A Histo ric al Ove rvie w Why the DMCA? 1998: Co ng re ss e na c - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Se c tio n 512 o f the DMCA: A Histo ric al Ove rvie w

Why the DMCA?

 1998: Co ng re ss e na c ts Dig ita l Mille nnium Co pyrig ht Ac t to

re so lve uniq ue c o pyrig ht e nfo rc e me nt pro b le ms c a use d b y wide spre a d use o f the I nte rne t.

 “T

he “Dig ital Mille nnium Co pyrig ht Ac t o f 1998” was de sig ne d to fac ilitate the ro b ust de ve lo pme nt and wo rld-wide e xpansio n o f e le c tro nic c o mme rc e , c o mmunic atio ns, re se arc h, de ve lo pme nt, and e duc atio n in the dig ital ag e .”

• S. RE
• P. 105-190, 2

A Ba la nc ing Ac t

I nte re st o f c o pyrig ht ho lde rs v. inte re st o f e nd use rs. A sta tute tha t b a la nc e s “the ne e d fo r rapid re spo nse to po te ntial infring e me nt with the e nd-use rs le g itimate inte re sts in no t having mate rial re mo ve d witho ut re c o urse .” S.Re p. No . 105-190 a t 21 (1998)

Notic e and T ake - Down pro visio ns + “ Safe Har bor s”

Applying Se c tio n 512

GE NE RAL T HRE SHOL D RE QUIRE ME NT S:

1. “se rvic e pro vide r”? Se c tio n 512(k) (“ma te ria l o f the use r’ s c ho o sing ,

without modific a tion to the c o nte nt o f the ma te ria l a s se nt o r re c e ive d”)

2. re a so na b le imple me nta tio n o f re pe a t infring e r po lic y? Se c tio n 512(i)(A) 3. inte rfe re nc e with sta nda rd te c hnic a l me a sure s? Se c tio n 512(i)(B)

SAF E HARBOR SPE CIF IC RE QUIRE ME NT S: (e .g . Se c tio n 512(c )) 1. a c tua l knowle dg e o f the infring e me nt; OR

2. “fa c ts o r c irc umsta nc e s” fro m whic h infring ing a c tivity is a ppa re nt (“r

e d fla g ” knowle dg e) + a c ts e xpe ditio usly to re mo ve / disa b le a c c e ss to

ma te ria l; OR

3. r ig ht a nd a bility to c ontr

• l the infring ing a c tivity, a nd

4. re mo va l/ disa b ling a c c e ss to ma te ria l upo n re c e iving a DMCA- c omplia nt

notic e o f infring e me nt

K E Y T E RMS

① “witho ut mo dific a tio n”/ “a t the dire c tio n o f a use r” ② “a c tua l kno wle dg e ” ③ “re d fla g kno wle dg e ” ④ “DMCA c o mplia nt no tic e ” ⑤ “rig ht o r a b ility to c o ntro l”

Ho w muc h filte ring , mo de ratio n and “re d flag ” kno wle dg e is to o

muc h?

He ndric kso n v. e Bay 165 F . Supp.2d 1082 (C.D. Ca l. 2001)

 Issue: whe the r Se c tio n 512(c ) shie lde d e Ba y fro m lia b ility fo r

c o pyrig ht infring e me nt b y use rs se lling c o unte rfe it c o pie s o f the film “Ma nso n” o n e Ba y.

 He ld: e Ba y me t a ll pro ng s o f the Se c tio n 512(c ) sa fe ha rb o r:

1. No ac tual o r “ re d flag” kno wle dg e o f pa rtic ula r listing s b e ing use d b y pa rtic ula r se lle rs to se ll pira te d c o pie s o f “Ma nso n”. 2. Ab ility to re mo ve / b lo c k a c c e ss to ma te ria ls po ste d o n its we b site

and “VeRO” program ≠ “right and ability to c ontrol” infring ing

a c tivity . 3.

Hendrickson’s notice of infringement ≠ “c omply substantially” with

Se c tio n 512(c )(3)(se e ne xt slide ).

Re q uire d E le me nts fo r Pro pe r No tific a tio n unde r Se c tio n 512(c )(3)  No tific a tio n must inc lude “sub sta ntia lly” the fo llo wing

e le me nts: 1. Physic a l o r e le c tro nic sig na ture o f pe rso n a utho rize d to a c t o n b e ha lf o f c o pyrig ht o wne r 2. I de ntific a tio n o f infring e d c o pyrig hte d wo rk 3. I de ntific a tio n o f infring ing ma te ria l tha t is re a so na b ly suffic ie nt to pe rmit se rvic e pro vide r to lo c a te ma te ria l 4. I nfo rma tio n re a so na b ly suffic ie nt to pe rmit se rvic e pro vide r to c o nta c t c o mpla ining pa rty 5. Go o d fa ith b e lie f in infring ing use 6. Sta te me nt “unde r pe na lty o f pe rjury” b y c o mpla ining pa rty

Co rb is v. Amazo n.c o m, 351 F . Supp.2d 1090 (W.D. Wa sh. 2004)

 Issue : Whe the r Ama zo n wa s lia b le fo r c o pyrig ht infring e me nt

c o mmitte d b y ve ndo rs se lling Co rb is’ c o pyrig hte d c e le b rity ima g e s o n Ama zo n.

 He ld: Ama zo n me t spe c ific re q uire me nts fo r Se c tio n 512(c ) sa fe

ha rb o r 1. No ac tual o r “ r

e d flag” kno wle dg e o f infring e me nt

• Awa re ne ss that Corbis licensed celebrity photographs ≠ actual

kno wle dg e .

• Notices by third parties ≠ “red flags”.

2. No “ r

ight and ability” to c o ntro l infring ing a c tivity. Ama zo n wa s

me re ly the fo rum fo r inde pe nde nt third pa rty se lle rs to list a nd se ll me rc ha ndise .

Co Star Gro up v. L

• o pne t,

373 F .3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004)

 Issue : Whe the r L

• o pne t e ng a g e d in “vo litio na l” c o nduc t

suffic ie nt to b e c o me a n infring e r (in c o nte xt o f Ne tc o m ho lding tha t passive o wne rship a nd ma na g e me nt o f I SP is no t e no ug h fo r infring e me nt).

 He ld: L

• o pne t’ s c o nduc t wa s pa ssive .

Co Star Gro up v. L

• o pne t, 373

F .3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004) (c o nt’ d )

 Altho ug h L

• o pNe t e ng ag e s in vo litio nal c o nduc t to b lo c k pho to g raphs

me asure d b y two g ro ssly de fine d c rite ria, this c o nduc t, whic h take s

• nly se c o nds, do e s no t amo unt to “c o pying ,” no r do e s it add vo litio n

to L

• o pNe t's invo lve me nt in sto ring the c o py. […] I

n pe rfo rming this g ate ke e ping func tio n, L

• o pNe t do e s no t atte mpt to se ar

c h o ut o r se le c t pho to gr aphs fo r duplic atio n; it me re ly pre ve nts use rs fro m

duplic ating c e rtain pho to g raphs. T

• invo ke ag ain the analo g y o f the

sho p with the c o py mac hine , L

• o pNe t c an be c o mpar

e d to an o wne r

• f a c o py mac hine who has statio ne d a guar

d by the do o r to tur n away c usto me r s who ar e atte mpting to duplic ate c le ar ly c o pyr ighte d wo r

• ks. L
• o pNe t has no t b y this sc re e ning pro c e ss b e c o me e ng ag e d as

a “c o pie r” o f c o pyrig hte d wo rks who c an b e he ld liab le unde r §§ 501 and 106 o f the Co pyrig ht Ac t.

 But se e Gre g o ry J’ s disse nt: “L

• o pNe t e ng ag e s in no n-passive , vo litio nal

c o nduc t with re spe c t to the pho to g raphs o n its we b site suc h that the Ne tc o m de fe nse do e s no t apply”

I

• Gro up v. Ve o h Ne two rk,

2008 WL 4065872 (N.D. Ca l. 2008)

 Issue : Whe the r Ve o h wa s pre c lude d fro m DMCA sa fe ha rb o r

pro te c tio n b y virtue o f its a uto ma te d func tio ns tha t fa c ilita te a c c e ss to use r-sub mitte d c o nte nt o n its we b site (e .g . fla sh file s a nd sc re e nc a ps).

 He ld: Ve o h wa s no t disq ua lifie d fro m Se c tio n 512(c ) sa fe ha rb o r:

• Se rvic e pro vide rs se e king sa fe ha rb o r unde r Se c tio n 512(c ) a re

no t limite d to me re ly sto ring ma te ria ls  a uto ma tic pro c e ssing o f use r-submitted content ≠ “modific ation”.

• No a c tua l o r “ r

e d flag” kno wle dg e .

Viac o m I nte rnatio nal, I nc . v. Yo utub e , I nc ., 676 F .3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012)

 Issue s:

1. Whe the r Se c tio n 512(c )(1)(A) re q uire s a c tua l kno wle dg e o r a wa re ne ss o f spe c ific and ide ntifiable infring ing a c tivity 1. Whe the r Yo uT ub e ’ s so ftwa re func tio n fe ll within Se c tio n 512(c ) sa fe ha rb o r – “b y re a so n o f the sto ra g e at the dir

e c tion of a use r”

Viac o m I nte rnatio nal, I nc . v. Yo utub e , I nc ., 676 F .3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012) (c o nt’ d)

 He ld (1): T

he b a sic o pe ra tio n o f Se c tio n 512(c ) re q uire s a c tua l kno wle dg e spe c ific infring ing a c tivity. “we are pe rsuade d that the b asic o pe ratio n o f § 512(c ) re q uire s kno wle dg e o r aware ne ss o f spe c ific infring ing ac tivity. Unde r § 512(c )(1)(A), kno wle dg e o r aware ne ss alo ne do e s no t disq ualify the se rvic e pro vide r; rathe r, the pro vide r that g ains kno wle dg e o r aware ne ss o f infring ing ac tivity re tains safe -harb o r pro te c tio n if it “ac ts e xpe ditio usly to re mo ve , o r disab le ac c e ss to , the mate rial.” T hus, the natur

e o f the r e moval o bligatio n itse lf c o nte mplate s kno wle dge o r awar e ne ss o f spe c ific infr inging mate r ial, be c ause e xpe ditio us r e mo val is po ssible o nly if the se r vic e pr

• vide r

kno ws with par tic ular ity whic h ite ms to r e mo ve .”

Viac o m I nte rnatio nal, I nc . v. Yo utub e , I nc ., 676 F .3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012) (c o nt’ d)

 He ld (1): T

he b a sic o pe ra tio n o f Se c tio n 512(c ) AL SO re q uire s “re d fla g ” kno wle dg e spe c ific infring ing a c tivity. “T he diffe re nc e b e twe e n a c tua l a nd re d fla g kno wle dg e is thus no t b e twe e n spe c ific a nd g e ne ra lize d kno wle dg e , b ut inste a d

be twe e n a subje c tive and an obje c tive standar

• d. [...] T

he re d fla g pro visio n, b e c a use it inc o rpo ra te s a n o b je c tive sta nda rd , is no t swa llo we d up b y the a c tua l kno wle dg e pro visio n unde r o ur c o nstruc tio n o f the § 512(c ) sa fe ha rb o r. Bo th pro visio ns do inde pe nde nt wo rk, a nd both apply only to spe c ific instanc e s of

infr inge me nt.”

Viac o m I nte rnatio nal, I nc . v. Yo utub e , I nc ., 676 F .3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012) (c o nt’ d)

 He ld (3):

• T

hre e o f the c ha lle ng e d Yo uT ub e so ftwa re func tio ns (re plic a tio n, pla yb a c k, a nd the re la te d vide o func tio ns) o c c urre d b y “re a so n

• f the sto ra g e at the dir

e c tion of a use r” within the me a ning

Se c tio n 512(c )(1)

• T

he fo urth func tio n, the syndic a tio n o f Yo uT ub e vide o s to third pa rtie s, wa s re ma nde d fo r furthe r fa c t-finding