copyright

Viacom v. YouTube Brings About a Sea of Change in the Safe Harbor

by Lizbeth Hasse
Over the past decade, websites and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have learned to rely on the takedown procedures of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in order to generally avoid copyright infringement liability imposed by content owners.
ISPs have been able to shield themselves from all liability form their users posting infringing material by having a proper takedown system in place. But, a recent Second Circuit case undermines that level of confidence in takedown procedures.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is the first U.S. court to decide that ISPs may still be liable for copyright infringement even after complying with the takedown provisions of the DMCA.  

As a result, the underlying questions remain: should intermediaries be held liable for their users infringing actions?
If so, then to what extent?  Where does the law now draw the line? How can a website owner or ISP best protect itself when posting content provided by others?

The DMCA is known for allowing ISPs, under certain circumstances, to avoid copyright infringement liability for activities that would otherwise lead to secondary liability for copyright infringement.

German Court Ordered Google to Do More to Prevent Copyright Violations on YouTube

by Lizbeth Hasse

A German court ordered Google to install filters on its YouTube services in Germany in order to detect and stop people from accessing copyright infringing material.

 
While not holding Google fully liable for the uploaded material, Judge Heiner Steeneck did say that the company needed to do more to stop violations. The court order issued on April 20, 2012, however, is for Google a happy departure from the request made by GEMA, the German association that imposes and collects royalties on recorded media. GEMA had demanded that Google sort through its entire online music archive and remove all copyrighted material from its system. The judge rejected the request.

 

The First Sale Doctrine: Made in the U.S.A. Only?

by Lizbeth Hasse
The Supreme Court decided on Monday, April 16, to hear a case about a Cornell student from Thailand who thought he could finance his education (and more) by reselling to U.S. students textbooks that he bought in Thailand. What could be wrong with that?

The first sale doctrine in copyright law allows purchasers of any copyrighted work to resell or use the particular copy in many ways without the copyright holder’s permission.
It is codified in section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, stating “the owner of a particular copy…lawfully made under this title…is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy.”
It is because of the first sale doctrine that entities such as libraries, used books and video game stores, and sellers on eBay are allowed to lend, sell or lease the books and games they have purchased.
With the Cornell Student from Thailand, the Supreme Court has taken the opportunity to clarify the applicability of the first sale doctrine to copyrighted goods manufactured in a foreign country.
The justices have decided to review Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., involving textbook maker John Wiley & Sons and Thai national Supap Kirtsaeng, who was studying at Cornell University at the time he resold the textbooks.
Supap had his family send him copies of Wiley textbooks purchased abroad, and then resold them on eBay at a profit, without the publisher’s consent, sometimes called “gray marketing”. Because the evidence shows Supap profiting $900,000 to $1.2 million in sales, it is likely that he was running a business on this model.