Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ( Ocilla ) ( Analogously: Act on Limitation of Liability for Copyright Infringement in the Internet ) is a law of the United States to facilitate the liability of online services, in particular Internet service providers for copyright infringement.
The law is also known as DMCA 512, because it is part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA) and was added as Section 512 of the United States Code ( federal law of the United States). A different name is also Safe Harbor ( Safe Harbor ) an analogy from the English legal language for quite a safe area, especially a statutory liability relief for actions in good faith under predefined conditions.
Overview
Ocilla is to create as implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996 ) between the legitimate interests of copyright owners and digital users a balance. This attempt by both the primary liability of Internet service providers for breach of copyright files offered limited and its secondary liability for the unlawful acts of uploading users.
To be eligible for the liability relief, an Internet service provider must firstly develop and implement a reasonable way to contact to delete user accounts that repeatedly infringe copyright, and. Second, it must implement this approach with standardized technical means, without hindering them. Then they can use the safe harbor for four different actions take: submit, caching ( caching ), store or link of urheberrechtswidrigem material. The safe harbor means that the ISP can not be sentenced to pay damages, but probably one making no further copyright infringement.
In addition to the general precautions, there are detailed regulations for each of the four safe harbors. The Safe Harbor for storage on the Internet in accordance with § 512 (c ) is the most famous because it protects well-known actors such as Youtube. As a result of this law had to waive rights of both copyright owners and users of the Internet. The copyright holder of lost compensation claims against the easily accessible and in the regular graduates Internet service provider, the user lost a part of their anonymity because the Internet service provider must disclose in these alleged copyright infringement.
Storage on the Internet
§ 512 (c ) applies to online services that store copyright infringing material. In addition to the two general requirements that the services use standard protective mechanisms and exclude repeat offenders applies the liability relief only if the online service for the first has no direct financial benefit from the infringement of copyright, secondly was in good faith, so neither knew of the copyright nor knew facts which would indicate that and thirdly respond promptly to a request by the alleged copyright holder.
Direct financial benefit
An online service is no direct financial benefit from the infringement of copyright have ( Original: " not receive a financial benefit Directly attribute- able to the infringing activity" ). What is a direct financial benefit is subject to interpretation and not always clear. While Napster was attributed to a direct benefit because Napster's system meant that more and more customers Napster used and so Napster's future revenue thus influenced directly, AOL was acquitted, because it could not be determined that the storage out on its servers to change the number of users had.
Good faith
May order to obtain the liability relief, the online service have no knowledge about the authorship illegality and know no facts or circumstances from which it is clear that knowledge. This does not mean that an online service to monitor its users or would search for specific copyright infringements, but he must respond to two things. Firstly, a notification of the copyright and other warning signs. Because these signs alone commit to action relieves this requirement the online service to be decided by the difficult task of whether an actual copyright infringement.
Written notification by copyright holders
The usual way is that the owner notifies the online service in writing. The complaint must contain the following data:
In such a message through the online service must disable or delete the material immediately. As long as the complaint is made with the points two, three and four, the online service must try to clarify any ambiguities. These points have all in one message, not be separated from each other in several available. After deleting the files, the online service must attempt to notify the alleged infringer immediately. But he must inform him beforehand. This may make a counter notification ( Original: " counter notification" ) leave to which the online service must respond accordingly. If the online service adheres to these requirements, it is also safe to claim damages from its users. It is common, but still no judicially established duty to leave on the main page of a website in the foot a reference to legal remarks and then the address for such complaints ( Original: " Designated agent" ) to call.
The contact person must be registered with the Copyright Office ( " Copyright Office ").
Warning signals
The second way in which the online service will be forced to act, warning signs include ( " aware of facts or Circumstances from Which infringing activity is apparent. "). This subjective and objective criteria are observed. Lens, the online service must be aware that the material in question is in his system, subjectively copyright infringement for an intelligent person in similar circumstances must be recognizable ( " infringing activity would have been apparent to a reasonable person operating under the same or similar circumstances" ).