Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Internet

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

Research on illegal IPTV in EU – enforcement measures

Key points:

  • Rights holders can avail of civil enforcement measures against both direct infringers and intermediaries.
  • A wide spectrum of blocking injunctions can be sought against internet access providers to repress IPTV infringements.
  • Internet intermediaries can receive orders to disclose information on infringers; however, disclosure of information on end-users of illegal IPTV services may not be compatible with EU data protection law.
  • Criminal measures are also available in all EU Member States against IPTV infringers on a commercial scale.
  • Import and sale of IPTV devices may be prohibited on the ground of non-compliance with EU standards on radio equipment.

Comments closed

Section 512 report – general overview of section 512

Secondary Liability

Secondary liability doctrines enable copyright owners to bring claims against third parties that have some relationship to persons who themselves commit infringement (i.e., “direct” infringers). As the Supreme Court has noted, “although ‘the Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another,’ these doctrines of secondary liability emerged from common law principles and are well established in the law.”

Comments closed

“Simple measures” to avoid contributory copyright infringement

Whether a data-center service provider has taken adequate “simple measures” to avoid contributory copyright infringement if it forwarded notices of such infringement to the hosting website – and every alleged infringed material was taken down.

Comments closed

Googles v Google

In 1995, Steven Silvers created the Googles brand. Two years later, he registered the Googles trademark and the internet domain name www.googles.com. The website launched in 1998 as a children’s education and entertainment website. That year, the search engine Google adopted the Google name. Subsequently, in 2005, Silvers sued Google for trademark infringement.

Comments closed

EU illegal IPTV research – the actors of the illegal IPTV ecosystem

Another part of fundamental EU research on IPTV. Now – actors and ecosystems participants. The ecosystem for unauthorised IPTV includes several actors. They consist of primary infringers (the providers of the unauthorised content), a series of active and passive intermediaries, and final consumers. In addition, a number of facilitators and enablers can also be involved by giving instructions and providing tutorials for the installation of middleware — software instrumental for the fruition of the unauthorised content.

Comments closed