Source: http://mickopedia.org/mickify.py?topic=OCILLA
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 18:20:38
Document Index: 138356012

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512']

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act - Mickopedia, the feckin' free encyclopedia
. Arra' would ye listen to this. (August 2011) Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
Pub. Here's a quare one. L, bejaysus. 105-304
Stat. Be the holy feck, this is a quare wan. 112 Stat. 2860 (1998)
U. Here's another quare one. S, the shitehawk. C, the hoor. sections created
17 U, you know yourself like. S.C. §§ 512
Introduced in the bleedin' House of Representatives as H. Arra' would ye listen to this shite? R. Whisht now and listen to this wan. 2281 by Rep. Soft oul' day. Howard Coble (R-NC) on July 29, 1997
Passed the oul' House on August 4, 1998 (voice vote)
Passed the feckin' Senate on September 17, 1998 (unanimous consent)
Reported by the bleedin' joint conference committee on October 8, 1998; agreed to by the oul' Senate on October 8, 1998 (unanimous consent) and by the bleedin' House on October 12, 1998 (voice vote)
The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a holy conditional safe harbor for online service providers (OSP) (a group which includes internet service providers (ISP)) and other Internet intermediaries by shieldin' them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement (when they make unauthorized copies) as well as shieldin' them from potential secondary liability for the bleedin' infringin' acts of others. Holy blatherin' Joseph, listen to this. OCILLA was passed as a feckin' part of the feckin' 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the feckin' "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the feckin' United States Code. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. By exemptin' Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a feckin' balance between the feckin' competin' interests of copyright owners and digital users.
2. Would ye swally this in a minute now?1 Direct Financial Benefit
2.2 Knowledge of Infringin' Material
2. Jesus, Mary and holy Saint Joseph. 2.1 Notice from Copyright Owner
2. Would ye believe this shite?2, bejaysus. 2 Red Flags
2, be the hokey! 3 Take down and Put Back provisions
2. Jaykers! 3, you know yourself like. 1 Takedown example
2, you know yourself like. 4, the shitehawk. 1 Meanin' of "expeditious"
2, like. 4. Whisht now and eist liom. 2 Preemption of State Law
2, fair play. 4.3 Effect of Delay in Response
2.4. Sure this is it. 4 Other Defenses for OSPs
2. C'mere til I tell yiz. 4. I hope yiz are all ears now. 5 Common Misunderstandings
3. C'mere til I tell ya. 1 § 512(a) Transitory Network Communications Safe Harbor
3. G'wan now and listen to this wan. 2 § 512(d) Information Location Tools Safe Harbor
4. Listen up now to this fierce wan. 2 § 512(f) Misrepresentations
4, be the hokey! 3 § 512(g) Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability
4. Would ye swally this in a minute now?4 § 512(h) Identify infringers. Jesus, Mary and holy Saint Joseph. 4, bedad. 5 § 512(i) Conditions for Eligibility
4. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. 6 § 512(j) Injunctions
4. Whisht now and eist liom. 7 § 512(k) Definitions
4, the shitehawk. 9 § 512(m) Protection of Privacy
4. Jaysis. 10 § 512(n) Independent Construction of Safe Harbors
5, bejaysus. 3 Web 2, the shitehawk. 0 & New Technologies
9. Be the hokey here's a quare wan. 2 Usin' OCILLA
9. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. 3 Relevant Caselaw
The 1998 DMCA was the oul' U. Sure this is it. S. implementation of the feckin' 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) directive to “maintain a holy balance between the rights of authors and the bleedin' larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information”[1] when updatin' copyright norms for the bleedin' digital age, would ye believe it? In the context of Internet intermediaries, OCILLA attempts to strike this balance by immunizin' OSP’s for copyright liability stemmin' from their own acts of direct copyright infringement (as primary infringers of copyright), as well as from the acts of their users (as secondary infringers of copyright), provided that OSP’s comply with two general requirements protectin' the feckin' rights of authors, the hoor. First, the bleedin' OSP must “adopt and reasonably implement a policy”[2] of addressin' and terminatin' accounts of users who are found to be “repeat infringers. Jasus. ”[2] Second, the bleedin' OSP must accommodate and not interfere with “standard technical measures, the shitehawk. ”[3] OSPs may qualify for one or more of the feckin' Section 512 safe harbors under § 512(a)-(d), for immunity from copyright liability stemmin' from: transmittin',[4] cachin',[5] storin',[6] or linkin' [7] to infringin' material. An OSP who complies with the bleedin' requirements for a feckin' given safe harbor is not liable for money damages, but may still be ordered by an oul' court to perform specific actions such as disablin' access to infringin' material.
In addition to the bleedin' two general requirements listed above, all four safe harbors impose additional requirements for immunity. Here's another quare one. The safe harbor for storage of infringin' material under § 512(c) is the most commonly encountered because it immunizes OSPs such as YouTube that might inadvertently host infringin' material uploaded by users, would ye believe it? Taken as a bleedin' whole, OCILLA’s passage represented an oul' victory for telecom and Internet related industry groups over powerful copyright interests who had wanted service providers to be held strictly liable for the oul' acts of their users. However copyright owners also obtained concessions. Jesus Mother of Chrisht almighty. In addition to the general and specific preconditions on the bleedin' created immunity, OCILLA requires OSP’s seekin' an immunity to designate an agent to whom notices of copyright infringement can be sent,[8] and to disclose information about those users who are allegedly infringers. C'mere til I tell ya. [9]
Safe Harbor Provision for Online Storage - § 512(c) [edit]
Section 512(c) applies to OSPs that store infringin' material, game ball! In addition to the two general requirements that OSPs comply with standard technical measures and remove repeat infringers, § 512(c) also requires that the OSP: 1) not receive a holy financial benefit directly attributable to the oul' infringin' activity, 2) not be aware of the feckin' presence of infringin' material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringin' material apparent, and 3) upon receivin' notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the feckin' purported infringin' material.
Direct Financial Benefit [edit]
An OSP must “not receive an oul' financial benefit directly attributable to the feckin' infringin' activity” to qualify for § 512(c) protection. However, it is not always easy to determine what qualifies as a bleedin' direct financial benefit under the statute. Here's a quare one. One example of an OSP that did receive a direct financial benefit from infringin' activity was Napster. In A&M Records, Inc, bedad. v, you know yourself like. Napster, Inc.,[10] the bleedin' court held that copyrighted material on Napster’s system created a bleedin' "draw" for customers which resulted in a direct financial benefit because Napster’s future revenue was directly dependent on increases in user-base. Conversely, in Ellison v. Robertson,[11] the feckin' court held that AOL did not receive a direct financial benefit when a user stored infringin' material on its server because the bleedin' copyrighted work did not "draw" new customers. Whisht now and eist liom. AOL neither "attracted [nor] retained…[nor] lost…subscriptions" as a bleedin' result of the bleedin' infringin' material.
Knowledge of Infringin' Material [edit]
To qualify for the oul' § 512(c) safe harbor, the OSP must not have actual knowledge that it is hostin' infringin' material or be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringin' activity is apparent. It is clear from the oul' statute and legislative history that an OSP has no duty to monitor its service or affirmatively seek infringin' material on its system.[12] However, the statute describes two ways in which an OSP can be put on notice of infringin' material on its system: 1) notice from the oul' copyright owner, known as notice and take down, and 2) the oul' existence of “red flags.”
This is advantageous for OSPs because OCILLA's clear process allows them to avoid makin' decisions about whether or not material is actually infringin'. Bejaysus this is a quare tale altogether. , to be sure. Such decisions can be complex both because it is difficult to determine whether the copyright has expired on an oul' material without access to complete information such as publication date, and because even copyrighted material can be used in some cases under the bleedin' doctrine of fair use, the applicability of which is difficult to evaluate. C'mere til I tell ya. Instead of makin' a holy complex legal determination, OCILLA allows OSPs to avoid liability provided they comply with the terms of the oul' statute, regardless of the feckin' validity of any claim of infringement, Lord bless us and save us. Notice from Copyright Owner [edit]
The first way an OSP can be put on notice is through the feckin' copyright holder's written notification of claimed infringement to the bleedin' OSP's designated agent, bejaysus. This must[13] include the bleedin' followin':
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a feckin' person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Here's another quare one for ye. (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at an oul' single online site are covered by a holy single notification, a feckin' representative list of such works at that site. Bejaysus. (iii) Identification of the bleedin' material that is claimed to be infringin' or to be the subject of infringin' activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the feckin' material. G'wan now. (iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the feckin' service provider to contact the oul' complainin' party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the feckin' complainin' party may be contacted. Stop the lights! (v) A statement that the bleedin' complainin' party has a bleedin' good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the oul' copyright owner, its agent, or the feckin' law.
(vi) A statement that the oul' information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the oul' complainin' party is authorized to act on behalf of the oul' owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed, what? See 512(a) and (h) below if the information is not stored on the bleedin' system of the oul' OSP but is instead on a system connected to the bleedin' Internet through it, like a bleedin' home or business computer connected to the Internet. G'wan now. Legal liability may result if access to material is disabled or identity disclosed in this case. Arra' would ye listen to this shite? If an oul' notice which substantially complies with these requirements is received the OSP must expeditiously remove or disable access to the allegedly infringin' material.[14] So long as the oul' notice substantially complies with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) the oul' OSP must seek clarification of any unclear aspects. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. [15]
In Perfect 10, Inc. In fairness now. v. CCBill LLC, the bleedin' Ninth Circuit held that the bleedin' properly constructed notice must exist in one communication. Arra' would ye listen to this. [16] A copyright owner cannot “cobble together adequate notice from separately defective notices” because that would unduly burden the OSP, bejaysus. After the feckin' notice has been complied with the bleedin' OSP must take reasonable steps to promptly notify the bleedin' alleged infringer of the feckin' action.[17] Note that the bleedin' OSP is not prohibited from doin' so in advance, only required to do so afterward. If there is a bleedin' counter notification from the alleged infringer, the OSP must respond appropriately to it, that's fierce now what? If the OSP complies with this and the feckin' counter notification procedures, it is safe from legal liability to its own customer as a holy result of takin' down the feckin' material. Whisht now and listen to this wan. There is a holy common practice of providin' a holy link to legal notices at the oul' bottom of the oul' main web page of a feckin' site, enda story. It may be prudent, though it is not required by the bleedin' provisions of section 512 of the oul' copyright law, to include the oul' designated agent information on the feckin' page the bleedin' legal link goes to, in addition to any other places where it is available. Sufferin' Jaysus. As long as the feckin' site gives reasonable notice that there is a bleedin' method of compliance, that should be sufficient. Chrisht Almighty. Once again the oul' courts have not ruled on the oul' technicalities of postin' of these notices, would ye swally that? Red Flags [edit]
The second way that an OSP can be put on notice that its system contains infringin' material, for purposes of section 512(c), is referred to the feckin' "red flag" test. Arra' would ye listen to this. [12] The "red flag" test stems from the oul' language in the oul' statute that requires that an OSP not be “aware of facts or circumstances from which infringin' activity is apparent. Jesus, Mary and holy Saint Joseph. ”[18]
The "red flag" test contains both an oul' subjective and an objective element. Objectively, the oul' OSP must have knowledge that the bleedin' material resides on its system. Subjectively, the bleedin' "infringin' activity would have been apparent to a bleedin' reasonable person operatin' under the bleedin' same or similar circumstances, the cute hoor. "[12]
Take down and Put Back provisions [edit]
Takedown example [edit]
Here's an example of how the feckin' takedown procedures would work:
Alice puts a bleedin' video with copy of Bob's song on her YouTube. Here's another quare one. Bob, searchin' the oul' Internet, finds Alice's copy. Jasus. Charlie, Bob's lawyer, sends a feckin' letter to YouTube's designated agent (registered with the Copyright Office) includin':
the name of the bleedin' song that was copied
the address of the bleedin' copied song
a statement that he has a good faith belief that use of the material in the oul' manner complained of is not authorized by the bleedin' copyright owner, its agent, or the bleedin' law. Would ye swally this in a minute now?
a statement that the bleedin' information in the oul' notification is accurate
a statement that, under penalty of perjury, Charlie is authorized to act for the bleedin' copyright holder
YouTube takes the feckin' video down.
YouTube tells Alice that they have taken the feckin' video down.
Alice now has the feckin' option of sendin' a feckin' counter-notice to YouTube, if she feels the video was taken down unfairly. Right so. The notice includes
identification of the oul' removed video
a statement under penalty of perjury that Alice has a feckin' good faith belief the material was mistakenly taken down
a statement consentin' to the bleedin' jurisdiction of Alice's local US Federal District Court, or, if outside the bleedin' US, to a holy US Federal District Court in any jurisdiction in which YouTube is found, that's fierce now what? her signature
If Alice does file a valid counter-notice,YouTube notifies Bob, then waits 10-14 business days for an oul' lawsuit to be filed by Bob.
If Bob does not file a lawsuit, then YouTube must put the bleedin' material back up, grand so. Interpretation [edit]
Meanin' of "expeditious" [edit]
The law provides for “expeditious” action. The meanin' of "expeditious" in the context of this law has not yet been determined by the courts. C'mere til I tell yiz. Black's Law Dictionary defines "expeditious" as "performed with, or actin' with, expedition; quick; speedy, grand so. " In the common law, the bleedin' term "expeditious" has been interpreted accordin' to the bleedin' circumstances, allowin' more time than "immediate" but not undue delay. Stop the lights! Some suggest that the most prudent courses are to comply "immediately" or to seek immediate legal advice from qualified legal counsel. In the bleedin' commercial online world, takin' more than 24 hours may well be viewed as undue delay, what? However, when legal advice is factored into the feckin' equation it is reasonable to give counsel time to review all the facts, verify the bleedin' necessary elements of the bleedin' notice and conduct minimal research to ascertain the current state of the law. Stop the lights! This may reasonably occur when the material posted appears likely to be covered by a fair use, for fair use is not copyright infringement. So, in some situations it may be reasonable to determine that "expeditious" would take more than 24 hours, and if the feckin' ISP was a bleedin' small not-for-profit provider, or a feckin' server run by volunteers, it may not have the oul' resources to obtain a feckin' legal opinion with the oul' same speed that a bleedin' large multinational corporation may have resources at its disposal to comply immediately. Be the hokey here's a quare wan. There may not even be a holy person immediately available who is qualified to determine if the bleedin' notice complies with the feckin' standards set forth in the act. Perhaps a bleedin' reasonable court would take these factors into consideration, would ye swally that? The courts in the United States have yet to rule on these issues.
For an oul' commercially run on-line provider takin' action within the feckin' hour to tell a feckin' customer that an oul' takedown notice has been received and informin' them that they must immediately remove the bleedin' content and confirm removal, givin' them six to twelve hours to comply; and otherwise informin' them that the oul' content will be taken down or their Internet connection terminated, may be considered reasonable. G'wan now. Some courts may find this to be too great an oul' burden on an ISP if it receives a bleedin' large number of communications at the oul' same time or has limited resources to review § 512 notices for substantial compliance. G'wan now. It may also depend on how the feckin' notice is sent. Jesus Mother of Chrisht almighty. If the notice is sent via regular mail or via fax, there may be a lag between the oul' sendin' of the bleedin' notice and its reception by those who are able to act upon it. Here's a quare one for ye. If the bleedin' notification is received by an oul' mail delivery on an oul' Saturday when the feckin' ISPs offices are closed and not acted upon until Monday, that may be considered reasonable. Sure this is it. Preemption of State Law [edit]
Even if a bleedin' copyright holder does not intend to cause anythin' other than the feckin' removal of allegedly infringin' material, compliance with the feckin' DMCA's procedures nonetheless may result in disruption of a bleedin' contractual relationship: by sendin' a bleedin' letter, the feckin' copyright holder can effectuate the disruption of ISP service to clients. If adherence to the oul' DMCA's provisions simultaneously subjects the oul' copyright holder to state tort law liability, state and federal law may conflict. Whisht now and listen to this wan. Dependin' on the oul' facts of the oul' case, federal law may preempt state law i.e, game ball! there will be no liability for state law claims resultin' from compliance with federal law.[19]
Effect of Delay in Response [edit]
The other issue to keep in mind is that the delay in respondin' may not amount to an oul' significant amount of damages and someone who has had their material removed by the oul' § 512 procedure late may be more than satisfied with the oul' result; it is much less expensive than filin' an oul' copyright infringement suit in federal court that might revolve around a minor technicality of the law. Indeed one of the bleedin' purposes of this section was to remove a large number of potential infringement suits from the courts when the facts revolvin' around infringement were basically undisputed and the oul' damages could be minimized within an oul' short period without the intervention of a feckin' US federal district court judge. A copyright holder may be more than happy to know that the feckin' material has been taken down for the minor fee of havin' a lawyer draft a compliant "take down" notice rather than the bleedin' costs of draftin', filin', servin' and prosecutin' a federal copyright infringement action.
Other Defenses for OSPs [edit]
It is also useful to remember that another law, the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) still protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties (see below). I hope yiz are all ears now. Even if a bleedin' removal is found not to be "expeditious" within the feckin' meanin' of the law and the bleedin' so-called "safe harbor" under the oul' DMCA is lost, in many cases the oul' ISP may still be protected. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Through these two laws there are ways to balance the oul' ISP's intent to assist with the oul' protection of third party copyright and the oul' desire to preserve good customer relations. There is also a feckin' question of the bleedin' infringement that is placed by a third party bein' an issue of negligence or another tort on the oul' part of the ISP, you know yourself like. If the bleedin' ISP takes steps considered reasonable or is found not to have a bleedin' duty of care to police potential infringers on the site then the infringement may be considered "innocent" from the oul' point of view of the oul' ISP and the infringer may still be held to be the feckin' liable party which posts the feckin' infringin' work or works. C'mere til I tell ya. Common Misunderstandings [edit]
It is sometimes stated that the bleedin' ISP needs to give the feckin' alleged infringer ten days notice before actin'. Here's a quare one. This is incorrect. Arra' would ye listen to this shite? The ISP must act expeditiously. Be the hokey here's a quare wan. The ten-day period refers to the oul' counter notification procedure described in Section 512(g) after the bleedin' infringin' material has been removed, offerin' them an opportunity to counter the oul' allegations presented to the oul' ISP not durin' the stage of the oul' so-called "take down" procedure.
It is sometimes suggested that content must be taken down before notifyin' the feckin' person who provided it. That is also not required, so long as the bleedin' removal is expeditious. Me head is hurtin' with all this raidin'. A large connectivity provider with many ISP customers would not be actin' reasonably by disconnectin' a bleedin' whole ISP if it received a bleedin' takedown notice for a web site hosted by that ISP on behalf of one of its customers. The law appears to allow the necessary flexibility to deal reasonably with relayin' takedown requests to handle such situations. Whisht now and listen to this wan. Other Safe Harbor Provisions [edit]
§ 512(a) Transitory Network Communications Safe Harbor [edit]
Section 512(a) protects service providers who are passive conduits from liability for copyright infringement, even if infringin' traffic passes through their networks, for the craic. In other words, provided the infringin' material is bein' transmitted at the feckin' request of a feckin' third party to a holy designated recipient, is handled by an automated process without human intervention, is not modified in any way, and is only temporarily stored on the system, the oul' service provider is not liable for the feckin' transmission.
The key difference in scope between this section, transitory network communications under 512(a), and caches, websites and search engine indexes under 512(b), 512(c) and 512(d) respectively, relates to the location of the feckin' infringin' material. Here's another quare one. The other subsections create an oul' conditional safe harbor for infringin' material that resides on a system controlled by the feckin' OSP. For material that was temporarily stored in the oul' course of network communications, this subsection’s safe harbor additionally applies even for networks not under the bleedin' OSP’s control, Lord bless us and save us. § 512(d) Information Location Tools Safe Harbor [edit]
Section 512(d) eliminates copyright liability for an OSP who links users, through a bleedin' tool such as a web search engine, to an online location that contains infringin' material, provided that the OSP does not know the feckin' material is infringin'. Stop the lights! There are several other conditions for this immunity to apply. Once the oul' OSP becomes aware that the material is infringin', it must promptly disable access to it. Also, the OSP must follow Section 512(c)’s takedown and put-back provisions. Story? Finally, where the feckin' OSP can control the oul' infringin' activity, the oul' OSP must not derive any financial benefit through providin' the feckin' link. Stop the lights! Other Provisions [edit]
§ 512(e) Limitation on Liability of Nonprofit Educational Institutions [edit]
Section 512(e) protects nonprofit educational institutions from liability for the actions of faculty and graduate student employees who place infringin' material online. C'mere til I tell ya. For the feckin' immunity to apply the bleedin' materials must not be course materials for an oul' course taught by the oul' faculty or graduate student employee, and the institution must not have received more than two infringement notifications about the bleedin' same individual, durin' the feckin' precedin' 3 years. G'wan now and listen to this wan. Also, the bleedin' institution must distribute informational materials about US copyright laws to all the users of its network. Here's another quare one. § 512(f) Misrepresentations [edit]
Section 512(f) deters false claims of infringement by imposin' liability on anyone who makes such claims, for the oul' damages suffered by other parties as a result of the feckin' OSP’s reliance on the feckin' false claim, and for associated legal fees. Here's a quare one. This provision really does have some bite, as illustrated by the feckin' case of Online Policy Group v. Sure this is it. Diebold, Inc, so it is. ,[19] where an electronic votin' technology firm was sanctioned for knowingly issuin' meritless notices of infringement to ISPs. Arra' would ye listen to this shite? § 512(g) Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability [edit]
Section 512(g) contains the bleedin' put back provisions described earlier and referenced by other parts of the feckin' act. Bejaysus. OSPs are exempt from liability for the good faith removal of allegedly infringin' material. This immunity is subject to their compliance with the feckin' notification and counter-notification procedure. Users must be informed of removed or disabled material. G'wan now and listen to this wan. Similarly, copyright holders must be informed of the oul' receipt of a counter-notice, and disabled material subject to an oul' counter-notice must be enabled between 10 and 14 days after the receipt of the feckin' counter-notice. Sure this is it. § 512(h) Identify infringers. Would ye believe this shite? [edit]
Section 512(h) contains provisions that allow a bleedin' copyright owner to force an OSP to reveal identifyin' information about the bleedin' user who allegedly infringed the oul' owner’s copyright, through the feckin' use of a bleedin' subpoena issued by a federal court at the feckin' owner’s request, begorrah. Part (h)(2)(A) requires that the oul' owner’s request include "a copy of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A)" (a takedown notice, see above). Note that 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) states that the notice must identify the allegedly infringin' material that is to be removed, and must provide reasonably sufficient information for the bleedin' service provider to locate the material residin' on its system. Jesus Mother of Chrisht almighty. The owner must also swear that any information obtained through the oul' subpoena will only be used for the oul' purpose of protectin' its rights under Section 512.
If the feckin' OSP is served with such a bleedin' subpoena after or at the feckin' same time as a feckin' valid takedown notice, under Part (h)(2)(A) it must expeditiously provide the oul' information required by the feckin' subpoena.
In 2003, the bleedin' RIAA appeared to be seekin' subpoenas and servin' takedown notices which did not comply with these requirements, notably usin' the oul' subpoena provisions for 512(a) situations, which do not provide for them. Listen up now to this fierce wan. On 20 December 2003, the bleedin' DSL ISP Verizon prevailed on appeal in its case seekin' to prevent the bleedin' use of this section for transitory network communications, the feckin' decision reversin' a bleedin' court order to supply customer details.[20] The appeal decision accepted the argument that the bleedin' key distinction was the location of the files, with this section applyin' only when the material is stored on equipment controlled by the feckin' OSP. Listen up now to this fierce wan. However, in response, RIAA member labels turned to a different method to acquire their desired information. They began suin' multiple "Doe" defendants at a time and issuin' third-party discovery subpoenas to ISPs for the oul' customer details. Jaysis. On 6 October 2003 Charter Communications became the oul' first cable Internet provider to challenge the oul' RIAA use of this provision,[21] when it filed for a motion to quash the subpoenas to obtain the feckin' identities of 150 of its customers, grand so. Although Charter Communications initially lost this motion and was forced to turn over the feckin' identities of the feckin' requested customers, an oul' later appeal ruled that the bleedin' motion to quash should have been upheld. Whisht now and eist liom. [22]
§ 512(i) Conditions for Eligibility [edit]
Section 512(i) outlines the general requirements for a bleedin' grant of immunity– OSPs must implement an account termination policy for repeat infringers, must inform their users of this policy, and must accommodate standard copy protection systems.
It is prudent for anyone receivin' a notification for distributin' allegedly infringin' material to check the feckin' validity of the feckin' notice and remind their ISP, if appropriate, that the oul' DMCA only requires action under this clause for valid notices of copyright infringement. Sure this is it. § 512(j) Injunctions [edit]
Section 512(j) describes the bleedin' forms of injunctive (i. Sufferin' Jaysus. e. Sure this is it. court order) relief available to copyright holders. Soft oul' day. Even though OSPs have immunity from monetary damages under Section 512, they may be compelled by copyright holders, in appropriate situations, to stop providin' access to infringin' material or to terminate the oul' account of a holy particular infringer, for the craic. § 512(k) Definitions [edit]
Section 512(k) defines "service provider" and "monetary relief, that's fierce now what? "
§ 512(l) Other Defenses Available [edit]
Section 512(l) notes that a feckin' service provider’s ineligibility for a safe harbor from monetary damages under this section does not affect the bleedin' validity of any other legal defenses that may be applicable (notably the oul' CDA, although it isn’t specifically identified). Whisht now. § 512(m) Protection of Privacy [edit]
Section 512(m) notes that OSPs retain the feckin' protections of parts (a) through (d) even if they don't monitor their service lookin' for infringin' activity, as long as they comply Section 512(i)’s general requirements relatin' to the feckin' institution of account termination policies for infringers and accommodation of copy protection systems. C'mere til I tell yiz. Furthermore, OSP’s are not required to remove or disable access to material if doin' so would break another law.
§ 512(n) Independent Construction of Safe Harbors [edit]
Section 512(n) states that the oul' limitations on liability in parts (a), (b), (c) and (d) apply independently. Here's a quare one. Hence, the fact that an OSP qualifies for a feckin' limitation on liability under one subsection has no impact on whether the oul' OSP qualifies for a limitation under a different subsection. This is because subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) describe separate and distinct functions.
The past decade of experience with the safe harbor provisions has shown them to be reasonably effective.[23][24] Copyright holders have the incentive to monitor Internet sites for offendin' material, and to send ISPs notifications where appropriate, of material that should be taken down, be the hokey! ISPs have incentive to cooperate with copyright holders and terminate the oul' accounts of repeat infringers on pain of forfeitin' the safe harbor created by OCILLA. Story? At the bleedin' same time, copyright holders are deterred from improperly sendin' out notices by provisions that make them liable for resultin' damages, and also by bad publicity. Jaykers! That is not to say that OCILLA functions perfectly in practice. There are several problems resultin' from imperfect incentives created by the law, from the oul' complexity and requirements of the oul' counter-notice procedures, and from evolvin' Web Technology. Whisht now and eist liom. Improper Removal of Content [edit]
There is some evidence that ISPs tend to quickly take down allegedly infringin' content on request by copyright holders, in situations where the oul' content is actually non-infringin' and should be preserved. Sure this is it. [25][26] This may be because ISPs have much more to lose by forfeitin' their safe harbor than by angerin' a holy user whose content is improperly removed. C'mere til I tell yiz. Chillin' Effects estimates that OSPs remove allegedly offendin' content even though approximately 60% of all takedown notices are flawed. Jaysis. Notices can be flawed in several ways. Many fail to follow the bleedin' requirements of the bleedin' statute. Bejaysus this is a quare tale altogether. , to be sure. Others ask for material to be taken down for reasons such as trademark infringement and defamation that are unrelated to copyright infringement, enda story. Ineffective Counter-Notice Procedure [edit]
There is evidence of problems with the counter-notice procedure, arisin' from its complexity and also because ISPs are not required to inform users of its existence. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Accordin' to Chillin' Effects, while Google has taken hundreds of sites out of its index because of DMCA requests, not a single person has filed an oul' counter-notice or received a feckin' counter-notice from any other OSP. Jaysis. This may result from the oul' inherent imbalance in prerequisites for the bleedin' original complaint and the bleedin' counter-notice, would ye believe it? To get content removed, copyright holder Bob need only claim a feckin' good-faith belief that neither he nor the feckin' law has authorized the feckin' use, that's fierce now what? Bob is not subject to penalties for perjury. In contrast, to get access to content re-enabled, Alice must claim an oul' good faith belief under penalty of perjury that the feckin' material was mistakenly taken down, you know yerself. This allows for copyright holders to send out take-down notices without incurrin' much liability; to get the oul' sites back up, the feckin' recipients might need to expend considerably more resources. Sufferin' Jaysus. Section 510(f) makes the feckin' sender of an invalid claim liable for the oul' damages resultin' from the bleedin' content’s improper removal, includin' legal fees, but that remedy is not always practical. C'mere til I tell yiz. Furthermore, ISP’s tend to remove allegedly offendin' material immediately, while there is a holy 10-14 day delay before the bleedin' ISP re-enables access in response to a bleedin' counter-notice. Right so. For example, if a website advertised an upcomin' labor protest outside BlameCo, BlameCo could send a feckin' DMCA notice to the feckin' site's ISP allegin' copyright infringement of their name or logo an oul' week before the feckin' protest. The site would then be disabled; even if the oul' site's owners immediately filed a holy counter-notice, access would not be re-enabled until after the oul' protest, too late to be useful, would ye swally that? Additionally, there is no public record of takedown requests and counter-notices. Chrisht Almighty. This prevents the public from seein' how the feckin' process is used. (Chillin' Effects has tried to make up for this shortcomin', but, so far, few OSPs besides Google submit their takedown notices.)
Web 2.0 & New Technologies [edit]
There have been recent claims[27] that the oul' DMCA-embedded concepts of direct financial benefit, interference with standard technical measures, and the legislative red flag test for identifyin' infringin' material are significantly challenged by the feckin' explosion of user-generated content unleashed by Web 2.0 technologies. Jesus, Mary and holy Saint Joseph. Related laws [edit]
The European Union's Electronic Commerce directive, Article 14, contains limited liability provisions for online hosts which provide the bleedin' legal basis for notice and takedown in the EU, Lord bless us and save us. France's Digital Economy Law ("Loi relative à l'économie numérique") is an example of an implementation of this directive, as is Finland's "Laki tietoyhteiskunnan palvelujen tarjoamisesta. C'mere til I tell yiz. "
In Korea, the oul' analogous law is Section 102 (Limitation of OSP Liabilities) and Section 103 (Takedown) of Copyright Law of Korea.
In Taiwan, Republic of China, the analogous law is Chapter VI-1 of the feckin' Copyright Act. In fairness now. [28]
^ a b 17 U. Arra' would ye listen to this. S. C'mere til I tell yiz. C. Jasus. § 512(i)(1)(A)
^ 17 U.S, what? C. C'mere til I tell ya. § 512(i)(1)(B)
^ 17 U, be the hokey! S.C, bejaysus. § 512(a)
^ 17 U.S.C, fair play. § 512(b)
^ 17 U.S. Arra' would ye listen to this shite? C. § 512(c)
^ 17 U, fair play. S. Me head is hurtin' with all this raidin'. C, for the craic. § 512(C)(2)
^ 17 U. Sure this is it. S.C. § 512(h)(5)
^ A&M Records, Inc. v, so it is. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
^ Ellison v, begorrah. Robertson, 357 F. Arra' would ye listen to this shite? 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004). Sure this is it. ^ a b c H.R. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Rep. No. 105-551, at 53 (1998). Here's a quare one. ^ 17 U, would ye believe it? S.C. Soft oul' day. § (512(c)(3)(A)(i-vi))
^ 17 U. G'wan now and listen to this wan. S. Right so. C, that's fierce now what? § 512(c)(1)(C)
^ 17 U.S, bedad. C, bejaysus. § 512(c)(3)(B)(ii)
^ Perfect 10, Inc. Bejaysus here's a quare one right here now. v, begorrah. CCBill, LLC, 488 F. Whisht now and listen to this wan. 3d 1102, 1113 (9th Cir, grand so. 2007).
^ 17 U, for the craic. S.C. Would ye swally this in a minute now? § 512(g)(2)(A)
^ a b Online Policy Group v. Diebold, 337 F. Soft oul' day. Supp. Sufferin' Jaysus. 2d 1195 (N.D. I hope yiz are all ears now. Cal. Jesus, Mary and holy Saint Joseph. 2004).
^ Case documents EFF Archive of RIAA v, enda story. Verizon documents, Verizon's Previous Legal Briefs and Court Rulings. I hope yiz are all ears now. ^ Stefanie Olsen, Charter files suit against RIAA CNET News (Oct. G'wan now and listen to this wan. 6, 2003).
^ In re: Charter Commc'ns, Inc. Sufferin' Jaysus. Subpoena Enforcement Matter (8th Cir, that's fierce now what? 2005). Be the hokey here's a quare wan. ^ Pamela Samuelson et al. C'mere til I tell yiz. , A Reverse Notice and Takedown Regime to Enable Fair Uses of Technically Protected Copyrighted Works, 22 Berkeley Tech. Whisht now. L. Jesus Mother of Chrisht almighty. J. Chrisht Almighty. 981, 993 (2007), like. ^ 10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA is the oul' Law That Saved the feckin' Web, Wired (Oct. Here's a quare one. 2008). Jaysis. ^ Julian Sanchez, Google's DMCA takedowns leavin' Blogger users high and dry, Ars Technica (Mar. Me head is hurtin' with all this raidin'. 8, 2009). C'mere til I tell yiz. ^ Nate Anderson, Scientology fights critics with 4,000 DMCA takedown notices, Ars Technica (Sep. Would ye swally this in a minute now? 8, 2008). Listen up now to this fierce wan. ^ Brandon Brown, Fortifyin' the oul' Safe Harbors: Reevaluatin' the oul' DMCA in a feckin' Web 2, fair play. 0 World, 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J, fair play. 437, 438 (2008), the hoor. ^ Ministry of Justice (Republic of China): Chapter VI-1 Limitations on Liability for Internet Service Providers of the feckin' Copyright Act
17 U, would ye swally that? S. Whisht now and listen to this wan. C. Jasus. § 512, Text of OCILLA
U.S, bejaysus. Copyright Office Summary of the feckin' DMCA
Chillin' Effect's FAQs, about DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions
U, would ye believe it? S. Copyright Office List, of Designated Agents for Infringement Notification
Usin' OCILLA [edit]
Usin' DMCA to Protect Your Content, Lunar Legal (June 2008)
Respondin' to Notices of Alleged Infringement, University of Texas
Relevant Caselaw [edit]
Sony Corp, be the hokey! of Am. v. Universal City Studios Inc., 464 U.S. Jesus Mother of Chrisht almighty. 417 (1984).
Religious Tech, you know yerself. Ctr. G'wan now. v. Bejaysus. Netcom On-Line Commc'n Servs., Inc., 907 F, the hoor. Supp, the shitehawk. 1361 (N, you know yourself like. D, the cute hoor. Cal. Jesus, Mary and holy Saint Joseph. 1995).
Costar Group, Inc, would ye swally that? v. Arra' would ye listen to this. Loopnet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir, like. 2004).
Online Policy Group et al. Here's a quare one. v. Bejaysus. Diebold, Inc. Soft oul' day. , 337 F.Supp. Here's a quare one. 2d 1195 (N. Bejaysus. D. I hope yiz are all ears now. Cal. Jaykers! 2004), the cute hoor. A&M Records, Inc. C'mere til I tell ya now. v. Jaysis. Napster, Inc, bedad. , 239 F. Whisht now and eist liom. 3d 1004 (9th Cir. Holy blatherin' Joseph, listen to this. 2001). Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Perfect 10, Inc, would ye swally that? v, game ball! CCBill, LLC, 488 F. Here's another quare one for ye. 3d 1102 (9th Cir. Would ye swally this in a minute now? 2007). Be the hokey here's a quare wan. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia. Be the holy feck, this is a quare wan. org/w/index. Sure this is it. php?title=Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act&oldid=552741826"	Categories: 1998 in law1998 in the oul' United StatesUnited States federal computer law legislationUnited States federal copyright legislation105th United States CongressDigital Millennium Copyright ActHidden categories: Mickopedia articles needin' style editin' from August 2011All articles needin' style editin'	Navigation menu
This page was last modified on 29 April 2013 at 15:48.
additional terms may apply, so it is. By usin' this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, so it is. Mickopedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Chrisht Almighty. , an oul' non-profit organization. Right so. Privacy policy