YouTube Sued Again–Football Association Premier League v. YouTube
…all that sympathetic. However, as I’ve said before, 512(c) is unquestionably ambiguous about whether a copyright owner must send a 512(c)(3) notice before service providers can lose 512(c)’s coverage, and…
New(ish) Report on 512 Takedown Notices
…supposed to be remedied by 512(f), but after the Ninth Circuit Rossi case, 512(f) doesn’t have much punch, so it has done little to curb the takedown spamming by content…
Ninth Circuit Opinion in Perfect 10 v. CCBill
…512(a) entity is a passive data carrier. However, the court says that 512(a) can apply to anyone transmitting digital online communications, so 512(a) may be available to any vendor who…
Consumer-Directed DVR Service Infringes Copyright–20th Century Fox v. Cablevision
…we’ve repeatedly seen that there is no “passive effectuator” exception to copyright law. Statutory safe harbors, such as 17 USC 512, help a bit in some places, but only a…
Viacom Sues YouTube
…story (see, e.g., Napster, Aimster). On the other hand, Congress has enacted the 512 safe harbors for precisely this situation, and I think many judges will find those safe harbors…
Haifa University Search Engine Conference Recap
…discussed how search engines promote access, and how legal doctrines can protect search engines for doing so (230, 512, cases like Kelly v. Arriba and Field v. Google). However, increased…
Can 512(f) Support an Injunction? Novotny v. Chapman
…would support a court enjoining a putative copyright owner from continuing to issue 512(c)(3) notices. If the putative copyright owner lacks the right to send the notice, 17 USC 512(f)…
Court Nix Clean Flicks
…the Communications Decency Act or under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, so long as they do not “induce” copyright infringement a la Grokster. It may not be…
Top Cyberspace IP Cases of 2005
…U.S.C. §512(f) survived a motion to dismiss. The court also rejected Marvel’s argument that a “service provider” under Section §512(f) has to be “passive” and “innocent.” Among other things, NCSoft…
Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. MGA Entertainment
…512(c)(3) takedown notice which is thus subject to 512(f). However, the 2004 Ninth Circuit Rossi case raised the bar on 512(f) claims, effectively defeating 512(f) claims if the copyright owner…