Alias Systems Corp. Desires OSP to Block Group Selling its Copyrighted Material -- Chilling Effects Clearinghouse

FAQ: Questions and Answers

Question: What is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

Answer: The DMCA, as it is known, has a number of different parts. One part is the anticircumvention provisions, which make it illegal to "circumvent" a technological measure protecting access to or copying of a copyrighted work (see Anticircumvention (DMCA)). Another part gives web hosts and Internet service providers a "safe harbor" from copyright infringement claims if they implement certain notice and takedown procedures (see DMCA Safe Harbor).

[back to notice text]

Question: What rights are protected by copyright law?

Answer: The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative work by granting a temporary monopoly in an author's original creations. This monopoly takes the form of six rights in areas where the author retains exclusive control. These rights are:

(1) the right of reproduction (i.e., copying),
(2) the right to create derivative works,
(3) the right to distribution,
(4) the right to performance,
(5) the right to display, and
(6) the digital transmission performance right.

The law of copyright protects the first two rights in both private and public contexts, whereas an author can only restrict the last four rights in the public sphere. Claims of infringement must show that the defendant exercised one of these rights. For example, if I create unauthorized videotape copies of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and distribute them to strangers on the street, then I have infringed both the copyright holder's rights of reproduction and distribution. If I merely re-enact The Wrath of Khan for my family in my home, then I have not infringed on the copyright. Names, ideas and facts are not protected by copyright.

Trademark law, in contrast, is designed to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of goods (as well as to protect the trademark owner's market). To this end, the law gives the owner of a registered trademark the right to use the mark in commerce without confusion. If someone introduces a trademark into the market that is likely to cause confusion, then the newer mark infringes on the older one. The laws of trademark infringement and dilution protect against this likelihood of confusion. Trademark protects names, images and short phrases.

Infringement protects against confusion about the origin of goods. The plaintiff in an infringement suit must show that defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause such a confusion. For instance, if I were an unscrupulous manufacturer, I might attempt to capitalize on the fame of Star Trek by creating a line of 'Spock Activewear.' If consumers could reasonably believe that my activewear was produced or endorsed by the owners of the Spock trademark, then I would be liable for infringement.

The law of trademark dilution protects against confusion concerning the character of a registered trademark. Suppose I created a semi-automatic assault rifle and marketed it as 'The Lt. Uhura 5000.' Even if consumers could not reasonably believe that the Star Trek trademark holders produced this firearm, the trademark holders could claim that my use of their mark harmed the family-oriented character of their mark. I would be liable for dilution.

[back to notice text]

Question: What are the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions?

Answer: In 1998, Congress passed the On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) in an effort to protect service providers on the Internet from liability for the activities of its users. Codified as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), this new law exempts on-line service providers that meet the criteria set forth in the safe harbor provisions from claims of copyright infringement made against them that result from the conduct of their customers. These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. If a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer are liable for monetary damages; the service provider's network through which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable.

[back to notice text]

Question: What may be copyrighted?

Answer: In order to be copyrightable, a work must be

1. fixed in a tangible medium of expression ; and
2. original.

Copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries: they only protect physical representations. 17 U.S.C.

[back to notice text]

Question: Does a copyright owner have to specify the exact materials it alleges are infringing?

Answer: Proper notice under the safe harbor provisions requires the copyright owners to specifically identify the alleged infringing materials, or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, to specifically identify the links to the alleged infringing materials. [512(c)(3)(iii)], [512(d)(3)]. The provisions also require the copyright owners to identify the copyrighted work, or a representative list of the copyrighted works, that is claimed to be infringed. [512(c)(3)(A)(ii)]. Rather than simply sending a letter to the service provider that claims that infringing material exists on their system, these qualifications ensure that service providers are given a reasonable amount of information to locate the infringing materials and to effectively police their networks. [512(c)(3)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(3)].

However, in the recent case of ALS Scan, Inc. v. Remarq Communities, Inc., the court found that the copyright owner did not have to point out all of the infringing material, but only substantially all of the material. The relaxation of this specificity requirement shifts the burden of identifying the material to the service provider, raising the question of the extent to which a service provider must search through its system. OSP customers should note that this situation might encourage OSP's to err on the side of removing allegedly infringing material.

[back to notice text]

Question: What are the communication requirements that Section 512 imposes on OSPs, complainants, and alleged infringers?

Answer: Each of the parties -- the complainant, the Online Service Provider (OSP), and the alleged infringer -- has the right to communicate with the other parties. In addition, OSPs and complainants are required to engage in certain communications in order to take advantage of the DMCA's notice-and-takedown and safe harbor provisions. (For more information about the process see FAQ 130.)

The complainant starts the Sec. 512 process by notifying the Online Service Provider (OSP) or the OSP?s agent in writing of a copyright infringement. (See [FAQ 127 for more information about what constitutes an OSP and FAQ 450 for more information about what constitutes copyright infringement.) Section 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) sets out the requirements for notice to OSPs. Under this section, the complainant must specifically identify the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be subject of infringing 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 material.

Section 512(d)(3) sets out the procedure for contacting information location tools, such as search engines. Under Sec. 512(d), the complainant must identify the reference or link to the allegedly infringing material, and must provide enough information for the search engine to locate the link. (For more information about the contents of notices, see FAQ 440.)

The complainant is not required to contact the alleged infringer at any time. [§ 512(h)(5).] However, complainants who do wish to contact the infringer, or to file suit on an infringer, may use the Sec. 512(h) subpoena process to require an OSP provide its customers? identifying information to the complainant.

The OSP has two separate sets of communication obligations. First, the OSP is generally required to establish policies regarding copyright infringement and repeat infringers and to inform subscribers and account holders about those policies as well as about the actions taken against repeat infringers. [§ 512(i)(1)(A).] This applies both to Sec. 512(c) ISPs and Sec. 512(d) information location tools.

Second, once an OSP receives a Section 512 takedown notice, either one, Sec. 512(c) ISPs or Sec. 512(d) information location tools, is required to notify its subscriber that it has disabled access to the allegedly infringing material. [§ 512(g)(2)(A).]

A recipient is not required to respond in any way to Sec. 512 notices from OSPs or complainants. However, without a recipient response, the OSP will generally remove or disable access to the material, possibly even disabling an ISP account. To avoid this, the recipient may file a counter-notification with the OSP, denying that the material infringes copyright. [§ 512(g)] If an OSP receives a counter-notification, then the service provider must notify the complainant that it will cease disabling access in 10 business days unless the complainant obtains a court-imposed restraining order. [§ 512(g)(2)(C)]

[back to notice text]

Question: What are the communication requirements that Section 512 imposes on OSPs, complainants, and alleged infringers?

[back to notice text]

Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?

Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:

The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].

Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.

Alias Systems Corp. Desires OSP to Block Group Selling its Copyrighted Material

image

Topic maintained by Chilling Effects