Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Internet

Section 512 report – Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

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

The creation, curation, and provision of timely and accurate music lyrics transcriptions is not protected by the Copyright Act

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.”

Comments closed

Whether the Copyright Office can help stakeholders identify and adopt standard technical measures without congressional action?

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

Technological Changes Since the 1990s Have Changed the Landscape in which Section 512 Operates

The 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

Anna Záborská’s amendments to proposed regulation on online intermediation services

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

Revisions to section 512 should take into account differences within and among stakeholder classes

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

SWD IA on the EU copyright modernization – Out-of-commerce works

Would it be necessary in your country to enact legislation to ensure that the results of the 2011 MoU (i.e. the agreements concluded between libraries and collecting societies) have a cross-border effect so that out of commerce works can be accessed across the EU?

Would it be necessary to develop mechanisms, beyond those already agreed for other types of content (e.g. for audio- or audio-visual collections, broadcasters’ archives)?

Comments closed

Research on illegal IPTV in EU – Civil enforcement measures, injunctions

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

Section 512 report – Notice-and-Takedown Process

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

Which clarifications or revisions would be the most beneficial for improving section 512?

First, the Office recommends that Congress clarify the distinction between “actual knowledge” and “red flag knowledge.” Court decisions interpreting the red flag knowledge provision have often required a level of specificity regarding the types of information from which infringing activity is present as to blur the line between actual and red flag knowledge and conflate the existence of either knowledge type with receipt of a takedown notice from a rightsholder.

Comments closed