Talk:Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

message: Why is there a [who?] tag next to the acronym for the very subject of this article? I thought it was pretty clear what OCILLA standsfor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: OCILLA

message: The related laws section referring to the EU law is propably wrong. IMHO the section of the ecommerce direktive is more likely to be 43ff than 14. and a link to the directive (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/directive_en.htm) would be nice.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.165.16 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "43ff"? --TJRC (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: European Union directive

message: The second gives ISPs a "safe harbor" from copyright liability and litigation for hosting copyrighted files, as long as they take down copyrighted files quickly after being notified. (Example: I post a Madonna MP3 to my Earthlink web site. Madonna sends a letter to my ISP pointing this out. If my ISP takes the MP3 down quickly, they cannot be sued for copyright infringement.) It also requires that the ISP hand over information about subscribers to copyright holders upon request (a "DMCA subpoena", which doesn't have any judicial oversight).
For the second, some are concerned that it causes ISPs to be overly cautious about hosting copyrighted material, and encouraging them to take down any material they're requested too. Many are also concerned that DMCA subpoenas invade the privacy of Internet users.  The ACLU was involved in this controversy as well, in the case of RIAA v. Boston College et al..
A controversial use of this title in 2003 was the use by the RIAA of the subpoena provisions in 512(h) to obtain the identity of ISP customers. On 20 December 2003 Verizon prevailed on appeal in a case seeking to prevent such disclosures.
In late 2003 Diebold Election Systems used the takedown notice provisions of OCILLA to demand that memos that are "allegedly" written by Diebold employees be removed but subsequently ceased making such requests. Others also see these take down notices as being contrary to the First Amendment free speech protection of free speech as a necessary part of the copyright provisions of fair use.  
Blizzard Entertainment threatened the developers of bnetd, a freely available clone of battle.net, a proprietary server system used by all Blizzard games on the Internet. Blizzard claims that these servers allow circumvention of its CD key copy protection scheme. (The Electronic Frontier Foundation is currently negotiating a settlement.)
*The Church of Scientology is one of the first organizations to make use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In June of 1999, Scientology used the controverisal law to force AT&T Worldnet to reveal the identity of a person who had been posting anonymously to alt.religion.scientology with the pseudonym of "Safe."
*The Scientology organization also used the law to force the Google search engine to erase its entries on the popular anti-Scientology Web site Operation Clambake in March 2002, though the entry was reinstated after Google received a large number of complaints from Internet users.
* The Recording Industry Association of America sued Verizon Communications to obtain the name of a Kazaa subscriber who allegedly shared hundreds of music recordings.  A District Judge ordered Verizon to disclose the information in January 2003. Verizon appealed and prevailed and ISPs have reportedly subsequently refused to honor any similar subpoenas from the RIAA.
* RIAA wins battle to ID Kazaa user
* I removed the following text "Note: Copyright infringement occurs ONLY if the alleged infringer: (1) copies material with a copyright; AND (2) has had personal gain or has made monetary profit from copying material with a copyright." which I believe to be materially untrue as far as US copyright law goes (IANAL). Palnu 23:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text to merge 

message: This page is being revised over the next month as part of the Cyberlaw WikiProject. Dprati (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits in Progress 

message: Takedown example
   8. If Bob does not file a lawsuit, then AOL must put the material back up.
I do not believe the MUST is accurate.  I see no consequences in section 512 for not putting content back and many ToS's would give this discretion to the ISP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarterus (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question.  If Bob has a contract with AOL for provision of service, then once the counter-notification has been handled, then AOL no longer has any reasonable excuse for not fulfilling their service, so could be in breach of contract if they don't promptly reinstate the content.  But I don't think there's any other reason why they must; and specifically, as the example has now been changed to YouTube (who do not supply any form of agreement to provide services to their customers, but do so entirely at their own discretion), I would say it almost certainly doesn't apply any more.  Anyone else agree with removing 'must' from here and replacing it with 'may'? 212.159.69.4 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree.  It depends on the contractual obligations in place.  An example where "must" might be appropriate is if you were paying someone to host your content, and by no longer hosting it, that someone would be in breach of contract.  Youtube is not a good example as their Terms of Service probably allow them to remove videos at their discretion.  A paid service could have similar terms but would be less likely to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.5.242 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and made the change. Even if there was a contract between both parties, it would be misleading to say that Company X "must" provide the service. DMCA is part of criminal law, and in this context it would seem to imply that Company X "must" provide the service lest Company X be held criminally liable. This is obviously incorrect. Company X does not have a duty to provide the service regardless of whether there is a contract; Company X "may" breach the hypothetical contract, i.e., it is not illegal to breach a contract in the United States. But as mentioned above, we're not even talking about such circumstances; this question is made even easier because we're talking about YouTube in particular, and YouTube has no obligation, contractual or otherwise, to return the material.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.70.146 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example takedown putback 

message: Maybe someone can find this link useful for some section. ZackTheJack (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: In this article, the term 'ISP" does not emphasize that some ISPs do not fall into the category of Notice-and-Takedown. Infact most ISPs nowadays do not provide storage and fall into 512(a)
conduit providers which are not required to Notice-and-Takedown, yet still qualify for Safe-Harbor.
Preroll (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common misunderstandings 

message: Are these opinions (as given under Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. Section 512.) free of copyright? What license do they fall under? Can we use them verbatim in Wikipedia articles? Broichmore (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright