Digital Millennium Copyright Act how to remove us digital millennium copyright act

A service of Stephen W. Workman P.C

Home Areas of Practice Contracts & Licenses Advertising Law Internet Law Media Law Entertainment Law Domain Disputes Software Development Content Production Meet Steve Articles Resources & Links Testimonials Contact Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Disclaimer Main Menu Home Areas of Practice Meet Steve Articles Resources & Links Testimonials Contact Us Resources & Links U.S. Copyright Office World Intellectual Property Organization U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Federal Trade Commission National Advertising Division of the BBB Internet Corporation for Assigned Names Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Impact of the New Copyright Laws on Online Copyright Infringement By Steve Workman, Esq.

In another last article, also found on this web site, we took a look at the principles of copyright law and traditional notions of "third-party" liability for online copyright infringement. Hopefully, you are now armed with a good understanding of how those principles might apply to your Internet activities.

Now, let's turn out attention to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA is not an example of legislative clarity -- it's a terribly cumbersome statute. Nevertheless, it's my purpose here to try to relate its meaning and intent. As far as web site owner/operators and service providers are concerned, the main import of the DMCA is found at Title II: the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation." Title II adds a new section to the Copyright Act, Section 512, which limits liability for online service providers for acts of copyright infringement committed by their clients.

The liability limitations in Section 512 relate to four, distinct categories of conduct by a service provider: (1) transitory communications; (2) system caching; (3) storage of information on systems or networks at the direction of clients; and (4) information location tools. Each limitation affords a total bar on monetary damages against the service provider, and restricts the availability of injunctive relief. Moreover, a finding that a service provider qualifies for one of the limitations has no relevance to a determination of whether the provider qualifies for any of the other three -- they are distinct and separate inquiries.

The fundamental question in this entire new regime is, of course, who is eligible as a "service provider"? For purposes of the first limitation concerning transitory communications, a "service provider" is defined as "an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between and among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received." For purposes of the other three limitations, "service provider" is more broadly defined as "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor."

Now this is important, so take note of this next condition: Section 512 also requires that, in order for a service provider to be eligible for liability limitations, it must do two things: first, it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of clients who are repeat infringers and, second, it must accommodate and not interfere with "standard technical measures" regarding copyright identification and protection.

Limitations for Transitory Communications

Section 512(a) protects providers when they serve merely as a pipeline for data, transmitting digital information from one point on a network to another at someone else's request (initiation). The liability limitation here includes acts of transmission, routing or providing connections for the information, as well as intermediate and transient copies of the information that are made automatically in the operation of the network. To be eligible for this limitation, the service provider must meet the following conditions:

the transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider; the transmission, routing, provisions of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material; the provider must not determine who receives the material; any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients and not retained for longer than reasonably necessary; and the material must be transmitted without modification to its content. Limitation for System Caching

Section 512(b) of the new law limits the liability of service providers for retaining copies of material that has been made available online by someone other than the provider, and then transmitted to a subscriber at his request. The provider retains the material so that later requests for the same material can be fulfilled by transmitting the retained copy, rather than retrieving the material from the original source. This practice reducers the service provider's bandwidth requirements and reduces waiting time on subsequent requests for that material. A drawback of this "caching" practice is that it can result in outdated material being provided to a subscriber and can deprive webmasters of accurate "hit" information.

The liability limitation of Section 512(b) applies to intermediate and temporary storage carried out through an automatic process for the purpose of making the material available to subscribers who subsequently request it. The following conditions apply:

the content of the retained material cannot be modified; the provider must comply with rules about "refreshing" material when specified in accordance with generally accepted industry protocol; the provider cannot interfere with "hit" information technology; the provider must limit access to the material in accordance with the terms imposed for access by the person who posted the information (e.g., the webmaster); and any material posted in violation of copyright, and which has been removed or blocked on the originating site, must be removed or blocked by the provider. Limitation for Information Residing on Systems at the Direction of Users.

The next limitation is set forth at Section 512(c), and concerns liability of service providers for infringing material appearing on web sites hosted by their systems. In order to be eligible for this limitation on liability, the provider must meet the following conditions:

the provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge of the infringing activity; if the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, it must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; if the provider receives a notice in proper form concerning alleged copyright infringement relating to material appearing in a client web site, the provider must expeditiously remove or block the material, unless a proper counter-notice is received by the provider. the provider must have filed with the U.S. Copyright Office a designated agent for receipt of notices of claimed infringement.

Of course, the knowledge standard is of critical importance here. A service provider will only be eligible for this limitation on liability if (i) it does not have actual knowledge of the infringing activity; (ii) it is not aware of facts from which infringing activity by the web site is apparent; or (iii) upon learning such facts, it responds expeditiously to remove or block access to the infringing activity.

The notice provision is also important because the copyright owner, or other person claiming rights under copyright, must comply with the notice specifications set forth in the statute. A simple letter which demands the allegedly infringing material be removed is not enough. The notice must contain the following: (i) a signature or equivalent of the copyright claimant or authorized representative; (ii) a complete or representative list identifying the copyrighted works allegedly infringed by the user; (iii) information about the location of the allegedly infringing material such that the provider can locate and remove or block the material; (iv) adequate contact information to enable the provider to contact the complaining party; (v) a statement from the copyright claimant or his representative stating in good faith that the complained of material is infringing copyright; and (vi) a statement signed under pen how-to-remove-us-digital-millennium-copyright-act-rid-0.html. moncler usa storesalty of perjury by the complaining party that he is authorized to be asserting the complaint.

Once such a notice has been received by the service provider's designated agent (whose identity and address must be listed on the provider's web site), the provider must take reasonable steps to forward the notice to the alleged infringing user, e.g., the webmaster. This is because the statute wants to afford users an adequate time to respond, in order to prevent removal of material based on inaccurate or fraudulent notices. After receiving the notice, the user may submit a counter-notice, in essentially the same form as the notice, to the provider's agent, then the provider must pass the counter-notice on to the complaining party. If this occurs, the provider must restore access to the material removed or blocked as a result of the original notice within 10-14 business days after receipt of the counter-notice.

Limitation for Information Location Tools

The fourth category of activity covered by Section 512 concerns online directories, search engines and hyperlinks. Section 512(d) limits liability for the acts of referring or linking users to a site that contains infringing material, if the following conditions are met:

the provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge that the material is infringing (same "scienter" standard as used in Section 512(c)); if the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; and upon receiving notification of claimed infringement, in the form of a proper notice, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the allegedly infringing material.

The conditions described above are essentially the same as those for Section 512(c), but with some differences to the notification requirements. There are also safeguards here against erroneous or fraudulent notifications. As with section c, this section also includes protections for the provider against claims which may be asserted as a result of the material having been removed or blocked.

*   *   *

The DMCA could be interpreted to concede that a service provider has the requisite level of participation for potential liability under a contribution theory. But the second prong of the equation, i.e., knowledge, must also be present to support a finding of contributory infringement. If a service provider is reasonably unaware of copyright infringement occurring on a client site, liability cannot properly follow. Of course, a party complaining of copyright infringement on a client sites could attempt to impose knowledge a provider by making a phone call, or sending a brief, cryptic e-mail, informing it of the alleged infringement. This is where the "safe harbor" provisions of Section 512 become so helpful. Unless such notice conforms to the requirements set forth in that statute, a service provider cannot be deemed to have "knowledge" of the infringement!

On the other hand, when might a service provider be held vicariously liable for copyright infringements occurring on a client site? The answer to this question, obviously, depends on the extent of control exercised over client sites, together with the basis of the financial participation in the client sites' revenues. In my opinion, vicarious liability cannot follow from the mere fact that a host reserves the right to terminate or refuse service if it determines that client site content may be unlawful or otherwise objectionable. I believe such a contractual provision does not rise to the level of "control" or "supervision" necessary to create a situation analogous to "respondeat superior." Even if it did, vicarious liability still requires the additional finding of "financial benefit" from the infringing activities. This test could be met, in theory, in circumstances where a provider receives a percentage of revenues generated by the client site. However, a mere flat rate, or fee based on bandwidth is not, in my opinion, enough to establish the requisite "financial benefit" to impose liability. This conclusion is supported by the safe harbor rules of new Section 512. If fees charged by service providers constituted "financial benefit," then no provider could ever obtain the benefits of this statute. (Extending this logic, neither should a transaction processing fee charged by a credit card processor give rise to vicarious liability; card processors have been dragged into court on this theory, but I am unaware of one ever having been found liable).

In short, new Section 512 serves to insulate service providers from the risk of being hauled into court, and thereafter being held liable, under the theories of vicarious liability and contributory infringement, so long as the provider complies with its obligations under the statute. If a service provider does not conform to the conditions set forth in the statute, whether it be sections (a), (b) (c) or (d), traditional principles of third-party liability for copyright infringement, discussed at the outset of this article, would then apply.

Does DMCA affect the liability of webmasters and web site owners for copyright infringement? The answer depends on the nature of the site. Remember, the limitations of liability contained in Section 512 are directed to "service providers." However, certain passive web site operations, such as a site which serves merely as a passive conduit for the posting of material, arguably could qualify as "service providers." In any case, I believe the DMCA will have the salutary effect of giving owners and operators of web sites more thorough notice of any alleged copyright violations. This is because, insofar as persons who seek to make claims of copyright infringement against a web site typically desire to retain the option of including that site's service providers in any subsequent lawsuit, claimants will have a strong motive to comply with the strict notice provisions of Section 512 to preserve that option. But it is important to remember that formal notice is not required as a prerequisite to filing suit against webmasters and site owners for copyright infringement, whether as a direct, vicarious or contributory infringer. For this reason, to the extent a webmaster receives complaints of copyright infringement, those complaints should be handled in a professional fashion and related to your legal counsel, or a designated staff person, for further investigation.

Steven Workman, is an intellectual property, entertainment law and new media attorney, secializing in e-commerce and the Internet industry. Mr. Workman is a memberof the bars of the States of California and Illinois and is a pending member of the Florida bar. Mr. Workman received his J.D. with highest honors from the University of Illinois in 1986.

Breadcrums Homepage Articles Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Privacy Policy -

how to remove us digital millennium copyright act

replica moncler jackets suppliers
mens red moncler t shirt
complaint definition government
mens moncler down jacket sale
moncler mens shoes fall winter Protection for infringing material posted by others: DMCA safe harbor provisions Type:  ESSAY

Your liability for content posted to your site by third parties is not limited to defamation . Rather, if you publish the expressive works of others without their permission, you could be liable for copyright infringement. Much like it did in adopting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , though, Congress adopted legislation that protects online service providers from liability for money damages for infringement when the service providers merely transmit or temporarily store digital information for their subscribers.

Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains what are called the “safe harbor” provisions for online service providers. These provisions may shield you from liability for the copyright infringements of your site’s users and for your provision of links to copyright-infringing material from other Internet sources as long as you have effective notice-and-takedown procedures, promptly remove content when a copyright owner notifies you that it is infringing and have no actual or effective knowledge that the posted material is infringing.

Two provisions of Section 512 are potentially relevant to your online publishing activities. Under 512(c), you are not liable for money damages for user-generated content that infringes another copyright as long as

you are not aware of any infringing content on your site nor know of any “red flags” that would make an infringement apparent;

you do not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity if you have the right and ability to control that activity; and

you act expeditiously to remove the infringing content from your site once you have received proper notice of the infringement.

Note that this protection extends only to service providers who merely transmit or temporarily store digital information for their subscribers. If a service provider selects or alters the content, for example, he or she will likely have to pay the copyright owner monetary damages for the infringements of others.  

While Section 512(c) applies to material posted by other users, Section 512(d) shields online service providers themselves from money damages for copyright infringement that occurs when they refer or link users to an online location containing infringing material. That is, if you link to material without knowing that it infringed another’s copyright, you are not liable as long as

you are not aware that the material you linked to is infringing nor know of any “red flags” that would make the infringement apparent;

you do not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity if you have the right and ability to control that activity; and

you act expeditiously to remove access to the infringing material from your site, most likely through removal of the link, once you have received proper notice of the infringement. ( The Citizen Media Law Project points out that if a complaining party does not include several pieces of information statutorily required to appear in the notice, such as information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party for example, such notice will not serve as "actual notice" for the purposes of Section 512. 

These safe harbor provisions could provide valuable protection to you as a web site operator. In order to take advantage of them, however, you must comply with three administrative requirements:

You must designate an agent, usually yourself though it may be someone else who agrees to do so, to receive notices of claimed copyright infringement. Your agent must provide up-to-date contact information so that copyright owners who believe their work is being infringed on your site can send complaints or take-down notices to him or her. To designate an agent, a procedural requirement for protection under the DMCA safe harbor provisions, you must file an interim designation with the U.S. Copyright Office and submit a $105 filing fee.

You must publish on your site your policy for addressing repeated infringing activity, specifically a statement that you terminate users or account holders who are repeat infringers. If you have no subscribers or account holders, your policy may state, “If we become aware that one of our users is a repeat copyright infringer, it is our policy to take reasonable steps within our power to terminate that user.” Including the policy statement in the web site's terms of service or privacy agreements makes logical sense, though it may be published elsewhere on the site. 

You must properly comply with a notice of claimed infringement when received, including

the expeditious removal of the material that is claimed to be infringing;

notification to the user or subscriber that the material has been removed;

notification to the copyright holder if proper counter-notice is provided by the user or subscriber; and

restoration of the removed material if proper counter-notice is provided, and the copyright holder does not file suit within 10 days.

Both the Citizen Media Law Project and Electronic Frontier Foundation provide additional useful information about protection from liability for money damages for copyright infringement under the DMCA safe harbor provisions.

MediaNet Blog FAQ: How Does The DMCA Really Work? Posted by Glen Sears | May 27, 2015 10:00 am | No Comments

Tags: copyright , DMCA , WIPO


If you’re a part of the music industry at any stage, you’ve almost certainly heard of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Yet despite being over 15 years old, many industry professionals don’t have a firm grasp on what it means or how it works.

What is the DMCA?

As the internet’s popularity exploded in the late 1990s, media industry executives from Hollywood to Nashville and abroad were searching for a way to protect their intellectual property online. To that end, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) implemented new copyright policies in 1996 for their member nations to adopt. Their role as the primary rights protection organization on the planet assured that most nations would adopt similar rules.

The United States government convened to create updated legislation that both aligned with the new WIPO treaties and established protections for businesses operating in the new digital world. It was named the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1998.

While a complicated piece of legislation, the DMCA has three major points of interest for music industry professionals: (1) making circumvention of Digital Rights Management (DRM) illegal, (2) providing ISPs, web hosts, search engines, and other “interactive services” immunity when its users infringe on copyright, and (3) updating compulsory license law to include webcasting.

DRM & Anti-Circumvention

Many pundits credit the anti-circumvention measures in the DMCA  (Title I) with the proliferation of technologies like the DVD and the subsequent success of companies like Blockbuster and Netflix. From an industry standpoint anti-circumvention measures made adopting emergent technology much easier. However, some like the Electronic Frontier Foundation now posit that these same anti-circumvention measures are stifling innovation and “have not been used as Congress envisioned.”

Whatever the case may be in regard to anti-circumvention, arguably the far more important part of the DMCA is Title II, which deals with “Safe Harbor” legislation. This section also lays out the groundwork for what we now know as the DMCA Takedown Notice, and its importance in the modern music and technology industries cannot be overstated.

DMCA Safe Harbor

Piracy of copyrighted materials such as master recordings or movies doesn’t just involve the end user and pirate. Transmission of pirated material often involves internet service providers (ISPs), hosting services such as GoDaddy, search engines such as Google, and “interactive services” such as Soundcloud and YouTube — usually without their knowledge.

Safe Harbor provisions protect these companies from legal action related to copyright infringement on their networks, so long as they implement specific takedown procedures. This protection was pivotal to the internet as we know it today. Services like YouTube, lacking these protections, could be buried in direct litigation for material residing on their servers that infringed a rights holders copyright.

To qualify, a service provider must 1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material.

DMCA Takedown Notices

So, what happens when an artist, songwriter, publisher, label, or other rights holder discovers their work improperly hosted on one of these services? The rights holder submits a DMCA Takedown Notice to the service provider requesting the material be removed. That notice, given to the service provider’s listed DMCA agent, sets in motion a series of actions:

Upon receiving the Takedown Notice, the service provider must remove the work in question and inform the Original Poster (OP) of the action. The OP now has the option to counter the claim of copyright infringement by providing notice of their right to use or post the work in question. If they do not, the work stays removed. If the OP does submit a counter-notice, the rights holder has 14 days to issue a lawsuit or the material will be reinstated as the OP had posted.

Writing a DMCA Takedown Notice is easy, as this article on WikiHow shows.  Similarly, writing a DMCA counter-notice is easy.  In both cases, you must identify yourself, the material, your claim to the material, and state both the verity of your claim and your consent to the proper legal jurisdiction.

Takedowns themselves don’t have a set time frame, only “expeditious” action is required. Different service providers have different interpretations of “expeditious,” and the time between a Takedown Notice submission and the actual takedown varies. Some services like Muso will automate this process for you, sending notices, follow-ups, and aiding in the legal process.

If the OP has no counter-claim to the Takedown Notice, the takedown is complete. Certain service providers levy penalties on posters for having successful DMCA Takedowns leveraged against them. Others simply remove the content and move on.

If the OP does have a counter-claim, a protracted legal case is possible but unlikely. In many cases the Takedown Notice is merely an oversight and the counter-claim ends the conversation. If this is the case, the rights holder is then liable to the OP for any damages resulting from improper removal. In the event that the rights dispute does make it to court, cases can sometimes last a year or more.

As the landscape becomes more complex, service providers are seeing their Safe Harbor come into question more often. This has lead some to speculate that Safe Harbor protection is less robust than it used to be.  In any event, the DMCA Takedown Notice system remains the primary way for rights holders to remove infringing material from services without penalizing their providers.

Compulsory Licensing

Title IV of the DMCA also largely expanded compulsory licensing. Compulsory licensing is a part of copyright law that allows an individual or company to use another’s intellectual property without first seeking the rights holder’s consent. In exchange, that individual or company pays the rights holder a set fee for the license.

Essentially, the rights holder is required to allow another entity to use their copyrighted material, in exchange for royalties at a rate set by Congress (the Statutory Rate). Prior to the DMCA, compulsory licenses were granted for things such as jukeboxes, cable broadcasts, or use on public broadcasting stations.

The DMCA expanded the umbrella of compulsory licensing to include “webcasting.” This opened the door for things like simulcasting of television events, streaming of concerts, and other synchronized licenses to exist as compulsory licenses, rather than be subject to pre-arranged deals. This also removed a large barrier for fledgling fields like podcasting and online radio.

One More Thing: Boats?

Title V of the DMCA added a unique copyright protection: boat hulls.  Hull designs were not covered under copyright law because they are useful articles whose form cannot be clearly separated from their function. So if you’re a musician or label owner who also builds boats in their spare time — you have another reason to love the DMCA.

Read the full U.S. Copyright Office Digital Millennium Copyright Act summary  here.

Have questions about the MediaNet platform? Ask us here. Want a topic or insight published on this blog? Ask us here. Other questions or comments? Let us know!

No Comments

No comments yet.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

The MediaNet Blog Insights, News, Announcements, and Updates on MediaNet and the ever-changing world of music, technology, industry, and law.

Get Weekly Music News Updates Directly To Your Inbox! Recent posts Pandora CEO May Be Stepping Down, Apple Music Wants Lower Royalty Payments, TuneCore Nears $1B Revenue June 26, 2017 YouTube & ASCAP Announce Landmark Data Sharing Agreement, SOCAN Beats Royalty Records, Believe Digital Seeking Sale June 19, 2017 Digest: SiriusXM Buys $480M Stake in Pandora, Pandora Unloads Ticketfly, 3 Takeaways from Midem 2017 June 12, 2017 Archive June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 Categories Announcements FAQ Insights News Soundcheck Tech Uncategorized Powered by WordPress