The Death of Fair Use in Cyberspace: YouTube and the Problem With Content ID

YouTube has grown exponentially over the past several years. With that growth came unprecedented levels of copyright infringement by uploaders on the site, forcing YouTube’s parent company, Google Inc., to introduce a new technology known as Content ID. This tool allows YouTube to automatically scan and identify potential cases of copyright infringement on an unparalleled scale. However, Content ID is overbroad in its identification of copyright infringement, often singling out legitimate uses of content. Every potential case of copyright infringement identified by Content ID triggers an automatic copyright claim on behalf of the copyright holder on YouTube and subsequently freezes all revenue streams, for all parties, regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying claim. Using the plight of one video game reviewer known as “Angry Joe” as a paradigmatic example of the problems that Content ID can create, this Issue Brief argues that in its present form, Content ID has had disastrous consequences for the doctrine of fair use, YouTube itself, and ultimately, the very spirit of copyright law. By shifting the neutral presumption accompanied with fair use against the uploader, Content ID effectively overrides judicial precedent

Search engine liability for copyright infringement

The chapter provides a broad overview to the topic of search engine liability for copyright infringement. In doing so, the chapter examines some of the key copyright law principles and their application to search engines. The chapter also provides an import discussion of some of the most important cases to be decided within the courts of the United States, Australia, China and Europe regarding the liability of search engines for copyright infringement. Finally, the chapter will conclude with some thoughts for reform, including how copyright law can be amended in order to accommodate and realise the great informative power which search engines have to offer society

Computer Bulletin Board Operator Liability for Users\u27 Infringing Acts

This Note argues that a computer bulletin board operator\u27s liability for copyright infringement by users of the bulletin board should be analyzed under the theory of contributory copyright infringement. This Note calls for a standard of liability under contributory copyright infringement that accommodates the competing interests at stake in the resolution of this issue. Part I provides an overview of copyright infringement law and argues that in most situations the operator\u27s actions, viewed independently, do not constitute copyright infringement. Part II explores theories of third-party liability. This Part rejects the doctrine of vicarious liability as an effective means for establishing bulletin board operator liability and argues that contributory copyright infringement theory provides a more solid foundation for finding operator liability. Part III then proposes that courts employ a negligence standard to analyze contributory copyright infringement claims against bulletin board operators

Copyright Infringement Markets

Should copyright infringement claims be treated as marketable assets? Copyright law has long emphasized the free and independent alienability of its exclusive rights. Yet, the right to sue for infringement — that copyright law simultaneously grants authors in order to render its exclusive rights operational — has never been thought of as independently assignable, or indeed as the target of investments by third parties. As a result, discussions of copyright law and policy rarely ever consider the possibility of an acquisition or investment market emerging for actionable copyright claims, and the advantages that such a market might hold for copyright’s goals, objectives and functioning. This Essay analyzes the opportunities and challenges presented by an independent market for copyright claims, and argues that copyright law, policy, and practice would stand to benefit from the regulated involvement of third parties in acquiring, financing, bringing, and defending infringement claims

Piggybackers and freeloaders: platform economics and indirect liability for copyright infringement

Many, if not most, copyright cases of alleged indirect liability for copyright infringement arise in platform markets: One of the litigating parties is a market intermediary that connects members of different distinct groups. Indirect liability for copyright infringement is still controversial and frequently litigated. This paper develops an analytical framework that is applicable to many of the debated cases. The presented framework offers strong justifications for the imposition of indirect liability for copyright infringement in platform markets and offers tools to establish certain elements of indirect liability for copyright infringement

Increasing Copyright Protection for Social Media Users by Expanding Social Media Platforms\u27 Rights

Social media platforms allow users to share their creative works with the world. Users take great advantage of this functionality, as Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, Snapchat, and WhatsApp users alone uploaded 1.8 billion photos per day in 2014. Under the terms of service and terms of use agreements of most U.S. based social media platforms, users retain ownership of this content, since they only grant social media platforms nonexclusive licenses to their content. While nonexclusive licenses protect users vis-à-vis the social media platforms, these licenses preclude social media platforms from bringing copyright infringement claims on behalf of their users against infringers of user content under the Copyright Act of 1976. Since the average cost of litigating a copyright infringement case might be as high as two million dollars, the average social media user cannot protect his or her content against copyright infringers. To remedy this issue, Congress should amend 17 U.S.C. § 501 to allow social media platforms to bring copyright infringement claims against those who infringe their users’ content. Through this amendment, Congress would create a new protection for social media users while ensuring that users retain ownership over the content they create

Newsgroups Float Into Safe Harbor, and Copyright Holders Are Sunk

Usenet newsgroups are swiftly becoming a popular vehicle for pirating digital music, movies, books, and other copyrighted works. Meanwhile, courts ignore Usenet’s tremendous potential for copyright infringement. In Ellison v. Robertson, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that America Online’s Usenet service might qualify for safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. According to the district court below, safe harbor would preclude a finding of secondary copyright infringement against America Online. However, the courts misinterpreted the safe harbor provisions. One safe harbor provision was misapplied and another was ignored altogether. This iBrief critiques the Ellison opinions and analyzes the application of the safe harbor provisions to Usenet operators