by Nancy Wolff, DMLA Legal Counsel
On April 8, 2019 I participated in a Copyright Office roundtable on behalf of DMLA Â regarding the Copyright Officeâs preparation of a Section 512 report, which relates to immunity Internet Service Providers may be entitled to under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act if they comply with various provisions. The roundtable was intended to update the studyâs record from 2017 and to review the law, especially the caselaw, that has changed in the intervening years. There were a few cases that looked at whether an ISP would lose the safe harbor immunity based on failure to adopt Â a policy for repeat infringers, and further cases that have required actual notice of each URL that contains infringing material, eliminating or narrowing statutory language that includes notice based on facts or circumstances that would make one aware of the infringing activity (known as âred flagâ knowledgeâ).
Participants were divided into four panels, three on domestic issues and one on international developments. Representatives from theÂ Copyright Office asked direct questions on each of the four panels.Â The last panel on international developments Â included comments the new EU directives that appear to require ISPs to take more responsibility in policing for infringements. At the end of the sessions there was an open mike.
Copyright Office representatives included Regan Smith, General Counsel, Brad Greenberg, Counsel for Policy & International Affairs, Kevin Amer, Deputy GC, Kimberley Isbell, Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, and Maria Strong, Deputy Director of Policy and International Affairs.
Representatives from the content community including the Copyright Alliance, RIAA, MPAA, Authors Guild AAP, RIAA, NPPA and a few individual creators were in attendance. For the content side representatives ofÂ Google, Facebook and Etsy among others were there.Â DMLA is a member of the Copyright alliance, whose staff prepared helpful summaries of the relevant cases that have been decided since the last panel
The themes discussed were similar to three years ago. The content industry saw no change in the burden of the notice and take down regime, and many were choosing to give up. The message was that cases have construed the statutory language in such a way that here is little incentive for ISPâs to cooperate in reducing infringing content. The content community was hoping that trends in the EU may spill over and help in the US.Â Conversely, the IPS community believed that the statute and court cases struck the right balance.Â The next step is for the Copyright Office to prepare a report to Congress. Whether Congress has an appetite to change Section 512 is another question.