Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: To amend title 17, United States Code , to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes, as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act .
Short title: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
Abbreviation: OCILLA (Official Abbreviation), DMCA 512; Safe Harbor (informal terms)
Type: Federal law
Scope: United States
Legal matter: copyright
Issued on: 1998
Entry into force on: October 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998)
Last change by: Added pub. L. 105-304, title II, §202 (a), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2877; amended pub. L. 106-44, §1 (d), Aug. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 222; Pub. L. 111-295, §3 (a), Dec. 9, 2010, 124 Stat. 3180.
Effective date of the
last change: 		January 7, 2011
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (Ocilla) (Logically: Law on limitation of liability for copyright infringement in the Internet) is a law of the United States , the liability of online services , especially Internet service providers to facilitate copyright infringements.

The act is also known as DMCA 512 because it is part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and was added to the United States Code as Section 512 . Another name is also Safe Harbor , an analogy from the English legal language for a legally secure area, in particular a legal relief from liability for actions in good faith under predefined conditions.

overview

As an implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996), OCILLA aims to strike a balance between the legitimate interests of copyright holders and digital users. It tries to do this by limiting both the primary liability of Internet service providers for files offered in violation of copyright, as well as their secondary liability for the acts of the illegally uploading users.

In order to be able to claim relief from liability, an Internet service provider must first develop and implement a sensible course of action to contact and delete user accounts that repeatedly infringe copyrights. Second, he must implement this procedure with standardized technical means without hindering them. Then they can claim the safe haven for four different actions: transmitting, temporarily storing ( caching ), storing or linking of copyrighted material. The safe haven means that the Internet service provider cannot be sentenced to pay damages, but can be condemned to refrain from further copyright infringements.

In addition to the general precautions, there are detailed rules for each of the four safe havens. The safe haven for storage on the internet according to § 512 (c) is the best known because it protects well-known actors like Youtube . As a result of this law, both copyright holders and users of the Internet had to forego rights. The copyright owners lost claims for damages against the easily accessible and usually solvent internet service providers, the users lost some of their anonymity because the internet service providers had to disclose this in the event of alleged copyright infringement.

Storage on the Internet

Section 512 (c) applies to online services that store material that is contrary to copyright law. In addition to the two general requirements that the services use the usual protective mechanisms and exclude repeat offenders, the liability relief only applies if, firstly, the online service has no direct financial benefit from the copyright infringement, secondly, it was in good faith, i.e. was not aware of the copyright infringement , nor knew facts that suggested it and, thirdly, immediately responded to a request from the alleged copyright holder.

Direct financial benefit

An online service should not receive any financial benefit that can be directly attributed to the infringement of copyright (original: "not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"). What is a direct financial advantage needs to be interpreted and is not always clear. While Napster was charged with a direct advantage because Napster's system led to more and more customers using Napster and thus directly influencing Napster's future income, AOL was acquitted because it could not be determined that the storage on its servers led to a change in the number of users would have.

Good faith

In order to obtain relief from liability, the online service must not have any knowledge of the infringement of copyright or be aware of any facts or circumstances from which this knowledge arises. This does not mean that an online service has to monitor its users or specifically look for copyright infringements, but it does have to respond to two things. On the one hand to a notification of the author and on the other hand to warning signals. Because these signs alone require action, this requirement releases the online service from the difficult task of deciding whether there is an actual copyright infringement.

Written notification by rights holder

The usual way is for the rights holder to notify the online service in writing. This complaint must contain the following data:

  1. A signature, physical or a digital equivalent
  2. A clear description of the works whose copyright is claimed.
  3. A clear description of the work that is intended to infringe the copyright, along with sufficient information on where the material can be found on the online service.
  4. Sufficient contact information about the complainant.
  5. A statement by the complainant that he has a good faith belief that such use of the works is not permitted by the complainant, his agent, or the law.
  6. A declaration by the complainant that the information given in the complaint is correct and an affidavit that the complainant is entitled to assert an exclusive right of omission on behalf of the copyright holder that has been infringed.

In response to such a message, the online service must immediately block or delete the material. As long as the complaint with points two, three and four is present, the online service must try to clarify all ambiguities. These points must all be present in one message, not in several separate messages. After deleting the files, the online service must try to notify the alleged copyright infringer immediately. But he can also teach him beforehand. This may give a reply (original: "counter notification"), to which the online service must respond accordingly. If the online service adheres to these guidelines, it is also safe from claims for damages from its user. It is common, but not yet a legally determined obligation, to leave a link to legal remarks in the footer of the main page of a website and to name the contact person for such complaints (original: "Designated agent").

The contact person must be registered with the copyright office.

Warning signals

The second way in which the online service is forced to act are warning signals ("aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."). In doing so, subjective and objective criteria must be observed. Objectively, the online service must know that the material in question is in its system; subjectively, the copyright infringement must be recognizable for a reasonable person under comparable circumstances ("infringing activity would have been apparent to a reasonable person operating under the same or similar circumstances").

Example of blocking and releasing again

  1. Sebastian N. loads the copy of a video of a performance by Dieter N. at YouTube high
  2. Dieter finds Sebastian's copy there
  3. Dieter's secretary Bärbel sends a complaint to YouTube's designated agent , whom he found at the Copyright Office. This includes
    1. Contact information
    2. The name of the video
    3. The URL of the copy of the video
    4. A statement that they have a good faith belief that copying is not authorized by the rights holder, their agent, or any law.
    5. An affidavit that Bärbel can act in Dieter's name.
    6. Barbel's signature or a digital replacement
  4. YouTube is blocking the video
  5. YouTube notifies Sebastian of the ban
  6. Sebastian can now send a reply if he does not agree. This contains:
    1. Contact information
    2. The name of the blocked video
    3. An affidavit that Sebastian has a good faith belief that he has a right to post the video.
    4. A declaration of submission to the judgment of the competent US court
    5. Sebastian's signature or a digital replacement
  7. When the reply was complete, YouTube notifies Dieter and waits 10 to 14 working days to see if Dieter will initiate legal proceedings.
  8. If Dieter does not initiate legal proceedings, YouTube will have to release the material again.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ 17 USC § 512 (i) (1) (A)
  2. ↑ 17 USC § 512 (i) (1) (B)
  3. ↑ 17 USC § 512 (a)
  4. ↑ 17 USC § 512 (b)
  5. ↑ a b 17 USC § 512 (c)
  6. ↑ 17 USC § 512 (d)
  7. ^ A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) ( Memento of the original from April 9, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / bulk.resource.org
  8. ↑ Lisa M. Bowman: Judge: DMCA covers AOL in e-book case from March 19, 2002.
  9. ^ A b 105th Congress, House of Representatives (1998): No. 551, p. 53.
  10. ↑ 17 USC § (512 (c) (3) (A) (i-vi)) .
  11. ↑ 17 USC § 512 (c) (1) (C) .
  12. ↑ 17 USC § 512 (c) (3) (B) (ii) .
  13. ^ Court of Appeals of the 9th Federal Senate: Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC (PDF; 128 kB).
  14. ↑ Copyright Office ( Memento of the original from May 1, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.copyright.gov
  15. ↑ 17 USC § 512 (c) (1) (A) (ii) .