The Online Limitation of Copyright Copyright Act ( OCILLA ) is the United States federal law that creates a conditional secure port for online service providers (OSP) includes Internet service providers (ISPs) and other Internet intermediaries by protecting them against their own direct copyright infringement (when they make unauthorized copies) and protecting them from potential secondary liability for the actions of others who infringe. OCILLA was ratified as part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) 1998 and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" or "DMCA 512" provision for adding Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By freeing the Internet intermediaries from the responsibility of copyright infringement provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA strives to balance the interests of copyright holders and competing digital users.
Video Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
Ikhtisar
The DMCA 1998 is a US implementation of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) initiative to "maintain a balance between authors' rights and greater public interest, especially education, research and access to information" when updating copyright norms for the digital age. In the context of Internet intermediaries, OCILLA tries to strike this balance by immunizing OSP for copyright responsibilities stemming from their own direct copyright infringement actions (as the main copyright infringement), as well as from the actions of their users (as secondary copyright infringers), provided that OSP complies with two general terms that protect the rights of authors.
First, OSP must "adopt and implement policies" to handle and terminate user accounts found as "repeat offenders". Secondly, OSP should accommodate and not interfere with "standard technical measures." "Standard technical action" is defined as the steps used by the copyright owner to identify or protect copyrighted work, which has been developed in accordance with the broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair and voluntary multi-industry process, available for anyone with non-discriminatory requirements, and does not incur major costs or expenses on service providers. OSP may qualify for one or more of Article 512 safe harbors under Ã, § 512 (a) - (d), for immunity from copyright liability arising from: transmitting, caching, storing, or linking to material breaking. OSPs that comply with the requirements for secure ports provided are not liable for damages of money, but may still be ordered by the court to take certain actions such as disabling access to infringing materials.
In addition to the two general requirements listed above, the four safe ports impose additional requirements for immunity. Secure ports for storage of infringing materials under Ã, § 512 (c) are most commonly encountered for immunizing OSPs such as YouTube that may inadvertently host infringing material uploaded by users.
Overall, the OCILLA section represents a win for telecommunication and Internet-related industry groups over strong copyright interests that require service providers to take full responsibility for the actions of their users. However, copyright owners also get concessions. In addition to the general preconditions and specifics of the created immunity, OCILLA requires OSP to seek immunity to appoint agents who may receive notices of copyright infringement, and to disclose information about allegedly infringing users.
Maps Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
Safe storage terms for online storage - Ã, § 512 (c)
Section 512 (c) applies to OSP which stores infringing material. In addition to two general requirements that OSP complies with standard technical measures and removes repeat offenders, Ã, § 512 (c) also requires that OSP: 1) not receive financial benefits directly related to infringing activity, 2) unaware of attendance material infringing or knowing any facts or circumstances that would make the infringing material clear, and 3) upon receipt of notice from the copyright owner or their agent, acting quickly to remove the offending material.
Direct financial benefits
OSP shall "not receive any financial benefit directly related to infringing activity" to qualify for protection Ã, § 512 (c). However, it is not always easy to determine what qualifies as a direct financial benefit under the law.
One example of OSP that receives direct financial benefits from infringing activities is Napster. In A & amp; M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. , the court ruled that the copyright material on the Napster system created "sweepstakes" for customers who generate direct financial benefits because Napster's future income is directly dependent on increasing the user base. Conversely, at Ellison v. Robertson , the court stated that AOL does not receive direct financial benefits when the user stores infringing material on his server because the copyrighted work does not "attract" new customers. AOL does not "withdraw [or] maintain... [or] lose... subscriptions" as a result of infringing material.
Knowledge of infringing material
In order to qualify for a secure port § 512 (c), OSP may not have any actual knowledge that hosting material is infringing or aware of the facts or circumstances from which the infringing activity is visible. It is clear from legislation and legislative history that OSP has no obligation to monitor its services or to strictly seek infringing material on its systems. However, the law describes two ways in which the OSP may impose a notice of infringing material on its system: 1) notices from copyright owners, known as notifications and dropped, and 2) the existence of a "red flag".
This is advantageous for OSP because OCILLA's clear process allows them to avoid making decisions about whether the material is actually infringing or not. Such a decision can be complicated because it is difficult to determine whether copyright has expired on the material without access to complete information such as the date of publication, and since even copyrighted material may be used in some cases under reasonable use doctrine, its implementation is difficult to evaluate.
Instead of making complicated legal decisions, OCILLA allows OSPs to avoid liability provided they comply with the legal requirements, irrespective of the validity of any infringement claims.
Notification from copyright owner
The first way an OSP may be included in a notice is by written notice of the copyright holder of the claimed violation to the designated agent OSP. This should include the following:
- (i) The physical or electronic signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
- (ii) Identification of a copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if some copyrighted work on one online site is covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works on the site.
- (iii) Identification of material claimed to be infringing or subject to infringement activity and it must be removed or access to be disabled, and information sufficient to permit the service provider to seek material.
- (iv) Information sufficient to enable service providers to contact complainants, such as addresses, phone numbers, and, where available, electronic mail addresses where complaining parties may be contacted.
- (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good-faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
- (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under oath, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
See 512 (a) and (h) below if such information is not stored on the OSP system but vice versa on a system connected to the Internet through it, such as a home computer or business connected to the Internet. Legal liability may occur if access to material is disabled or identity disclosed in this case.
If a notice that substantially complies with this requirement is accepted, OSP shall immediately remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing material. During such notice substantially in accordance with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) the OSP shall seek clarification of any unclear aspects.
In Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC , the Ninth Circuit states that properly constructed notifications must exist in a single communication. The copyright owner can not "collect adequate notifications from separate notifications separately" because that would overload the OSP.
After the notice has been fulfilled with OSP must take reasonable steps to promptly notify the alleged violation of such action. Note that OSP is not forbidden to do so before, it is only necessary to do so afterwards. If there is a counter-notification of alleged offenders, OSP should respond appropriately.
If OSP complies with this and counter notification procedures, it is safe from legal liability to its own customers as a result of retrieving the materials.
There is a common practice to provide links to legal notices at the bottom of the site's main webpage. It may be wise, though not required by section 512 of copyright law, to include the information of the designated agent on the page brought by the legal link, in addition to elsewhere wherever it is available. As long as the site provides reasonable notice that there is a method of compliance, it should be enough. Again the court did not decide on the technical posts of this notice.
Red flag
The second way that the OSP may place notice that the system contains infringing material, for the purposes of section 512 (d), refers to the "red flag" test. The "red flag" test comes from language in legislation which requires that the OSP not be "aware of the facts or circumstances in which the infringing activity is visible."
The "red flag" test contains both subjective and objective elements. Subjectively, OSP must have knowledge that the material is in the system. Objectively, "the infringing activity is clearly visible to the person who is operating in the same or similar condition."
Remove and revert terms
Contoh penghapusan
Here's an example of how the takedown procedure will work:
- Alice puts the video with a copy of Bob's song on YouTube.
- Bob, search the Internet, find a copy of Alice.
- Charlie, Bob's lawyer, sends a letter to YouTube designated agent (listed in the Copyright Office) including:
- contact information
- the copied song name
- the address of the copied song
- a statement that he/she has a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
- statement that the information in the notification is accurate
- statement that, under oath, Charlie is authorized to act for the copyright holder
- his signature
- YouTube downgraded the video.
- YouTube told Alice that they had deleted the video.
- Alice now has the option to send counter notifications to YouTube, if she feels the video was unfairly downgraded. Notices included
- contact information
- identification of deleted videos
- statement under penalty of perjury that Alice had a good faith belief that the material was erroneously deleted
- statements that consent to the jurisdiction of the local US Federal District Court, or, if outside the U.S., to the US Federal District Court in the jurisdiction where YouTube was found.
- his signature
- If Alice submits a valid counter-notification, YouTube notifies Bob, then waits 10-14 business days for the lawsuit filed by Bob.
- If Bob does not file a lawsuit, YouTube may return the material.
Interpretation
The meaning of "fast"
The law provides "swift" action. The meaning of "fast" in the context of this law has not been determined by the court. The Black's Law Dictionary defines "fast" as "done with, or acting with, expeditions; quick, fast." In general law, the term "fast" has been interpreted according to circumstances, allowing more time than "immediate" but not undue delay. Some suggest that the wisest course is to comply "soon" or to seek legal counsel immediately from qualified legal advisors. In the commercial online world, taking more than 24 hours can be seen as an undue delay. However, when legal advice is taken into account in the equation, it is reasonable to allow the adviser time to review all the facts, verify the necessary elements of the notice and conduct a minimum of research to ascertain the current state of law. This can happen fairly when the material posted appears to be covered by fair use, for fair use not copyright infringement. So, in some situations it might make sense to specify that "fast" would take more than 24 hours, and if ISP is a small non-profit provider, or server run by volunteers, it may not have the resources to obtain legal opinions at the same rate that a large multinational company might have the resources to get it right away. In fact, there may not be anyone immediately available who is eligible to determine whether the notice complies with the standards set out in law. Perhaps a reasonable court will consider these factors. Courts in the United States have not yet decided on these issues.
For commercially-run on-line providers who take action within one hour to notify customers that a takedown notice has been received and notify them that they must immediately remove the content and confirm the deletion, grant them six to twelve hours to comply; and if not informing them that the content will be removed or their Internet connection terminated, may be considered reasonable. Some courts may regard this as an overwhelming burden on the ISP if it receives a large number of communications at the same time or has limited resources to review Ã, § 512 notices for substantial compliance. It may also depend on how notifications are sent. If notifications are sent by regular mail or by fax, there may be a pause between notification delivery and reception by those who can follow-up on it. If the notification is received by mail delivery on Saturdays when the ISP office is closed and not acted upon until Monday, which may be considered fair.
Preemption state law
Even if the copyright holder does not intend to cause anything other than the removal of the allegedly infringing material, compliance with the DMCA procedure may still result in disruption of the contractual relationship: by sending a letter, the copyright holder may affect the ISP's service interruption to the client. If compliance with DMCA conditions simultaneously subjects copyright holders to assert liability lawsuits, state and federal law may be contradictory. Depending on the facts of the case, federal law may precede state law ie there will be no obligation to claim state law resulting from compliance with federal law.
The effect of delay in response
Another issue to keep in mind is that the delay in responding may not reach a significant amount of damage and someone whose material they have removed with the procedure § 512 late may be more than satisfied with the outcome; it's a lot cheaper than filing a copyright infringement suit in federal court that may revolve around a small technicality of the law. Indeed, one of the purposes of this section is to remove a large number of lawsuit infringements from the court when the facts surrounding the violations are essentially irrefutable and the damage can be minimized within a short period of time without US federal district court intervention. judge. A copyright holder may be more than happy to know that material has been removed for a small fee to have an attorney prepare a "record" compliance notice rather than the costs of drafting, filing, serving and prosecution of federal infringement acts.
Other defenses for OSP
It is also important to remember that other laws, the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) still protect the ISP from responsibility for content provided by third parties (see below). Even if the removal is found not to be "fast" in the legal sense and the so-called "safe port" under the DMCA is lost, in many cases the ISP may still be protected. Through these two laws there is a way to balance ISP's intent to help with third-party copyright protection and the desire to maintain good customer relationships. There is also a question of infringement placed by a third party into a problem of negligence or other error on the part of the ISP. If the ISP takes any measures deemed reasonable or found to have no obligation of care to the offending police officer on the site then the offense may be considered "not guilty" from the ISP's point of view and the offender may still be considered a responsible party posting the work or work in violation.
Common misconceptions
It is sometimes stated that the ISP needs to provide ten days of allegedly infringing notice before acting. This is not true. ISPs should act quickly. The ten-day period refers to the counter notification procedure described in Section 512 (g) after the offending material is removed, offering them an opportunity to counter the charges presented to the ISP not during the so-called "record" stage of the procedure.
It is sometimes recommended that content should be removed before informing the person who provided it. It is also not necessary, as long as the removal is fast. Large connectivity providers with many ISP customers will not act reasonably by disconnecting all ISPs if they receive a takedown notice for the website hosted by the ISP on behalf of one of their customers. The law seems to allow the flexibility necessary to deal fairly with delivering removal requests to handle such situations.
Other safe harbor terms
Ã, § 512 (a) Communications of the Secure Transition Network Harbor
Section 512 (a) protects providers who are passive channels of liability for copyright infringement, even if infringing traffic passes through their networks. In other words, provided that infringing material is being sent at the request of a third party to a designated recipient, handled by an automated process without human intervention, is not altered in any way, and is only temporarily stored on the system, the service provider is not responsible for the transmission.
The main differences in the scope between this section, temporary network communications under 512 (a), and cache, website and search engine indexes below 512 (b), 512 (c) and 512 (d) respectively, location of material offense. Other subsections make the harbor secure conditional for infringing material that resides on a system controlled by OSP. For material stored temporarily in the course of network communications, the secure port of this subs is also applicable even for networks not under OSP control.
Ã, § 512 (b) The Safe Harbor Cache System
Section 512 (b) protects the OSP involved in caching (ie making copies of material for faster access) if the cache is done in standard ways, and does not interfere with a reasonable copy protection system. This section applies to proxy and cache servers used by ISPs and many other providers.
If the cached material is available to the end user, the system provider must follow Article 512 (c) the uninstallation and return of the terms. Please note that this provision applies only to cached material originating from a third party, not by the provider itself. Also, the content of the material should not be modified as a result of the caching process.
Ã,§ 512 (d) Safe Location Information Tool Harbor
Section 512 (d) removes the copyright responsibility for OSPs that connect users, through tools such as web search engines, to online sites containing infringing materials, provided that OSP does not know the material is infringing.
There are several other conditions for this immunity to apply. Once OSP becomes aware that the material is infringing, it should immediately disable access to it. Also, OSP shall follow the terms of the deletion and submission of Section 512 (c). Finally, where OSP can control infringing activity, OSP should not benefit financially by providing links.
Other conditions
Ã, § 512 (e) Limitation of Liability for Nonprofit Education Institutions
Section 512 (e) protects nonprofit educational institutions from liability for the actions of faculty and graduate students who place infringing materials online. Immunities for applying materials may not be course material for courses taught by faculty or graduate student employees, and agencies may not receive more than two notices of violations of the same individual, for the previous 3 years. In addition, agencies should distribute material information about U.S. copyright laws to all network users.
Universities across the country have been forced to adapt to the rules of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The American Recording Industry Association (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which is the main representative of the music and film industry, are the main organizations that have upheld the strongest copyright laws. It started in 2003 when they started tracking the heaviest peer-to-peer users and looking for a lawsuit against them. Most universities today have established rules to follow the DMCA's strict guidelines. Offenders are issued a call from the court and disciplinary action is taken to identify and disable the problem. Fortunately for college, the responsibility of Internet service providers is limited under section 512 of the Copyright Act.
Ã,§ 512 (f) Misrepresentations
Section 512 (f) precludes false claims of infringement by imposing liability on anyone who makes such claims, for losses suffered by others as a result of OSP dependence on false claims, and for related legal costs.
This provision actually has several bites, as illustrated by the cases of the Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc. , in which an electronic voting technology company is sanctioned for knowingly issuing an unauthorized infringement notification to the ISP, and more recently Lenz v. Universal , 801 F.3d 1126 (2015).
Ã, § 512 (h) Identify violators.
Section 512 (h) contains a provision allowing copyright owners to force the OSP to disclose identifiable information about a user who allegedly infringes the owner's copyright, through the use of subpoena issued by the federal court at the request of the owner.
Section (h) (2) (A) requires that the owner's request include "a copy of the notice described in paragraph (c) (3) (A)" (takedown notice, see above). Note that 512 (c) (3) (A) (iii) provides that the notice must identify the allegedly infringing material to be removed, and must provide sufficient information for service providers to locate material on their systems. The Owner must also swear that any information obtained through a subpoena will only be used for the purpose of protecting his/her rights under Section 512.
If OSP is presented with such subpoena after or at the same time as a valid takedown notice, under Section (h) (2) (A) it shall promptly provide the information required by a subpoena.
In 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America apparently sought a summons from the court and presented takedown notices that did not comply with these requirements, primarily using a subpoena provision for 512 (a) situations, which did not provide them.
On December 20, 2003, ISP DSL Verizon won on appeal in case it attempted to prevent the use of this section for temporary network communications, the decision reversing a court order to provide customer details. The appeal decision accepts the argument that the key difference is the location of the file, with this section only valid when the material is stored on the OSP controlled equipment. However, in response, the RIAA member labels switch to different methods to obtain the desired information. They started demanding some "Doe" of the defendant at a time and issued a third-party invitation call letter to the ISP for customer details.
On October 6, 2003, the Charter Communications became the first cable Internet provider to challenge the RIAA's use of this provision, when filing a motion to cancel a subpoena to obtain the identity of 150 customers. Although the Charter Communications initially lost this motion and was forced to submit the requested customer identity, the appeal then decided that the motion to cancel should be upheld.
Ã,§ 512 (i) Conditions for Eligibility
Section 512 (i) outlines the general requirements for immunity. The online service provider shall adequately implement the policy "providing appropriate discontinuance" from "repeat offenders", shall notify their users of this policy, and shall accommodate a standard copy protection system.
This section is historically open to interpretation, since it does not specify any minimum standards that the repeat infringer policy must adhere to, and only specifies that users should be notified of their whereabouts. By 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that repeat offenders' policies need not be documented and publicized (as long as users are notified of their whereabouts), and that attempting website owners to moderate and manually prohibit repeat offenders on a case-by-case basis makes sense.
Ã,§ 512 (j) The command
Section 512 (j) describes the forms of court orders (ie court orders) available to copyright holders. Although OSP has immunity from monetary damages under Section 512, they may be coerced by copyright holders, under appropriate circumstances, to stop providing access to infringing materials or to terminate the account of certain offenders.
Ã,§ 512 (k) Definition
Section 512 (k) defines "service providers" and "financial assistance."
Ã, § 512 (l) Other Defenses Available
Section 512 (1) notes that the service provider's inadequacy for a safe port of monetary damages under this section does not affect the validity of any other legal defense that may apply (especially CDA, although not specifically identified).
Ã, § 512 (m) Privacy Protection
Section 512 (m) notes that OSP maintains part protection (a) to (d) even if they do not monitor their services seeking infringing activity, as long as they comply with the general requirements of Section 512 (i) relating to the institution of account termination policies for offenders and accommodation copy protection system. Furthermore, OSP is not required to remove or disable access to material if it violates any other laws.
Ã, § 512 (n) Independent Construction for Harbors Safe
Section 512 (n) states that the limits of liability in sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) apply independently. Therefore, the fact that OSP qualifies for limitation of liability under one paragraph has no impact on whether OSP is eligible for restrictions under different subsections. This is because subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) describe separate and distinct functions.
Criticism
The last decade of experience with safe harbor provisions has shown them to be quite effective. The copyright holder has an incentive to monitor Internet sites for offensive material, and sends ISP notifications where necessary, material that should be removed. ISPs have an incentive to work with copyright holders and terminate accounts of repeat offenders due to the pain of losing the secure port made by OCILLA. At the same time, copyright holders are prevented from sending inaccurate notifications under conditions that make them liable for damages, as well as bad publicity.
That does not mean that OCILLA works perfectly in practice. There are several problems resulting from incomplete incentives created by law, from the complexity and requirements of counter notification procedures, and from the development of Web Technology.
Removal of inappropriate content
There is some evidence that ISPs tend to quickly remove allegedly infringing content on demand by copyright holders, in situations where the content is completely non-infringing and must be preserved. This may be because ISPs have more to lose by losing their secure ports than by infuriating users whose content is not properly deleted.
Chilling Effects estimates that OSP removes allegedly offensive content even though about 60% of all takedown notices have defects. Notifications can be flawed in several ways. Many have failed to comply with the requirements of the law. Others request material to be removed for reasons such as trademark infringement and defamation that are not related to copyright infringement.
Ineffective counter notification procedure
There is evidence of a problem with the counter notification procedure, which arises from its complexity and also because the ISP is not required to inform the user about its existence. According to Chilling Effects, while Google has taken hundreds of sites from its index due to a DMCA request, no one has filed a counter-notification or received a counter-notification from another OSP.
This may be due to the inherent imbalance on the preconditions for the original complaint and the counter-notification. In order for the content to be removed, the copyright holder, Bob, only needs to claim a belief in good faith that neither he nor his law permits its use. Bob is not subject to punishment for perjury. Instead, to gain access to reactivated content, Alice must claim confidence in good faith under the threat of a false penalty that the material is erroneously deleted. This allows copyright holders to send underrated notices without incurring much responsibility; to get the site back, the recipient may need to spend more resources. Section 512 (f) makes the sender of an unlawful claim liable for damages resulting from the undue removal of the content, including legal fees, but the attempt is not always practical.
Furthermore, ISPs tend to remove allegedly offensive material immediately, while there are delays of 10 to 14 days before the ISP re-enables access in response to a counter-notification. For example, if a website advertises an upcoming labor protest outside BlameCo, BlameCo can send a DMCA notice to an ISP site that claims copyright infringement in their name or logo a week before the protest. The site will then be disabled; even if the site owner immediately filed a counter notification, access will not be reactivated until after the protest, too late to be useful.
ISPs may also ignore counter-notifications. Section 512 (g) The DMCA protects the ISP from liability to its customers for the removal of the DMCA, if the ISP reinstates deleted content upon counter-notification. In practice, however, the ISP may bypass the counter notice, and vice versa depending on its own terms of service to protect itself from responsibility to its customers. For example, since April 2013, YouTube has refused to recover some of the rejected content, citing YouTube's agreement with third-party music content owners.
Additionally, there are no public records for removal requests and counter notifications. This prevents the public from seeing how the process is used. (Chilling Effects has tried to address this deficiency, but, so far, some OSPs other than Google have submitted their takedown notices.)
Web 2.0 and new technologies
There have been recent claims that DMCA's concepts of direct financial benefits, disruption with standard technical measures, and a red-flag legislative test to identify infringing materials are significantly challenged by explosive user-generated content released by technology Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 has increased the ease of access to copyrighted works by introducing new and alternative electronic platforms where information can be shared publicly. Recognizing the challenges that Web 2.0 provides, many OSPs have implemented programs that automatically scan each upload for potentially infringing activities. This proactive system can detect anything from background melody to visual display. Through a YouTube system called Content ID, copyright owners are given the power to track, block, or monetize user-uploaded content. Often, copyright owners choose to take advantage of videos that contain their copyrighted content. Since 2017, Content ID has been able to generate more than two billion USD for its copyright partners.
Related Act
The EU Electronic Trade Directive, Article 14, contains limited liability provisions for online hosts that provide a legal basis for notification and deletion in the European Union. French Digital Economy Law ("Loi relative ÃÆ' l'ÃÆ' Â © conomie numÃÆ' Â © rique") is an example of implementation of this command, as are Finnish "Laki tietoyhteiskunnan palvelujen tarjoamisesta."
In Korea, the analog law is Section 102 (Limitation of Obligations OSP) and Section 103 (Takedown) Korean Copyright Law.
In Taiwan, the Republic of China, analogous law is Chapter VI-1 of the Copyright Act.
See also
- Related US law
- The "No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act
- Copyright Term Extension Act (1998)
- DMCA (1998)
- In Aimster's Copyright Litigation
- Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.
- More
- YouTube copyright issues
References
External links
General
- 17 US, 512, Text OCILLA
- US. Summary of Copyright Office of DMCA
- Chilling Effect FAQ, on DMCA Safe Harbor Terms
- US. List of Copyright Offices, Designated Agent for Notice of Breach
Using OCILLA
- The DMCA guidelines, with examples of copyright infringement violations and counter notices
- Uses DMCA to Protect Your Content, Lunar Legal (June 2008)
- How to File a Copyright Infringement Notice DMCA, Marketingdock.com
- Respond to Notice of Alleged Breach, University of Texas
Case law
- Diehl v. Crook, Electronic Frontier Foundation that succeeded in 2006 according to the illegal removal notice
- Sony Corp of Am. v. Universal City Studios Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
- Technology of Religion. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Commc'n Servs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
- Costar Group, Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004).
- Online Policy Group et al. v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F.Supp.2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
- A & amp; M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007).
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments