Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Establishing Certainty About Liability for Internet Service Providers and Safe Harbor Regulations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Toward A More Balanced Approach: Rethinking and Readjusting Copyright Systems in the Digital Network Era

Abstract

This chapter will analyze the infringement liability for Internet service providers (ISPs) and safe harbor regulations. This chapter will first provide a definition of ISPs and the significance of setting up the legal certainty of their liability and exemptions. This chapter will also analyze indirect liability and safe harbor rules for ISPs established by common law cases. The influential safe harbor rule developed by the Sony case, contributory and vicarious liability developed from American landmark cases, and authorization and joint tortfeasor liabilities developed from Commonwealth landmark cases will be discussed. This chapter will then proceed to analyze a couple of liability and immunization rules enacted by statutes, including the notice and takedown regime, counter notification regime, and the subpoena procedure or Norwich Pharmacal order. This chapter will then elaborate on the recent developments in the conditions for ISP safe harbors and the remedies against ISP indirect infringement, taking the graduated response policy from the French government and injunction orders against ISPs in European courts as example. In this part, the approach of the graduated response policy, the influence of such a policy on copyright owners, ISPs and public users, and China’s response to such a policy will be further discussed. Typical cases in which ISP injunctions were granted will be analyzed to indicate the proportionality that courts should take into consideration when deciding whether to approve such remedies. This chapter will finally suggest recommendations to establish certainty for ISP liability and safe harbors in general and for China’s digital copyright reform on ISP issues in particular. Recommendations include the establishing of certain standards for important factors in the indirect liability of ISPs, reforming notice and takedown regimes by incorporating a grace period and exceptions, adopting a Norwich Pharmacal procedure to guarantee the privacy of subscribers and taking a multitude of approaches to better provide certainty for ISP liability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See China Internet Network Information Center [3].

  2. 2.

    WIPO Copyright Treaty, Art 8.

  3. 3.

    Agreed Statements Concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty, Concerning Article 8.

  4. 4.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(k)(1)(B).

  5. 5.

    Music Copyright Society of China (MCSC) v. Guangzhou NetEase Inc. and China Mobile Beijing Ltd. (in Chinese) Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court (2002) Er Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 03119.

  6. 6.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 20.

  7. 7.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 21.

  8. 8.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 22.

  9. 9.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 23.

  10. 10.

    Universal City Studios Inc. v. Sony Corporation of America 659 F2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981).

  11. 11.

    Ibid.

  12. 12.

    Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc. 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

  13. 13.

    Ibid., p. 434.

  14. 14.

    Sony Corp. of America (n 12 above), p. 439.

  15. 15.

    Sony Corp. of America (n 12 above).

  16. 16.

    Sony Corp. of America (n 12 above), p. 440.

  17. 17.

    Sony Corp. of America (n 12 above). Also see 35 US Code Section 271(c).

  18. 18.

    5 Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents: A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement Section 17.03[3] (2004).

  19. 19.

    Brief of Deirdre K. Mulligan, as Amici Curiae in Support of Reversal of Stephen J. Barrett M.D., ET. AL v. Ilena Rosenthal, No. S122953 (Supreme Court of California), available at https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/Barrett_v_Rosenthal/law_professors_amicus_brief.pdf (visited Aug 19, 2011).

  20. 20.

    A&M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc. 239F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    In re Aimster Copyright Litigation 334F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003).

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    Aimster (n 22 above).

  25. 25.

    Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. 380F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004).

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

  28. 28.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(c)(1)(A) and s 512(d)(1).

  29. 29.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(c)(1)(B) and s 512(d)(2).

  30. 30.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(c)(1)(C)and s 512(d)(3).

  31. 31.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 22.

  32. 32.

    Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. 718F.Supp.2d 514 (2010).

  33. 33.

    Provisions on Certain Issues Related to the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Disputes over Infringement of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 8.

  34. 34.

    Viacom (n 32 above).

  35. 35.

    Viacom (n 32 above).

  36. 36.

    Falcon v. Famous Players Film Co. Ltd. [1926] 2KB 474 (CA); University of New South Wales v. Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1.

  37. 37.

    Falcon and University of New South Wales (n 36 above).

  38. 38.

    WEA International Inc. v. Hanimex Corporation Ltd. (1987) 10 IPR 349; RCA Corp v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1982) RPC 91; Australian Tape Manufacturers Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia (1993) 25 IPR 1.

  39. 39.

    Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd. v. Jain (1990) 18 IPR 663.

  40. 40.

    University of New South Wales v. Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1.

  41. 41.

    Australia Copyright (Digital Agenda) Amendment Act 2000, s 36(1A).

  42. 42.

    Explanatory Memorandum to the Digital Agenda Bill, paragraph 57.

  43. 43.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(c)(2).

  44. 44.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(c)(3)(A).

  45. 45.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(c)(3)(B).

  46. 46.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(m).

  47. 47.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 14.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 15.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.

  51. 51.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(g)(2)(A).

  52. 52.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(g)(3).

  53. 53.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(g)(2)(B).

  54. 54.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(g)(2)(C).

  55. 55.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 16.

  56. 56.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 17.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 24.

  59. 59.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(h)(1).

  60. 60.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(h)(2).

  61. 61.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, ss 512(h)(3)–(4).

  62. 62.

    The US Copyright Act of 1976, s 512(h)(5).

  63. 63.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 13.

  64. 64.

    Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, Art 25.

  65. 65.

    “Norwich Pharmacal Orders: A Quick Guide,” available at http://ld.practicallaw.com/0-211-3137 (visited Sept 1, 2011).

  66. 66.

    “Preliminary Proposals for Strengthening Copyright Protection in the Digital Environment,” available at http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/intellectual_property/copyright/Consultation_Document_Prelim_Proposals_Eng(full).pdf (visited Sept 1, 2011).

  67. 67.

    See n 65 above.

  68. 68.

    Dish Network LLC & Others v. Zentek International Co. Ltd. & Another [2009] HKEC 220, available at http://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2008/887.html?stem=&synonyms=&query=title(Dish%20Network%20LLC (visited May 17, 2014).

  69. 69.

    Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_response (visited Sept 1, 2011).

  70. 70.

    Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the current negotiations by the European Union of an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), paragraphs 21 & 22, available at http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2010/10-02-22_ACTA_EN.pdf (visited Sept 1, 2011).

  71. 71.

    “Internet Law-Developments in ISP Liability in Europe,” available at http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=2126&s=latestnews (visited Sept 1, 2011).

  72. 72.

    Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147937.pdf (visited Sept 7, 2011).

  73. 73.

    Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, s 5, paragraphs 2–4, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147937.pdf (visited Sept 7, 2011).

  74. 74.

    Proposals for Strengthening Copyright Protection in the Digital Environment, available at http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-10/english/panels/ci/papers/ci1117cb1-341-8-e.pdf (visited May 17, 2014).

  75. 75.

    Michael Geist [13]. Also see Yu [8] and Haber [9].

  76. 76.

    Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, Memorandum of Law & Order, Civil File No. 06-1497 (MJD/LIB), document 457 (D. Minn. 2011), available at http://ia700504.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.82850/gov.uscourts.mnd.82850.457.0.pdf (visited Sept 7, 2011). Also see “Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset,” available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas (visited Sept 7, 2011). The first trial in 2007 ordered the defendant to pay $222,000 in statutory damages. The second trial in 2009 ordered $1,920,000 in statutory damages and later reduced the amount to $54,000. The third trial in 2010 resulted in an award of $1.5 million and was reduced by court in July 2011 to $54,000 or $2,250 per song.

  77. 77.

    Chan Nai Ming v. HKSAR [2007] 10H.K.C.F.A.R. 273 (C.F.A.).

  78. 78.

    United States v. Dove 585F. Supp. 2d 865 (W.D. Va. 2008).

  79. 79.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 19.

  80. 80.

    “Hebei: the Graduated Response System May Inhibit Online Infringement and Piracy,” (in Chinese), available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/wqyz/dfxx/201104/t20110407_595456.html (visited May 17, 2014).

  81. 81.

    “Investigation of Status Quo of Copyright Protection in the Network Age: Severe Burden of Proof Makes Protection of Rights Difficult,” (in Chinese), available at http://www.ce.cn/xwzx/gnsz/gdxw/201104/01/t20110401_22340359_1.shtml (visited Sept 7, 2011).

  82. 82.

    According to the list of judgments complied by Judge Arnold in 20th Century Fox v. BT ruled by the High Court of London in the United Kingdom, the judgments that granted injunction orders include IFPI Danmark v. Tele 2 A/S ruled by Copenhagen City Court, SABAM v. Tiscali SA ruled by Brussels Court of First Instance, IFPI Danmark v. DMT2 A/S ruled by Fredericksburg Court, sub nom Telenor v. IFPI ruled by Danish Supreme Court, Bergamo Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Kolmisoppi ruled by Italian Supreme Court of Cessation, Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v. Portlane AB ruled by Swedish Court of Appeal, and Constantine Film v. UPC ruled by Commercial Court of Austria.

  83. 83.

    According to the list of judgments complied by Judge Arnold in 20th Century Fox v. BT ruled by the High Court of London in the United Kingdom, the judgments that refused injunction orders include Nordic Records Norway AS v. Telenor ASA ruled by Borgarting Court of Appeal, Stichting Bescherming Rechten Entertainment Industrie Nederland (BREIN) v. Ziggo BV ruled by District Court of the Hague, and EMI v. UPC ruled by High Court of Ireland.

  84. 84.

    Information Society Directive, Recital 59 and Art 8(3); IP Enforcement Directive, Art 11.

  85. 85.

    Information Society Directive, Art 8(1); IP Enforcement Directive, Art 3(2).

  86. 86.

    IP Enforcement Directive, Art 3(1).

  87. 87.

    Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM (c-70/10, 2011), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0070:EN:HTML (visited Nov 2, 2013).

  88. 88.

    Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM judgment, paragraphs 38–40.

  89. 89.

    Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM judgment, paragraph 48.

  90. 90.

    Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM judgment, paragraphs 50–52.

  91. 91.

    “The Twentieth Century Fox v. BT Decision: A New Development in the Debate About ISP Obligations to Prevent Copyright Infringement,” (2011) Communications Law Bulletin Vol. 30(2) available at http://www.hdy.com.au/Media/docs/DOC121011-5a25b007-23a0-4ea6-a465-241cd4090c2d-0.pdf (visited Nov 2, 2013).

  92. 92.

    Ibid.

  93. 93.

    20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. British Telecommunications plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) judgment, paragraph 148.

  94. 94.

    Ibid.

  95. 95.

    See n 93 above.

  96. 96.

    20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. British Telecommunications plc judgment, paragraph 200.

  97. 97.

    Copyright Protection in the Digital Environment, available at http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/intellectual_property/copyright/digital_environment.htm (visited Sept 1, 2011).

  98. 98.

    Preliminary Proposals for Strengthening Copyright Protection in the Digital Environment, available at http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/intellectual_property/copyright/Consultation_Document_Prelim_Proposals_Eng(full).pdf (visited Sept 1, 2011).

  99. 99.

    See n 74 above.

References

  1. China Internet Network Information Center. Semiannual survey report on development of China’s Internet (January 2001). Available at http://www.cnnic.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/200906/P020120709345368965113.pdf (in Chinese)

  2. China Internet Network Information Center. 17th statistical survey report on the Internet development in China (January 2006). Available at http://www.cnic.cas.cn/qkbg/cnnictjbg/cnnictjfz/200601/P020090819615860278077.pdf. Visited 17 May 2014 (in Chinese).

  3. China Internet Network Information Center. 28th statistical survey report on the Internet development in China (July 2011). Available at http://www1.cnnic.cn/IDR/ReportDownloads/201209/P020120904421102801754.pdf. Visited 17 May 2014.

  4. Ginsburg, J. C. (2010). User-generated content sites and Section 512 of the US Copyright Act. In I. A. Stamatoudi (Ed.), Copyright enforcement and the Internet. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  5. US Copyright Office. (1998). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998: US Copyright Office Summary. Available at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf. Visited 17 Aug 2011.

  6. Ginsburg, J., & Ricketson, S. (2006). Inducers and authorisers: A comparison of the US Supreme Court’s Grokster decision and the Australian Federal Court’s KaZaa ruling. Media and Arts Law Review, 11, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Weinberg, M. (2010). Three strikes, exile, and Judge Dredd. Available at http://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/three-strikes-exile-and-judge-dredd. Visited 17 May 2014.

  8. Yu, P. K. (2010). The graduated response. Florida Law Review, 62, 1373–1430.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Haber, E. (2010). The French revolution 2.0: Copyright and the three strikes policy. Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, 2, 297–339.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Meyer, D. Europe ‘will not accept’ three strikes in ACTA treaty. ZDNet (26 February 2010). Available at http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/networking/2010/02/26/europe-will-not-accept-three-strikes-in-acta-treaty-40057434/. Visited 7 Sept 2011.

  11. Sookman, B., & Glover, D. Graduated response and copyright: An idea that is right for the times (20 January 2010). Available at http://www.barrysookman.com/2010/01/20/graduated-response-and-copyright-an-idea-that-is-right-for-the-times/. Visited 7 Sept 2011.

  12. Frieden, R. (2008). Internet packet sniffing and its impact on the network neutrality debate and the balance of power between intellectual property creators and consumers. Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 18, 633–675.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Geist, M. Estimating the cost of a three-strikes and you’re out system (26 Jan 2010). Available at http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4731/135. Visited 7 Sept 2011.

  14. Patry, W. (2009). Moral panics and the copyright wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Burger, J. (2009). Filtering & graduated response against online infringers. Available at http://www.dvd-and-beyond.com/features/feature.php?feature=118. Visited 14 May 2014.

  16. Zavin, J. (2011). Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. British Telecommunications plc. Available at http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6cbbb90c-f32f-4dbe-a4ef-8ef993e1aea6. Visited 17 May 2014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deacons (Hong Kong), Hong Kong, China

    Jerry Jie Hua

Authors
  1. Jerry Jie Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hua, J.J. (2014). Establishing Certainty About Liability for Internet Service Providers and Safe Harbor Regulations. In: Toward A More Balanced Approach: Rethinking and Readjusting Copyright Systems in the Digital Network Era. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43517-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation