Page 76 - A Study on the Role of UGC Platforms in Copyright Law：An Intermediary-oriented Approach

A Study on the Role of UGC Platforms in Copyright Law: Chapter 3 Copyright Rules for Online Intermediaries: From Safe Harbour to a New Intermediary Liability Scheme
An Intermediary-oriented Approach

3.2.3 The Magna Carta for Web 2.0 or a hidden danger?

Due to the stringent standard for excluding ISPs from safe harbour protection, in the ten
years after the passage of the DMCA, only 30 published decisions in the US have addressed
88
the merits of the DMCA safe harbour. Among these, only eight cases have trigged the
89
appeals process and these were decided by the circuit courts of appeal. Due to the high
standard of establishing secondary liability, in most cases the ISP merely needed to remove
the allegedly infringing material according to the copyright owners’ notice. No additional
obligations were imposed. Therefore, the safe harbour doctrine has often been called the
‘notice and take down rule’, although theoretically the condition to enter the safe harbour has
90
been more complex.
The introduction of the safe harbour doctrine signified that online intermediaries
(distributors) in the Web 1.0 era were not the target of copyright owners (producers). The
robustness of the safe harbour doctrine has provided a generous breathing space to foster the
91
Internet industry. Despite the legal uncertainty in applying the safe harbour doctrine to new

88 I searched from the source of ‘US Federal & State Cases, Combined’, used ‘safe harbor’ AND ‘copyright’ AND ‘service
provider’ as the search terms, and restricted the judgment date from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2008, which resulted in
30 valid cases.
89 Perfect 10 Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1175 (9th Cir. 2007); Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, 1109
(9th Cir. 2007); Rossi v. MPAA, 391 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2004); Costar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 552
(4th Cir. 2004); Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004); In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643,
655 (7th Cir. 2003); ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Communities, Inc. 239 F.3d 619, 622 (4th Cir. 2001); A&M Records, Inc. v.
Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1025 (9th Cir. 2001).
The other 22 cases decided by the district courts include UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., No. CV 07-5744
AHM, 2008 WL 5423841, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2008); Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., No.07 Civ. 8822(HB),
2008 WL 4974823, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2008); Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., No. C 07-3783 JF, 2008 WL 4790699,
at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2008); Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., -- F. Supp. 2d -- , 2008 WL 4065872 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
27, 2008); Doe v. Geller, 533 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Tur v. YouTube, Inc., No. CV 06-4436 FMC, 2007 WL
1893635, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2007); Tur v. YouTube, Inc., No. CV 06-4436 FMC, 2007 WL 4947612, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
June 20, 2007); Interscope Records v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388 (E.D. Va. 2007); Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d
492, 498 (E.D. Pa. 2006); Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1124 (D. Nev. 2006); Dudnikov v. MGA Ent., Inc., 410
F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1012 (D. Colo. 2005); Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1098 (W.D. Wash. 2004);
Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1204-05 (N.D. Cal. 2004); Hendrickson v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
298 F. Supp. 2d 914, 916 (C.D. Cal. 2003); Global Innovations, Inc. v. ALS Scan, Inc. (3:03-cv-01277) (C.D. Cal. 2003);
RIAA v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 351 F.3d 1229 (D.D.C. 2003); In re Verizon Internet Services, 240 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C.
2003); Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., No. 00 CIV. 4660, 2002 WL 1997918, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002); Perfect
10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Ellison v. Robertson, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1051
(C.D. Cal. 2002); Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2001); Universal City Studios, Inc. v.
Reimerdes, 82 F. Supp. 2d 211, 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
90 17 U.S. Code § 512 crafts different conditions for different categories of ISPs, but the most widely applied condition, which
is also the most controversial one, is the notice and takedown rule, e.g. Mareasa M Fortunato, ‘Let's Not Go Crazy: Why
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. Undermines the Notice and Takedown Process of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’ (2009)
17 Journal of Intellectual Property Law 147; Paul Heald, ‘How Notice-and-Takedown Regimes Create Markets for Music
on YouTube: An Empirical Study’ (2014) 83 UMKC Law Review 313; Jeffrey Cobia, ‘The Digital Millennium Copyright
Act Takedown Notice Procedure: Misuses, Abuses, and Shortcomings of the Process’ (2008) 10 Minnesota Journal of Law,
Science & Technology 387.
91 Jane C Ginsburg, ‘The Pros and Cons of Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection: Technological Protection Measures
and Section 1201 of the US Copyright Act’ (2007) Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory Working PapersPaper07137.

• 62 •