Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Safe Harbor

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

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

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

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

Report 512 executive summary

The Report is the first full analysis of whether section 512 is working effectively in achieving its aim of balancing the needs of online service providers (“OSPs”) with those of creators.

Comments closed

Russia IIPA 2020 special 301 report

Special 301 Recommendation: IIPA recommends that the Russian Federation be retained on the Priority Watch List in 2020.

Priority actions requested in 2020

Comments closed

Russian Facebook VKontakte intends to settle copyright infringement lawsuit

Many Russian right holders have tried to “punish” Russian popular social network VKontakte – Russian Facebook – for copyright infringement. Users of this social network like Vkontakte because you can get satisfaction for your taste in music, video or even books. But in most cases right holders failed because Vkontakte’s position is always the same – “we are only informational intermediary”, therefore “we are not liable if the user posts or links to any illegal content”, “we can only takedown such content in our network”.

Comments closed

SWD Impact assessment on the modernisation of EU copyright rules – options for the use of protected content by online services

Baseline

No policy intervention. This option would rely on the voluntary deployment of technologies by user uploaded content services, which will continue to apply their own terms and level of transparency as to the functioning of the technologies.

Comments closed