Source: https://de.scribd.com/doc/308920375/Google-Responds-to-US-Copyright-Office-Public-Study
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:21:19+00:00

Document:
Google Inc. (Google) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in connection with the U.S.
Question 1: Are the section 512 safe harbors working as Congress intended?
police for infringements of their rights.
Following the passage of the DMCA in 1998, the Internet economy has grown to be a pillar of U.S.
Google has sent over $3 billion to the music industryand that number is growing year over year.
much of the economic power, export strength, and cultural benefits created by the Internet would be lost.
are a critical concern for the investors who support the Internet economy.
Quantitative Study, at 22 (2011), available at http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/uploads/Strategyand-ImpactUS-Internet-Copyright-Regulations-Early-Stage-Investment.pdf.
work within the DMCA framework.
quickly without the need for lawyers and court actions.
wide variety of new creations using existing works.
takedown notices 24 hours a day by answering a simple set of interactive questions.
Counterfeiting (July 15, 2013), available at http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2013/07/ad-networks-agree-onindustry-best.html.
cutting-edge online services, including social networking, instant messaging, and live video streaming.
tiny minority of users, were it not for the protections of the safe harbors.
growth and development of online services?
protection and value of copyrighted works, including licensing markets for such works?
creators are reaching audiences, developing careers, selling their works, and publicizing their events.
Recording Indus. Assn of Am. v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 110 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (W.D. Wash. 2004).
Costar Grp. Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Md. 2001).
Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
have a variety of remedies at their disposal that were not available prior to the adoption of the DMCA.
DMCA safe harbors are responsible for a value gap for music on YouTube is simply false.
Re/code (Mar. 22, 2016), available at http://recode.net/2016/03/22/streaming-is-officially-the-biggest-part-of-themusic-business-which-want-youtube-to-pay-up/.
Yes. Please see answer to Question 1.
The notice-and-takedown process has been an effective and efficient way to address online infringement.
whether they be search, hosting, social networks, messaging, caching, auctions, or marketplaces.
what Congress envisioned the DMCA safe harbors would encourage.
addressing online infringement? Is it a workable solution over the long run?
the workability of the system in the long-term.
enforcement vendors have been able to aggregate submissions by large and small copyright owners alike.
For instance, Blasty.co is an enforcement vendor currently offering free removal services to smaller rightsholders.
and/or large-scale entities that are sending and/or receiving takedown notices?
submissions. CVP tools allow rightsholders to search for and identify potentially infringing content.
YouTube now has provided free access to CVP tools to more than 5,000 trusted notifiers.
processes under section 512, including their respective feasibility, benefits, and limitations.
processes for both individuals and high-volume enforcement vendors making automated submissions.
should be done to address this concern?
for the first time or reappears.
music piracy (Mar. 1, 2016), available at https://www.prsformusic.com/aboutus/press/latestpressreleases/pages/prsfor-music-launches-new-member-anti-piracy-system-maps-to-combat-online-music-piracy.aspx.
the rightsholder knows whether subsequent uploaders may or may not be licensed to upload the content.
content that had been previously removed.
use or covered by another copyright exception.
Content ID system and similar initiatives undertaken by many other leading providers.
effectiveness of the notice-and-takedown process?
or unfounded notices? If not, what should be done to address this concern?
to remove two pages on Egyptian news sites reporting on the individuals arrest record.
linking to infringing content? If not, what should be done to address this concern?
possible but for the notice-and-takedown framework established by Section 512(d).
512(c)(3)(A)(ii)? If not, what should be done to address this concern?
Capitol Records, Inc. v. mp3tunes, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 627, 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Viacom Intern. Inc.
F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1110 (C.D.
discussed in the answer to Question 10.
because we conclude the material is not infringing, are unable to find the web page, or need further information.
judicial interpretations impacting the effectiveness of section 512?
infringement); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1108 (C.D. Cal.
clear that service providers are under no affirmative duty to seek out infringement.).
a way that would swallow the safe harbor and inject legal uncertainty into the Internet economy.
the effectiveness of section 512?
posted on a service providers website. See Viacom Intl, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, 38 (2d Cir.
2012) (quoting Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 627, 645 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)).
visitors who were seeking to engage in infringing activity and encourage[ing] that infringing activity.
710 F.3d 1020, 1045 (9th Cir. 2013).
of users who are not engaging in infringement.
Please see answer to Question 23.
purposes of section 512s safe harbors? If not, what should be done to address this concern?
implemented, as required by Section 512(i)(1)(A). See Viacom Intl Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 718 F. Supp.
multiple infringements was reasonably implemented); Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 972 F. Supp.
received in three-day period as a single strike, was reasonably implemented).
necessarily work for its other platforms.
encourage or discourage the use of technologies to address online infringement?
industry consensus regarding any such standard technical measures. Nor is any likely to emerge.
should apply to obtain the benefits of section 512s safe harbors?
required to adopt to qualify for the Section 512 safe harbors.
remedy to address the posting of infringing material?
injunctive relief would undermine the effectiveness of the safe harbor provisions.
effectiveness, ineffectiveness, and/or impact of section 512s safe harbors.
(May 2011), available at http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/internet-matters.
Copyright Office should consider in conducting its study.
millions of jobs and extraordinary benefits for consumers and businesses.
continued engagement with the Office on these topics.
Quantitative Study, at 16 (2011), available at http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/uploads/Strategyand-ImpactUS-Internet-Copyright-Regulations-Early-Stage-Investment.pdf.
Dept. of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force, White Paper on Remixes, First Sale, and Statutory Damages (Jan.
Excerpt from "Better Living Through Criticism" by A.O. Scott.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.