Dmca report pro#

This shift “has resulted in an increasing burden on rightsholders.

Its report suggests that, over the course of the last two decades, these changes have “tilted askew” the balance Congress intended to strike between the interests of rightsholders and OSPs, generally in favor of the service providers. Additionally, OSPs must adopt policies to terminate repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances.Ī lot has changed in the past twenty years, and “the effect of societal and technological change on section 512 has long been evident” according to the Copyright Office. Most notably, these requirements include the implementation of “notice-and-takedown” procedures, which mandate that OSPs establish a system for rightsholders to report potential third-party infringement on their platform. To avail themselves of statutory limitations on liability for the copyright infringement by their users, Section 512 requires OSPs to implement procedures to curb online copyright infringement and provide rightsholders with additional mechanisms for enforcing their copyrights.

Dmca report pro#

To balance these divergent interests, Congress established a quid pro quo for OSP safe-harbor protections under the DMCA. Congress also recognized the importance of protecting copyright rightsholders from rampant infringement made possible by the advent of widespread internet access, social media, and compressed digital media, like MP3. On one hand, Congress sought to foster innovation and legal predictability for OSPs who allow their users to post transmit, or receive content by limiting their liability for copyright infringement due to third party copyrighted material contained within their users’ content. Section 512 of the DMCA seeks to strike a balance between two competing interests. The report also makes several recommendations to Congress for adjustments to the law that, in the view of the Copyright Office, might better balance Section 512 and meet the goals of the DMCA safe-harbor provisions. While the Copyright Office stops short of proposing wholesale reform to the DMCA, it identifies several key areas where it believes the law has become outdated. represent significant limitations in need of remedy.” The Copyright Office admits as much and observes that due to the private nature of the takedown system under Section 512, “it has been difficult to quantify the extent to which many of the concerns expressed about the current U.S. As one example, in recent years major OSPs have implemented “fingerprinting” technologies that are able to prevent the posting of copyrighted material before it is even posted, even though the DMCA does not require OSPs to take such proactive measures.įundamentally, the report is based largely on anecdotal and qualitative information rather than quantitative data. Many OSPs devote significant resources to comply with the requirements of the DMCA safe harbor, and others have implemented measures that go beyond those required by the DMCA. OSPs and others may disagree with the Copyright Office’s characterization of this shift. According to the Copyright Office, the “balance” has shifted almost uniformly in favor of online service providers (OSPs) to the detriment of rightsholders who own copyrights.

In the nearly-200-page report, the Copyright Office takes a critical look at the DMCA’s “safe-harbor” provisions, ultimately concluding that certain aspects of Section 512 have become “unbalanced” in the twenty years since it was enacted. On May 21, 2020, the United States Copyright Office published a long-anticipated report assessing the efficacy of Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).