==] Fred von Lohman [==
==] Jonathan Band   [==
==] Colette Vogele  [==

Copyright: User-Generated Cont[Infringem]ent and What to Do About It
Wednesday; October 10, 2007

=========]
"How close to the tide line do you want to build?"
"Is it easier for them to give a takedown notice that to file a lawsuit?"
"Avoid situations escalating."
[=========


DMCA Safe Harbors (17 USC 512)
==============================

--> Eliminates Monetary Damage
--> Limits Injunctions

4 Safe Harbors:

1) [512(a)]: Conduits
	-> ISPs

2) [512(b)]: Caching
	-> current for 1998 AOL caching
	-> AKAMAI? (no one knows)
	
3) [512(c)]: Hosting
	-> hosting on behalf of users
	
4) [512(d)]: Linking
	-> "information location tools"
	-> search engines, etc.


Why DMCA so restrictive (vs. 230 (defamation statutes))?
========================================================

230:
- ISPs lobby for Defamation protection
--> no lobby for people who might be defamed
DMCA:
- complex balance between internet companies and entertainment companies


Are you covered by the DMCA?
============================

Definition of Service Provider:
	- 512(a): "transmission routing or providing of connections for digital online communications"
	- 512(a,b,c,d) "provider of online services"

Threshold requirements:
	everyone:
	- terminate subscribers who are repeat 512(i) infringers
	- "reasonably implement"
	- keep records (add up complaints (verified or not) about individual subscribers)
	- don't interfere with "standard technical measures" used by copyright owners (don't exist)
	- register a Designated Agent
	*- list electronic and physical contact info for DA
	
	Lost if:
		for [512(c)]: Hosting
		- actual knowledge that the material is infringing
		- awareness of facts or circumstances that make infringement obvious ("piracy-r-us.com", maybe?)
		- directly benefits financially from infringement you can control (advertising revenue? affiliate revenue?)
		- no expeditious response to takedown notices
  	
		for [512(d)]: Linking
		- "ability to control" content on the linked site
		
		
You've received a takedown notice, now what?
============================================

It's not a notice unless:
- in writing
- provided to designated agent
- includes:
	-> (1) contact info for owner or agent
	-> (2) identification of work (pretty much anything)
	-> (3) identification of infringing use (url)
	-> statement that there's a "good faith belief" that the use is not authorize
	-> statement that the notice is accurate
	-> statement that they're authorized to act on behalf of the owner
	-> signature of owner or agent

Evaluating a notice:
- didn't do (1, 2, and 3)
-> no responsibility

- did (1, 2, 3) but not the rest:
-> take prompt action to attempt to contact them (request more info)
-> request the rest

- did all
-> remove/disable access to the material
-> within 1 week/5 days
-> notify user ("promptly" -- can be after takedown)
		--> is this a repeat infringer?

Counter Notices:
- user can get something put back up:
-> their application falls under fair use
-> error in the notice

- requirements:
-> contact info for user
-> identify material
-> (under-perjury) statement of "good faith belief" that the "material was removed/disabled as the result of a mistake or misidentification"
-> users consent to Federal jurisdiction where user is located (or outside, where we're located)
-> consent to accept service of process notice from the person who provided notice
-> signature of user

Put it back?
	Is the Counter Notice correct?
	- and you otherwise on red-flag notice
	- and the user is not a repeat infringer
	- and we're within the 10-14 day window
	
	how?
	- give a copy (of the counter notice) to the original complaining party
	- inform complaining party that the material will be replaced in 10 days (from date of counter notice)
	- before 14 days have passed: put it back
	EXCEPTION: complaining party files an action and notifies the Designated Agent of the action
	-> don't put it back