A Copyfighter’s Musings

Earlier, I discussed Mark Lemley and R. Anthony Reese’s Stopping Digital Copyright Infringement Without Impeding Innovation, in which they suggest several ways to deal with P2P infringement instead of secondary liability for technology providers.  One of the solutions was a sort of quick infringement lawsuit process modeled after the UDRP. At the time, I was a little skeptical of it, mostly because of how they made it optional.  In a new paper (via Prof Solum), Lemley and Reese provide a much more detailed proposal and suggest Congress impose the process for certain copyright infringement over P2P.  Hopefully I’ll have comments on it later.

Filed by Derek Slater at 8:04 pm under General news
Comments Off on Lemley and Reese’s UDRP for Infringement

Frank points to news of Comcast’s sending letters to customers who MGM says are infringing.  Pretty routine, right?  What’s interesting is that they frame it as a legally-compelled DMCA notice and takedown for P2P users.

As I’ve discussed before, notice and takedown does not apply to 512(a) providers, and P2P falls under 512(a) just as it did in Verizon.  However, many ISPs may still feel the need to pursue takedowns because of 512(i), which requires disconnection for “repeat infringement.”  Comcast’s actions are but one example that the practice is continuing after Verizon.

The letter sent to the BitTorrent user also notes Comcast’s Acceptable Use Policy.  Usually, whether Comcast chooses to follow its policy would be a matter between it and the user.  Because 512(i) requires that ISPs “adopt and reasonably implement” repeat infringer policies, choosing not to follow whatever the Policy says might be a problem for Comcast; MGM could say they’re no longer implementing the Policy.  The Policy only says that Comcast will take action as the DMCA requires, so it might not be a problem, but it is another factor in the mix.

Filed by Derek Slater at 6:48 pm under General news
Comments Off on Notice and Takedowns for All