The Inherent Paradox in Takedown Notice Misrepresentation Claims

InternetPosted By Lauren Proper

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 introduced substantial changes to the Copyright Act of 1976. Some of these amendments created additional liability – such as the anti-circumvention provisions in Sections 1201 (a) and (b) – and some create “safe harbors” – such as limitations on liability for online service providers (OSPs) under Section 512.

A common interaction Internet users have with these provisions are when doing Google searches for music or television. When Google receives a takedown notice, it removes the content and posts a message at the bottom of the webpage listing the search results altering the user that a link has been removed pursuant to a DMCA takedown notice. Takedown notices occur under Section 512 because in order for an OSP to be protected from liability under the safe harbor provision of this statute, an OSP must disable access to the allegedly-infringing content upon receiving notice the such content is available on its servers. Continue reading


User Beware: The Legality of YouTube-to-MP3 Converters

youtube-logo-300x204Posted By: Joseph Citelli

With the proliferation of music on massively popular file-sharing websites such as YouTube and Soundcloud, musical artists face legitimate concerns in terms of protecting their copyrighted works. It is no secret that copyright holders in the music industry have aggressively engaged in an extended online anti-piracy campaign. While this campaign originally targeted file-sharing software distributors, most famously, Napster, it has continued to evolve with the technologies available. Now, more than ever, individuals may be at increased risk of litigation for infringing activity, and they might not even be aware their activity is illegal. Continue reading

To Stream or Not to Stream

Posted By: Logan Woodruff


aereo_antenna_array1The major television networks petitioned the Supreme Court on Friday October 11, 2013, to hear an appeal in their case against Aero Inc. (“Aereo”), according to a Wall Street Journal article. Amol Sharma and Shalini Ramachandran, Broadcasters Ask Supreme Court to Intervene Over Aereo, The Wall St. J. (Oct 11, 2013 4:56 PM),; see also WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc., 712 F.3d 676 (2d Cir. 2013). Aereo is an $8 a month service that records and streams local TV signals over the web for their users to watch on their mobile phones or other electronic devices.  Aero allows their users, say in New York, to have access to prime time shows and local news that is broadcast in their area.  Aereo is in 7 cities currently, and plans to grow their business to reach 22 cities by the end of 2013. Continue reading