Hot answers tagged

48

There is a slight confusion here: The large company sent the DMCA notice to your host, not to you. You are not taking down anything. The host does that. If the DMCA takedown notice is following all the rules, then your host has two choices: Take down your content, or be willing to be part of a copyright court case. Assuming that the host doesn't want to go ...


36

You may at your peril. The safe harbor provision in 17 USC 512 does not provide absolute immunity to service providers, that immunity is only available (c)(1) if the service provider—(A)...(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent Given your question, which reasonably ...


32

No. That only works if you host other users' content... ... and on a large enough scale that you can believably say you had no idea that content was on your site. It does not help you if you were the one who uploaded the infringing content. No matter whose site it is. Why is there a DMCA safe harbor in the first place? Before DMCA, you had sites like ...


30

If I understand correctly, you are asking whether a copyright holder's failure to submit a DMCA "takedown" notice in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 prevents that copyright holder from enforcing their copyright. The answer is no, for multiple reasons. DMCA is an optional process First, a common misconception seems to be that the DMCA creates a mandatory ...


29

The takedown action is a little sketchy. The law regarding takedown notices and host liability is here. The notice includes "Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed", a "signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed", and a statement that &...


26

The most important fact to remember is that under DMCA safe harbor rules, you do not make a judgment of the merits of the allegation, you simply follow the rules. The second most important fact to remember is that you have to follow the rules exactly. The point of the rules is that it immunizes you from being sued either by the uploader or by the copyright ...


12

A simple EULA does not absolve you from legal responsibility. The law that you need to be acquainted with, if you are dealing with the US (i.e. might be sued in the US), is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in particular Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act which states the "safe harbor" provisions. Aspects of DMCA safe ...


11

ONLY if you are the host As long as you are just the host, you can use the DMCA as your defense - if you follow all rules under the DMCA. Then you technically don't have to know what your users do, but you have to remove them from your webspace. Example hosts are Youtube or Thingiverse, which just offer space for your videos/3D models. And when they get a ...


10

The takedown request states: A list of youtube-dl forks to take down (uninteresting) The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization ...


7

The particulars of "actual knowledge" are addressed in Viacom v. YouTube. The ruling from the appeals court states (emphasis mine): Under § 512(c)(1)(A), knowledge or awareness alone does not disqualify the service provider; rather, the provider that gains knowledge or awareness of infringing activity retains safe-harbor protection if it “acts ...


7

Under the DMCA(United States Federal Law: Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and its Safe Harbor provisions, yes, Youtube is protected from copyright claims, provided they comply when they receive a notice. But....the DMCA that gives Youtube (and its parent company Google/Alphabet) this shield is US law, but Youtube does large amounts of business in other ...


6

Yes The relevant legal concepts are copyright, contract law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. You are liable to be sued by the people affected for damages and/or be prosecuted by the government for the felony under either or both laws. Let's start here: "I bought a game". No, you didn't; you bought a licence to use the software in accordance with the ...


6

It's not clear to me that your website is, per se, illegal. (Though good luck finding a webhost with a hard drive large enough to store it. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is roughly 38,000 characters. If I've done my calculations correctly, storing all of the strings of this length or shorter would require something like 1053760 GB of storage. ...


6

November 16 2020 - GitHub today reinstated the youtube-dl open-source project. Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyers explained in a letter that Google does not have any technical measures in place to prevent the download of its videos -- all of which need to be made freely available to all kinds of apps, browsers, smart TVs, and more. Hence, EFF lawyers ...


6

Nothing in 17 USC 512, which includes the DMCA Safe Harbor and Takedown procedures requires an online service provider to notify others who may have made copies of content (including archive sites) claimed to be infringing that a takedown notice has been received or that access to the content has been blocked or removed. A separate DMCA takedown could be ...


4

When you file a DMCA notice, what it really means is that you are saying: "Dear website, there is some copyright infringement going on against my works, and I'm willing to take someone to court. You have the choice of removing these materials, which means I cannot sue you, or you can leave copyright infringement on your website and you will be part of the ...


4

There is no general prohibition against taking down material, even non-infringing material, which is posted by some person, but there is a risk to the service provider. Abstracting away from the specifics of github, a Provider has some agreement with the User whereby User rightfully makes Stuff available on Provider's site. Arbitrarily removing Stuff (in ...


4

No, this is not true. Copyright can be enforced selectively. You are confusing copyright with trademark. Company can lose its trademark if they aren't protecting it. All the meanwhile they can choose to ignore some copyright infringement while enforcing their rights on others with no legal problems what-so-ever. In order to illustrate the difference: for ...


4

No Company A is liable for its own acts and omissions and no one else’s.


3

You have the right to request anything you want, but there is a very limited set of things that you can have a legal expectation of them doing. The service provider has no obligation to block a user. You can likewise request a report, and from a pirate site I would expect no response. There is no legal requirement that a pirate site block an offending user ...


3

There are two completely separate problems: (a) are you allowed to send a DMCA notice if you are not authorised? (b) Is a service provider allowed to take down a work if they receive something that looks roughly like a DMCA notice, but isn't one? As Jimsug said, a requirement for a proper DMCA notice is "17 U.S. Code § 512(c)(3)(A)(i) A physical or ...


3

Costar Group Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc., 164 F.Supp.2d 688 (D. Md., 2001) touched on this. The court distinguishes Playboy Ent. v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F.Supp. 503 (N.D.Oh.1997) which held that "contributory liability could attach where infringing performances enhance the attractiveness of the venue to potential customers." (internal quotes omitted) This ...


3

Copyright vests in the photographer that takes the photograph, or their employer. If the subject of a photograph does not own copyright over the photograph, then they can't bring a claim of copyright infringement against you. The DMCA safe harbors only protect you against copyright infringement claims. Further, personality rights are recognised at state ...


3

Under the DMCA, counter-notices are not often seen. They give people who are not infringing or are only engaging in fair use a way of saying "prove it or I won't stop doing it". So, typically a copyright holder will swear out an affidavit under the penalty of perjury that they are the copyright holder and that another work, a site, or a search engine is ...


3

I drafted this answer many days ago but did not complete it. My intention is to define red flag notice. However, I'm hitting Submit because I think it's a good question and hope this will inspire other answers. It seems like your immediate question, regarding the DCMA notices which Google is forwarding, is not a legal question. It is a question that can ...


3

DMCA is a united states law. So it has very little effect on businesses unless they are either hosted in the US or legally reachable by US law. If this seems odd, it's a bit like how the average US blogger website would react if told that a blog post insulted the King of Thailand or promoted an antisocial view by criticising Putin, and got a takedown ...


3

DMCA applies as long as the the website is being hosted inside the U.S. The location of the copyright holder is irrelevant. For step-by-step help drafting a valid DMCA notice, see Step 2 of https://nppa.org/page/5617. If the site fails to comply with a valid notice, they lose the benefit of DMCA's safe harbor provisions and become themselves liable for ...


3

In addition to the things mentioned in the answer by user6726 (which is very good) you must have, and announce, a policy that users who repeatedly upload copyrighted content unlawfully will be blocked from further uploads, and you must "reasonably" enforce this policy. There does not seem to be a clear rule about what constitutes "repeatedly&...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible