Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Difference between revisions

Line 32:

=== Title II: Safe harbor (Section 512) ===

Title II created Section 512 of the Copyright Act, establishing four safe harbors for online service providers (OSPs) against copyright infringement liability.<ref name="~~512~~">17 U.S.C. § 512.</ref>

Title II created Section 512 of the Copyright Act, establishing four safe harbors for online service providers (OSPs) against copyright infringement liability.<ref name="sec512">17 U.S.C. § 512.</ref>

'''Section 512(a)''' protects ISPs acting as conduits for data transmission. '''Section 512(b)''' covers system caching. '''Section 512(c)''', the most frequently invoked safe harbor, protects platforms hosting user-generated content (YouTube, social media) from liability provided they lack actual knowledge of specific infringing material, receive no direct financial benefit from the infringement where they can control it, & remove content promptly upon receiving a valid notice.<ref name="~~512~~" /> '''Section 512(d)''' covers search engines & directories that link to infringing material.

'''Section 512(a)''' protects ISPs acting as conduits for data transmission. '''Section 512(b)''' covers system caching. '''Section 512(c)''', the most frequently invoked safe harbor, protects platforms hosting user-generated content (YouTube, social media) from liability provided they lack actual knowledge of specific infringing material, receive no direct financial benefit from the infringement where they can control it, & remove content promptly upon receiving a valid notice.<ref name="sec512" /> '''Section 512(d)''' covers search engines & directories that link to infringing material.

To qualify for any safe harbor, an OSP must adopt & "reasonably implement" a policy for terminating repeat infringers under Section 512(i), & must register a designated agent with the Copyright Office to receive takedown notices.<ref name="~~512~~" />

To qualify for any safe harbor, an OSP must adopt & "reasonably implement" a policy for terminating repeat infringers under Section 512(i), & must register a designated agent with the Copyright Office to receive takedown notices.<ref name="sec512" />

==== Notice-and-takedown procedure ====

Section 512 established an extrajudicial mechanism for copyright enforcement. A copyright holder sends a written notice to the OSP's designated agent identifying the infringed work, the infringing material (usually by URL), & a statement of good faith belief that the use is unauthorized, signed under penalty of perjury.<ref name="~~512~~" /> The OSP must "expeditiously" remove the material to maintain safe harbor immunity.

Section 512 established an extrajudicial mechanism for copyright enforcement. A copyright holder sends a written notice to the OSP's designated agent identifying the infringed work, the infringing material (usually by URL), & a statement of good faith belief that the use is unauthorized, signed under penalty of perjury.<ref name="sec512" /> The OSP must "expeditiously" remove the material to maintain safe harbor immunity.

The affected user may file a counter-notification, stating under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification. Once a valid counter-notice is filed, the OSP must restore the material within 10 to 14 business days unless the copyright holder files a federal lawsuit.<ref name="~~512~~" />

The affected user may file a counter-notification, stating under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification. Once a valid counter-notice is filed, the OSP must restore the material within 10 to 14 business days unless the copyright holder files a federal lawsuit.<ref name="sec512" />

Section 512(f) creates liability for knowingly material misrepresentations in takedown notices or counter-notices. In practice, courts have set the bar for 512(f) claims so high that the provision provides little deterrent against fraudulent takedowns.

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 === Title II: Safe harbor (Section 512) ===
-Title II created Section 512 of the Copyright Act, establishing four safe harbors for online service providers (OSPs) against copyright infringement liability.<ref name="512">17 U.S.C. § 512.</ref>
+Title II created Section 512 of the Copyright Act, establishing four safe harbors for online service providers (OSPs) against copyright infringement liability.<ref name="sec512">17 U.S.C. § 512.</ref>
-'''Section 512(a)''' protects ISPs acting as conduits for data transmission. '''Section 512(b)''' covers system caching. '''Section 512(c)''', the most frequently invoked safe harbor, protects platforms hosting user-generated content (YouTube, social media) from liability provided they lack actual knowledge of specific infringing material, receive no direct financial benefit from the infringement where they can control it, & remove content promptly upon receiving a valid notice.<ref name="512" /> '''Section 512(d)''' covers search engines & directories that link to infringing material.
+'''Section 512(a)''' protects ISPs acting as conduits for data transmission. '''Section 512(b)''' covers system caching. '''Section 512(c)''', the most frequently invoked safe harbor, protects platforms hosting user-generated content (YouTube, social media) from liability provided they lack actual knowledge of specific infringing material, receive no direct financial benefit from the infringement where they can control it, & remove content promptly upon receiving a valid notice.<ref name="sec512" /> '''Section 512(d)''' covers search engines & directories that link to infringing material.
-To qualify for any safe harbor, an OSP must adopt & "reasonably implement" a policy for terminating repeat infringers under Section 512(i), & must register a designated agent with the Copyright Office to receive takedown notices.<ref name="512" />
+To qualify for any safe harbor, an OSP must adopt & "reasonably implement" a policy for terminating repeat infringers under Section 512(i), & must register a designated agent with the Copyright Office to receive takedown notices.<ref name="sec512" />
 ==== Notice-and-takedown procedure ====
-Section 512 established an extrajudicial mechanism for copyright enforcement. A copyright holder sends a written notice to the OSP's designated agent identifying the infringed work, the infringing material (usually by URL), & a statement of good faith belief that the use is unauthorized, signed under penalty of perjury.<ref name="512" /> The OSP must "expeditiously" remove the material to maintain safe harbor immunity.
+Section 512 established an extrajudicial mechanism for copyright enforcement. A copyright holder sends a written notice to the OSP's designated agent identifying the infringed work, the infringing material (usually by URL), & a statement of good faith belief that the use is unauthorized, signed under penalty of perjury.<ref name="sec512" /> The OSP must "expeditiously" remove the material to maintain safe harbor immunity.
-The affected user may file a counter-notification, stating under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification. Once a valid counter-notice is filed, the OSP must restore the material within 10 to 14 business days unless the copyright holder files a federal lawsuit.<ref name="512" />
+The affected user may file a counter-notification, stating under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification. Once a valid counter-notice is filed, the OSP must restore the material within 10 to 14 business days unless the copyright holder files a federal lawsuit.<ref name="sec512" />
 Section 512(f) creates liability for knowingly material misrepresentations in takedown notices or counter-notices. In practice, courts have set the bar for 512(f) claims so high that the provision provides little deterrent against fraudulent takedowns.<!-- CITATION NEEDED: case law or EFF analysis on 512(f) enforcement difficulty -->