1oz61wa
1oz61wa
1oz61wa
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Chapter 5<br />
and voluntary industry initiatives, as the government and private sector grapple with striking a<br />
balance between (1) providing adequate enforcement mechanisms for trademark and copyright<br />
owners and (2) maintaining the freedom and openness commonly associated with the Internet in<br />
the United States.<br />
As the focus on voluntary industry initiatives has increased over the past two years, several main<br />
categories of Internet-focused policy responses have emerged. Such strategies range in scope and<br />
effectiveness and many include mechanisms such as the implementation of online complaint forms<br />
or the creation of hybrid gradual response systems that might result in suspension of an<br />
individual’s Internet service. While none of these measures represent a definitive solution to the<br />
online piracy and counterfeiting issue, they potentially offer tools that could be used as part of a<br />
multi-pronged approach together with legislation, to reduce illegal activities being conducted or<br />
offered by PFWs through their websites and online services.<br />
Any discussion of voluntary industry initiatives must examine the relevant industries’ incentives<br />
for adopting those strategies. Essentially, do sufficient incentives exist for intermediaries to<br />
embrace, implement, and promote voluntary measures to deter PFWs from continuing their operations?<br />
If not, would it help to implement legislation to encourage voluntary measures, for instance<br />
to shield such intermediaries from liability for certain reasonable steps taken to address PFWs?<br />
B. Current Copyright and Trademark Legal Framework<br />
1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act<br />
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), enacted in 1998, incentivizes certain categories<br />
of intermediaries to share in the burden of copyright enforcement compliance by limiting their<br />
liability for the infringing activities of their users. Prior to the enactment of the DMCA, ISPs and<br />
website operators were potentially exposed to copyright infringement liability because every time<br />
a user accessed infringing content, the provider’s server reproduced a copy of protected material. 4<br />
Under the 1976 Copyright Act, any reproduction of a copyrighted work without consent of the<br />
copyright holder that is not excused by an exception or limitation to copyright constitutes copyright<br />
infringement. 5 ISPs also were exposed to claims of secondary liability for their users’ infringing<br />
reproductions and distributions. 6 The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA grant ISPs immunity<br />
from liability for monetary damages (although not from limited injunctive relief) for material<br />
transmitted, edited, or posted by a user. 7 In order to qualify for immunity, an ISP must expeditiously<br />
remove identified infringing material in response to a takedown notice submitted by a copyright<br />
holder 8 or if/when the ISP has actual or red-flag 9 knowledge of the presence of infringing material<br />
or activity on its server. 10 As a condition of eligibility, ISPs must also designate an agent to receive<br />
infringement notifications, implement a reasonable repeat infringer policy, and accommodate<br />
standard technical measures. 11<br />
The safe harbor provisions allow websites such as YouTube and Facebook—which primarily rely<br />
on user-submitted content—to operate without facing potentially expansive civil liability related<br />
to copyright infringement. The safe harbor provisions were explored and explained in a recent<br />
dispute between Viacom (as the content owner) and YouTube (as the service provider). Viacom<br />
brought suit against YouTube in the Southern District of New York alleging that YouTube induced<br />
users to engage in copyright infringement, “directly, vicariously or contributorily[,] subject to<br />
damages of at least $1 billion . . ., and injunctions barring such conduct in the future.” 12 YouTube,<br />
“an online video hosting service that enables users to share their personal and original video clips<br />
across the Internet through websites, mobile devices, blogs, and electronic mail,” 13 claimed immunity<br />
under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA; YouTube argued that it was immune as long as<br />
68