Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
In 2008, Congress passed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization of Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (“PRO IP Act”) for the “critical” purpose of “improving IP enforcement both domestically and internationally.” Among other changes, the PRO IP Act created the position of Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (“IPEC”) within the Executive Office of the President.
Comments closed
Genius Media Group (Plaintiff) is a “digital media company,” one of whose “primary services is the development and maintenance of annotated music lyrics.” LyricFind is a Canadian company that maintains a database of music lyrics. Both Plaintiff and LyricFind “license lyrics for display and distribution from music publishers.” Google “owns and operates the internet’s dominant search platform.” Pursuant to an agreement “LyricFind provides lyrics to Google for use in Google’s search results.”
As noted in the Report, the Office believes that the identification and adoption of standard technical measures (“STMs”) may provide an opportunity to improve the overall functioning of the notice-and-takedown system through relatively small, incremental changes that nonetheless could have a large impact on the ability of all rightsholders to protect their rights online.
Comments closed
Have you experienced specific problems when trying to use an exception to preserve and archive specific works or other subject matter in your collection?
Comments closedThe technology that allows copyright owners to distribute content directly to consumers’ living rooms via streaming services also enables new forms of piracy: streaming of unlicensed content and stream-ripping – that is, using software to make an unlicensed copy of streamed content that would otherwise be licensed.
Comments closed
Online intermediary services and online search engines play a crucial role in enabling and promoting digital trade. In order to strengthen the trust of business users and consumers and encourage them to take part in the vast digital ecosystems created by online platforms, it is necessary to set minimum standards for their services.
Comments closed
Requirements that pose a relatively minimal burden for large, established OSPs could be crippling for a small startup that lacks access to enterprise-level technology. Larger rightsholders with in-house enforcement teams may have more resources to monitor online infringement than small rightsholders that must face a choice between devoting their time to creative endeavors or to enforcing their rights.
Comments closed
Comments closed
Irrespective of establishment of liability, EU law ensures that rights holders have the possibility to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe their Intellectual property rights (IPR).
Comments closed
OSPs seeking protection under the safe harbors in sections 512(b), (c), or (d), must, in addition to the section 512(i) requirements, maintain a compliant notice-and-takedown process by responding expeditiously to remove or disable access to material claimed to be infringing upon receipt of proper notice from a copyright owner or the owner’s authorized agent.
Comments closed