Copyright Office published a report where it "shares the concern" that Section 1201 can affect activities unrelated to copyright infringement, but also expressed concerns over weakening "the right of copyright owners to exercise meaningful control over

4428-507: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected both arguments on the basis of Corley . The ruling established that the DMCA was not unconstitutional, and that while it did place a burden on users accessing works for fair use, the DMCA did not outright restrict fair use. In the case of the ebook example, the ruling observed that the user may have to type a quote from the ebook rather than copy and paste from

4551-585: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York . Viacom claims the popular video-sharing site was engaging in "massive intentional copyright infringement" for making available a contended 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's entertainment programming. Google relied on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision to shield them from liability. On June 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton granted summary judgment in favor of YouTube. The court held that YouTube

4674-631: The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit . The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that Lexmark's programs to manage the lockout were copyrightable and thus eligible for protections under the DMCA. However, the appeals court pointed out that Lexmark failed to include an anti-circumvention device that "effectively controls access" to the printer lockout program. Case law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been

4797-790: The WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act , amends U.S. copyright law to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty , adopted at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference in December 1996. The treaties have two major portions. One portion includes works covered by several treaties in U.S. copy prevention laws and gave the title its name. For further analysis of this portion of

4920-805: The 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) had its basis as part of the United States' commitment to comply with two treaties passed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in December 1996 that dealt with the nature of copyright with modern information systems such as the Internet . The WIPO Copyright Treaty identified numerous electronic works as eligible for copyright protection, and stated that circumvention of technological measures used to secure electronic works

5043-581: The Act and of cases under it, see WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act . The second portion (17 U.S.C. 1201) is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions changed the remedies for the circumvention of copy-prevention systems (also called "technical protection measures"). The section contains a number of specific limitations and exemptions, for such things as government research and reverse engineering in specified situations. Although section 1201(c) of

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

5166-477: The Copyright Office initiated a study to assess the operation of section 1201 and the triennial rulemaking process. This is different from usual public comments on exemption proposals. It includes the role of the anti-trafficking provisions and permanent exemptions, and the requirements of the rulemaking itself. The Office has issued a Notice of Inquiry requesting public comment. Several comments were posted by individuals and organizations. An individual recalls that

5289-532: The DMCA allowed users to make copies of media they legally owned. Both the District Court and the Second Circuit rejected Corley's arguments. While the court agreed that a computer program qualifies as protected speech, the distribution of anti-circumvention devices was not considered a fair use option by Section 1201, and thus DeCSS was not protected by First Amendment rights. United States v. Elcom Ltd. – Moscow-based Elcom had developed software that

5412-559: The DMCA and disrupted his right to sell used software he bought at a garage sale. In May 2008, a federal district judge in Washington State Autodesk's authorized that the software's license agreement preempted the seller from his rights under the first-sale doctrine . In September 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of

5535-479: The DMCA by manufacturing and trafficking a tool that circumvented anti-piracy measures ARccOS Protection and RipGuard , as well as breaking Real's licensing agreement with the Content Scrambling System. On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its corporate parent Google for copyright infringement seeking more than $ 1 billion in damages. The complaint was filed in

5658-541: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act mandated notice and takedown process. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with other civil society organisations published principles on user generated content, calling for the protection of legitimate use of copyright protected works, prior notification of the uploader before removal or the placement of ads on the content, use of the DMCA counter notice system, including reinstatement upon counter note and

5781-574: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act—to see whether Universal planned to sue Lenz for infringement. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song. Notice and take down Notice and take down is a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content

5904-692: The European Commission's notice and action initiative has come to a halt. The reason for this is unclear. One aspect might be to avoid bad publicity, since notice and take down is associated with chilling effects on free speech as described above. The other reason might be the following problem: the EU Commission already made it quite clear that it does not want to change the Electronic Commerce Directive – while indeed it seems impossible to provide legal certainty in

6027-663: The Northern District of California, ruled against 321 Studios on both arguments. The court ruled that 321 Studios' software was not protected speech and violated the DMCA. Additionally, they argued that the issues pertaining to the constitutionality of the DMCA were answered by prior cases, as case law from Corley and Elcom effectively established that the DMCA could not be challenged on the basis of constitutionality. Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc. – Chamberlain manufactured garage door openers and accessories, while Skylink created universal remotes that worked with

6150-482: The OSP becomes aware that the material is infringing, it must promptly disable access to it. Also, the OSP must follow Section 512(c)'s takedown and put-back provisions. Finally, where the OSP can control the infringing activity, the OSP must not derive any financial benefit through providing the link. Section 512(e) protects nonprofit educational institutions from liability for the actions of faculty and graduate student employees who place infringing material online. For

6273-411: The OSP for copyright infringement of the material. There is a common practice of providing a link to legal notices at the bottom of the main web page of a site. It may be prudent, though it is not required by the provisions of section 512 of the copyright law, to include the designated agent information on the page the legal link goes to, in addition to any other places where it is available. As long as

SECTION 50

#1732772337559

6396-474: The OSP must seek clarification of any unclear aspects. In Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC , the Ninth Circuit held that the properly constructed notice must exist in one communication. A copyright owner cannot "cobble together adequate notice from separately defective notices" because that would unduly burden the OSP. While not required for safe harbor protection, the OSP can implement a counter notification process to avoid legal liability to its own customer as

6519-592: The OSP qualifies for a limitation under a different subsection. This is because subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) describe separate and distinct functions. DMCA The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA ) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM). It also criminalizes

6642-545: The Supreme Court case Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. . In addition to the safe harbors and exemptions the statute explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) requires that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology. Exemptions are granted when it is shown that access-control technology has had a substantial adverse effect on

6765-636: The United States by pro-copyright lobbyists, and constitute Article 17 of the EU's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market . The concept of notice and stay down has faced criticism; it has been noted that the only way to reliably enforce such an obligation would be through automatic filtering, which is subject to the possibility of false positives , and the inability to detect lawful uses of an affected work (such as fair use ). The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that requiring proactive monitoring of user content would place

6888-678: The ability of people to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works. The exemption rules are revised every three years. Exemption proposals are submitted by the public to the Registrar of Copyrights, and after a process of hearings and public comments, the final rule is recommended by the Registrar and issued by the Librarian. Exemptions expire after three years and must be resubmitted for the next rulemaking cycle. The Copyright Office approved two exemptions in 2000, four in 2003, six each in 2006 and 2010, five in 2012, and nine in 2015. In 2000,

7011-559: The act of circumventing an access control , whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet . Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend

7134-600: The activity or information. Upon obtaining such knowledge, the online host must act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information. The Directive does not set out notice and takedown procedures but it envisaged the development of such a process because online hosts who fail to act expeditiously upon notification lose limited liability protection. The Directive suggests that voluntary agreements between trade bodies and consumer associations could specify notice and takedown processes, and that such initiatives should be encouraged by member states. In most EU countries at

7257-553: The acts of their users (as secondary infringers of copyright), provided that OSP's comply with two general requirements protecting the rights of authors. First, the OSP must "adopt and reasonably implement a policy" of addressing and terminating accounts of users who are found to be "repeat infringers." Second, the OSP must accommodate and not interfere with "standard technical measures." "Standard technical measures" are defined as measures that copyright owners use to identify or protect copyrighted works, that have been developed pursuant to

7380-408: The allegedly copyright infringing material. An online service provider can be notified through the copyright owner's written notification of claimed infringement. Section 512(c) lists a number of requirements the notification must comply with, including: Provided the notification complies with the requirements of Section 512, the online service provider must expeditiously remove or disable access to

7503-415: The allegedly infringing material, otherwise the provider loses its safe harbour and is exposed to possible liability. The online service provider may additionally limit its liability for the removal of the material itself as well as its liability for restoring the removed material, by complying with a counter notification process. In this process, the service provider must promptly inform the subscriber of

SECTION 60

#1732772337559

7626-439: The basic rules of Article 14 are interpreted in different ways by different national courts (sometimes even within the same member state)." As part of the initiative the European Commission intends to clarify which online service providers fall within the article 14 definition of online hosts. The initiative assesses whether different categories of illegal content require different notice and action approaches. It seems that in 2013

7749-533: The basis of the DMCA, holding that the defendant's video-sharing web site complied and was entitled to the protection of the statute's "safe harbor" provision. Even though Veoh won the court case, it blamed the litigation as one of the causes of its preparing to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and its subsequent sale to Qlipso. After numerous DMCA takedown notices in response to his eBay listings, Timothy S. Vernor sued Autodesk in August 2007, alleging that Autodesk abused

7872-587: The burden of copyright enforcement on service providers (thus defeating the purpose of safe harbors), and would be too costly for newly-established companies (thus bolstering incumbents and stifling innovation). The implementation of Article 17 adopted by the German parliament includes safe harbour provisions intended to prevent false positives in situations "presumably authorised by law" (such as fair dealing rights), including that filters should not be applied automatically if an upload's use of copyrighted material

7995-412: The caching is conducted in standard ways, and does not interfere with reasonable copy protection systems. This Section applies to the proxy and caching servers used by ISPs and many other providers. If the cached material is made available to end users, the system provider must follow the Section 512(c) takedown and put back provisions. Note that this provision only applies to cached material originated by

8118-403: The challenges were focused on clear applications to software-based access control products, some cases considered how the DMCA also extended to hardware-based access controls. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes /Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley – Eight movie studios had sued Eric Corley , Shawn Reimerdes, and Roman Kazan, editors of 2600: The Hacker Quarterly , for publishing

8241-481: The clearinghouse to study the use of cease-and-desist demands, primarily looking at DMCA 512 takedown notices, but also non-DMCA copyright issues, and trademark claims. A 2005 study into the DMCA notice and take down process by Jennifer Urban and Laura Quilter from the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic concluded that "some notices are sent in order to accomplish the paradigmatic goal of 512 –

8364-485: The code of DeCSS , an algorithm designed to bypass the Content Scramble System (CSS) used to encrypt DVD content. The studios argued that the code was an anti-circumvention device as defined by the DMCA. While Reimerdes and Kazan entered into consent decrees and were subsequently dropped from the suit, Corley continued the case. He argued that DeCSS, as computer code, was protected as free speech, and

8487-636: The copyright title so that those repairing computers could make certain temporary, limited copies while working on a computer. It reversed the precedent set in MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. , 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cor. 1993). DMCA Title IV contains an assortment of provisions: DMCA Title V added sections 1301 through 1332 to add a sui generis protection for boat hull designs. Boat hull designs were not considered covered under copyright law because boats are useful articles whose form cannot be separated from their function as determined by

8610-492: The country have been forced to adapt to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) regulations. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), who are the major representatives of the music and movie industries, are the main organizations who have been enforcing the copyright laws the strongest. This started in 2003 as they began to track down

8733-559: The court held that copyrighted material on Napster's system created a "draw" for customers which resulted in a direct financial benefit because Napster's future revenue was directly dependent on increases in user-base. Conversely, in Ellison v. Robertson , the court held that AOL did not receive a direct financial benefit when a user stored infringing material on its server because the copyrighted work did not "draw" new customers. AOL neither "attracted [nor] retained…[nor] lost…subscriptions" as

8856-448: The damages suffered by other parties as a result of the OSP's reliance on the false claim, and for associated legal fees. This provision has been used in cases such as Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc. , where an electronic voting technology firm was sanctioned for knowingly issuing meritless notices of infringement to ISPs, and more recently Lenz v. Universal , 801 F.3d 1126 (2015). Section 512(h) contains provisions that allow

8979-575: The definition of online host , under article 14 developed across the EU. As a result, notice and takedown procedures are fragmented across EU member states and online hosts face considerable legal uncertainty . The European Commission consulted on notice and action procedures under article 14 in 2010, and has launched a new initiative in June 2012. The European Commission observed that "Online intermediaries face high compliance costs and legal uncertainty because they typically have operations across Europe, but

9102-597: The digital commerce marketplace. In evaluating the enforcement of the WIPO Copyright Treaty with its anti-circumvention provisions with U.S. copyright law, lawmakers recognized that traditionally copyright law did not generally account for the medium of the work, as it was generally impossible to make an exact copy of an analog work previously, and current law was only concerned with unlawful acts of copyright violations. Since digital technology could allow for infinite numbers of exact copies of works to be made,

9225-426: The facts of the case, federal law may preempt state law i.e. there will be no liability for state law claims resulting from compliance with federal law. The other issue to keep in mind is that the delay in responding may not amount to a significant amount of damages and someone who has had their material removed by the § 512 procedure late may be more than satisfied with the result; it is much less expensive than filing

9348-571: The failure of the copyright owner to bring a lawsuit. The Electronic Commerce Directive, unlike the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, did not define so called notice and action procedures under article 14 of the Directive. Member states implemented diverging approaches on the duty to act expeditiously and on when an online host obtains "actual knowledge" in relation to notifications. Inconsistent approaches to whether online service providers, such as search engines or social media networks, fall within

9471-533: The finding. N2H2 filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on the basis that Edelman had not finished reverse engneeering, and the court did not make advisory opinions. In August 2009, the DVD Copy Control Association won a lawsuit against RealNetworks for violating copyright law in selling its RealDVD software, allowing users to copy DVDs and store them on a harddrive. The DVD Copy Control Association claimed that Real violated

9594-798: The first rulemaking, the Office exempted: In 2003, the Office made the following rules: In 2006, the Office made the following rules: Rulemaking was scheduled to occur in 2009, but the final rule was not issued until the following year. The 2010 exemptions, issued in July 2010, are: The 2012 exemptions, issued in November 2012, are for: The 2015 exemptions, issued in October 2015, are for: The 2018 exemptions, issued in October 2018, are for: The 2021 exemptions, issued in October 2021, are for: After much criticism (see below ), on December 29, 2015,

9717-552: The heaviest peer-to-peer users and seek lawsuit against them. Most Universities today have set in rules to follow the strict guidelines of the DMCA. Offenders are issued subpoenas and disciplinary actions are taken to identify and disable the issue. Fortunately for the colleges, the liability of Internet service providers is limited under section 512 of the Copyright Act. Section 512(f) deters false claims of infringement by imposing liability on anyone who makes such claims, for

9840-411: The immunity to apply the materials must not be course materials for a course taught by the faculty or graduate student employee, and the institution must not have received more than two infringement notifications about the same individual, during the preceding 3 years. Also, the institution must distribute informational materials about US copyright laws to all the users of its network. Universities across

9963-425: The inexpensive takedown of clearly infringing hosted content or links to infringing web sites". However, on the basis of data on such notices the study concluded that the DMCA notice and take down process "is commonly used for other purposes: to create leverage in a competitive marketplace, to protect rights not given by copyright (or perhaps any other law), and to stifle criticism, commentary and fair use". However, it

10086-501: The infringing material is being transmitted at the request of a third party to a designated recipient, is handled by an automated process without human intervention, is not modified in any way, and is only temporarily stored on the system, the service provider is not liable for the transmission. The key difference in scope between this section, transitory network communications under 512(a), and caches, websites and search engine indexes under 512(b), 512(c) and 512(d) respectively, relates to

10209-447: The institution of account termination policies for infringers and accommodation of copy protection systems. Furthermore, OSP's are not required to remove or disable access to material if doing so would break another law. Section 512(n) states that the limitations on liability in parts (a), (b), (c) and (d) apply independently. Hence, the fact that an OSP qualifies for a limitation on liability under one subsection has no impact on whether

10332-433: The lawmakers agreed they had to extend copyright to include limits on devices and services which could be used for circumvention in addition to acts of circumvention. In establishing this, the lawmakers also recognized this would have a negative impact on fair use without exceptions, with electronic works potentially falling into the public domain but still locked beyond circumvention measures, but they also needed to balance

10455-482: The letter of the law. iFixit also talks of Catch-22 on stressing that since it is up to proponents to show that an exemption is relevant, they need to show that there's overwhelming market demand if only it were legal . Rapid7 notice that DMCA adversely affects good faith security research by forbidding researchers from circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs) to analyze software for vulnerabilities. Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School points out that

10578-461: The location of the infringing material. The other subsections create a conditional safe harbor for infringing material that resides on a system controlled by the OSP. For material that was temporarily stored in the course of network communications, this subsection's safe harbor additionally applies even for networks not under the OSP's control. Section 512(b) protects OSPs who engage in caching (i.e., creating copies of material for faster access) if

10701-423: The material has been taken down for the minor fee of having a lawyer draft a compliant "take down" notice rather than the costs of drafting, filing, serving and prosecuting a federal copyright infringement action. Another law, the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) still protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties (see below). Even if a removal is found not to be "expeditious" within

10824-405: The meaning of Section 1201 is to extend , not merely duplicate, copyright holder's rights. Society of American Archivists say they are not aware that the anti-trafficking provisions of section 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) have had any impact in deterring copyright infringement. They do know, however, that the provisions have created an absurd, Catch-22 situation for any archives that sought to adhere to

10947-438: The meaning of the law and the so-called "safe harbor" under the DMCA is lost, in certain circumstances, the OSP may still be protected. Through these two laws there are ways to balance the ISP's intent to assist with the protection of third-party copyright and the desire to preserve good customer relations. There is also a question of the infringement that is placed by a third party being an issue of negligence or another tort on

11070-515: The national level, there are no explicit rules regarding notice of infringement, take-down process or counter notice and put back (statutory rules exist in smaller countries like Hungary and Finland). Where explicit rules do not exist (e.g. Germany), some aspects of notice requirements can be derived from common principles of law. By nature, this lack of explicit rules results in a lack of clarity and legal certainty when compared to legal regimes with statutory rules (e.g. United States). In October 2013,

11193-414: The notice must identify the allegedly infringing material that is to be removed and must provide reasonably sufficient information for the service provider to locate the material residing on its system. The owner must also swear that any information obtained through the subpoena will only be used for the purpose of protecting its rights under Section 512. If the OSP is served with such a subpoena after or at

11316-533: The online service provider from the improper removal of the material. The online service provider is also required to appropriately respond to "repeat infringers", including termination of online accounts. On this basis online service providers may insert clauses into user service agreements which allow them to terminate or disable user accounts following repeat infringement of copyright. Identification of "repeat infringer" may occur through repeated notice and takedown requests, while other online service provider require

11439-449: The part of the OSP. If the OSP takes steps considered reasonable or is found not to have a duty of care to police potential infringers on the site, then the infringement may be considered "innocent" from the point of view of the ISP and the infringer may still be held to be the liable party which posts the infringing work or works. It is sometimes stated that the ISP needs to give the alleged infringer ten days' notice before acting. This

11562-637: The person who provided it. That is also not required, so long as the removal is expeditious. A large connectivity provider with many ISP customers would not be acting reasonably by disconnecting a whole ISP if it received a takedown notice for a web site hosted by that ISP on behalf of one of its customers. The law appears to allow the necessary flexibility to deal reasonably with relaying takedown requests to handle such situations. Section 512(a) protects service providers who are passive conduits from liability for copyright infringement, even if infringing traffic passes through their networks. In other words, provided

11685-474: The process from a range of default values set by the thirdparty software... But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh's users. The Court has granted the Veoh's motion for summary judgment , on

11808-428: The purported infringing material. An OSP must "not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity" to qualify for § 512(c) protection. However, it is not always easy to determine what qualifies as a direct financial benefit under the statute. One example of an OSP that did receive a direct financial benefit from infringing activity was Napster. In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. ,

11931-519: The reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users. The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of Internet service providers and other intermediaries. This exemption was adopted by the European Union in the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 . The Information Society Directive 2001 implemented

12054-411: The removal of allegedly infringing material, compliance with the DMCA's procedures nonetheless may result in disruption of a contractual relationship: by sending a letter, the copyright holder can effectuate the disruption of ISP service to clients. If adherence to the DMCA's provisions simultaneously subjects the copyright holder to state tort law liability, state and federal law may conflict. Depending on

12177-429: The removal of the content. If the subscriber then objects via a counter notification, the service provider must notify the party which filed the original notice. If the party does not bring a lawsuit against the subscriber within 14 days, the service provider must then restore the material to its location on its network. Like the original notification, the counter notification include specific elements: Implementing

12300-536: The requirements for a given safe harbor is not liable for money damages, but may still be ordered by a court to perform specific actions such as disabling access to infringing material. In addition to the two general requirements listed above, all four safe harbors impose additional requirements for immunity. The safe harbor for storage of infringing material under § 512(c) is the most commonly encountered because it immunizes OSPs such as YouTube that might inadvertently host infringing material uploaded by users. Taken as

12423-530: The rights of copyright holders. The DMCA as passed contained some basic fair use allowance such as for limited reverse engineering and for security research . Lawmakers opted to create a rulemaking mechanism through the United States Copyright Office to review the state of copyrights and fair use to make limited classes of allowance for fair use which would be considered lawful means of using circumvention technology. DMCA Title I,

12546-452: The rulemaking is a complicated, ad hoc , and unduly burdensome process. Professors Andrea M. Matwyshyn , Steven M. Bellovin , Matt Blaze , J. Alex Halderman , and Nadia Heninger , jointly advocated making the security research exemption granted in the 2015 Triennial Section 1201 Rulemaking permanent. The Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) commented that circumventing DRM restrictions to meet accessibility needs deserves

12669-539: The ruling that YouTube could not be held liable based on "general knowledge" that users on its site were infringing copyright. The case was sent back to the District Court in New York, and on April 18, 2013, Judge Stanton issued another order granting summary judgment in favor of YouTube. Before it was sent back to the Court of Appeals, a settlement was reached; no money changed hands. On June 23, 2006, IO Group, Inc. filed

12792-507: The same time as a valid takedown notice, under Part (h)(2)(A) it must expeditiously provide the information required by the subpoena. In 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) appeared to be seeking subpoenas and serving takedown notices which did not comply with these requirements, notably using the subpoena provisions for 512(a) situations, which do not provide for them. On 20 December 2003,

12915-506: The site gives reasonable notice that there is a method of compliance, that should be sufficient. Once again, the courts have not ruled on the technicalities of posting of these notices. The second way that an OSP can be put on notice that its system contains infringing material, for purposes of section 512(d), is referred to the "red flag" test. The "red flag" test stems from the language in the statute that requires that an OSP not be "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity

13038-412: The statute describes two ways in which an OSP can be put on notice of infringing material on its system: 1) notice from the copyright owner, known as notice and take down , and 2) the existence of "red flags." This is advantageous for OSPs because OCILLA's clear process allows them to avoid making decisions about whether or not material is actually infringing. Such decisions can be complex both because it

13161-628: The take down process without a binding legal underpinning. The term notice and stay down is used to refer to the concept of additionally requiring that a service, after it has received a request to take down a certain copyrighted work, must also prevent the same work from becoming available on the service again in the future. Proposals for such concepts typically prescribe the implementation of automatic content recognition, similar to YouTube 's "Content ID" system, that would proactively filter identified works and prevent them from being re-uploaded. Proposals for notice and stay down rules have been made in

13284-468: The terms of access to their works online", which they believe is "essential to the development of the digital marketplace for creative content". However, with respect to the question of whether the security research exemption granted in the 2015 Triennial cycle should be made permanent in some form, the Office recommended "that Congress consider expanding the reach of this exemption, easing the strict authorization requirement for researchers and restrictions on

13407-426: The terms of the statute, regardless of the validity of any claim of infringement. The first way an OSP can be put on notice is through the copyright holder's written notification of claimed infringement to the OSP's designated agent . This must include the following: See 512(a) and (h) below if the information is not stored on the system of the OSP but is instead on a system connected to the Internet through it, like

13530-407: The title stated that the section does not change the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, or defenses, it did not make those defenses available in circumvention actions. The section does not include a fair use exemption from criminality nor a scienter requirement, so criminal liability could attach to even unintended circumvention for legitimate purposes. DMCA Title II,

13653-635: The treaties should be implemented, including content producers and distributors, technology manufacturers, online service providers, researchers and academics, and consumer groups. Some groups urged for stronger copyright enforcement while others sought more relaxing of rules. As the bill was being formed in the Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives , the committee recognized that the final bill would be far more encompassing than just copyright reform but would be establishing key principles in

13776-532: The two general requirements that OSPs comply with standard technical measures and remove repeat infringers, § 512(c) also requires that the OSP: 1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove or disable access to

13899-513: The two general requirements that online service providers comply with standard technical measures and remove repeat infringers, section 512(c) also requires that the online service providers: 1) do not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) are not aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove

14022-509: The unprotected version. 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc. – 321 Studios made copies that allowed users to copy DVDs, including those with CSS copy protection, to another DVD or to a CD-ROM. The company sought declaratory judgment from MGM Studios that their software did not violate the DMCA, or sought to have the DMCA ruled unconstitutional. The case, heard in the United States District Court for

14145-461: The use of information generated from the research, and abandoning or clarifying the multifactor test," stating that "it continues to believe that the exemption adopted in 2015 can be a useful starting point, and notes that most of the security researchers who petitioned for that exemption ... agree." The anti-circumvention provisions in Section 1201 of the DMCA have seen some challenges in the courts but which have generally been upheld. While initially

14268-417: The video-sharing site YouTube . Four months after the video was originally uploaded, Universal Music Group , which owned the copyrights to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks—not two weeks, as required by

14391-533: Was "insufficient for preventing harm being cause to third parties". In India takedown requests can happen through Section 69A of Information Technology Act, 2000 . Notice and takedown has been criticised for over-blocking or take down of non-infringing content. In 2001 the Electronic Frontier Foundation launched a collaborative clearinghouse for notice and takedown requests, known as Chilling Effects . Researchers have been using

14514-581: Was able to remove protections on an Adobe Acrobat PDF file, such as those used in ebook distribution. Adobe requested the U.S. Department of Justice take action against the company for violating the DMCA. Elcom argued in court that the DMCA was unconstitutionally vague and allowed for circumvention of use controls for purposes of fair use. The company also claimed that the act violated the First Amendment by placing too much burden on those seeking to use protected works for fair use. The initial ruling at

14637-592: Was effectively an access control device, and Skylink violated the DMCA. Both the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Skylink that there was no DMCA violation. The courts ruled the DMCA did not create a new property right, and thus consumers that owned Chamberlain's product had a right to circumvent any restrictions, since this

14760-570: Was forced to turn over the identities of the requested customers, a later appeal ruled that the motion to quash should have been upheld. Section 512(i) outlines the general requirements for a grant of immunity. Online service providers must reasonably implement a policy "that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances" of "repeat infringers", must inform their users of this policy, and must accommodate standard copy protection systems. This passage has historically been open to interpretation, as it does not specify any minimum standards that

14883-485: Was sufficiently reasonable. Section 512(j) describes the forms of injunctive (i.e., court order) relief available to copyright holders. Even though OSPs have immunity from monetary damages under Section 512, they may be compelled by copyright holders, in appropriate situations, to stop providing access to infringing material or to terminate the account of a particular infringer. Section 512(k) defines "service provider" and "monetary relief." Section 512(l) notes that

15006-462: Was to be prohibited. The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty worked to normalize the copyright protections for performed works as uniformly for member states as possible. The process of ratifying the treaties for the United States was the first major piece of copyright-related legislation since the Copyright Act of 1976 , and led to numerous interested groups to express concerns for how

15129-403: Was typical practice on the market. They also pointed out that customers purchasing a Chamberlain garage door opener did not sign an end user license agreement waiving those rights. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. – Lexmark had developed a lock-out mechanism for its inkjet printers that would prevent use of any third party ink cartridges. The mechanism used

#558441