{
  "id": "R43436",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R43436",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 429114,
      "date": "2014-03-26",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:33:17.866520",
      "title": "Safe Harbor for Online Service Providers Under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act",
      "summary": "Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998 in an effort to adapt copyright law to emerging digital technologies that potentially could be used to exponentially increase infringing activities online. Title II of the DMCA, titled the \u201cOnline Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act,\u201d added a new Section 512 to the Copyright Act (Title 17 of the U.S. Code) in order to limit the liability of providers of Internet access and online services that may arise due to their users posting or sharing materials that infringe copyrights. Congress was concerned that without insulating Internet intermediaries from crippling financial liability for copyright infringement, investment in the growth of the Internet could be stifled and innovation could be harmed. \nThe \u00a7 512 \u201csafe harbor\u201d immunity is available only to a party that qualifies as a \u201cservice provider\u201d as defined by the DMCA, and only after the provider complies with certain eligibility requirements. The DMCA\u2019s safe harbors greatly limit service providers\u2019 liability based on the specific functions they could perform: (1) transitory digital network communications, (2) system caching, (3) storage of information on systems or networks at direction of users, and (4) information location tools. In exchange for the shelter from most forms of liability, the DMCA requires service providers to cooperate with copyright owners to address infringing activities conducted by the providers\u2019 customers. The safe harbor thus reflects a \u201cgrand bargain\u201d between creative content-producing industries and Internet companies that seeks to both promote investment in the Internet and protect copyright holders\u2019 intellectual property rights. \nThe DMCA expressly states that a service provider is not required to actively monitor its service for infringing activity. However, \u00a7 512 requires a service provider, upon proper notification by the copyright owner of online material being displayed or transmitted without authorization, to \u201cexpeditiously\u201d remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing material. In addition, a service provider must remove or disable access to material upon acquiring actual knowledge that materials or activities on its system or network are infringing (for example, actual knowledge can be obtained by the copyright holder\u2019s notification) or when the service provider becomes aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent (so-called \u201cred flag\u201d knowledge). Service providers that meet the eligibility conditions of the \u00a7 512 safe harbor are thus shielded from liability for unknowingly hosting content that infringes copyrights, whereas \u00a7 512 provides copyright holders a simple and cost-effective procedural mechanism for remedying online infringement of their intellectual property rights. Courts have found that the burden of actively monitoring online copyright infringement lies on copyright holders.\nThis report focuses primarily on the third safe harbor functional category, \u201cstorage of information on systems or networks at direction of users,\u201d which includes any website that stores digital content that users have uploaded for public consumption or for sharing purposes, such as popular social media and online services YouTube, Facebook, Dropbox, Flickr, Google Drive, and Blogger. The report will describe and analyze the statutory language establishing the safe harbor as well as discuss federal court cases that have considered the scope and application of the DMCA safe harbors and the extent to which online service providers can be held indirectly liable for copyright infringement committed by their users.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43436",
          "sha1": "c01149a19311deb793a5434080f55aaf70e1581f",
          "filename": "files/20140326_R43436_c01149a19311deb793a5434080f55aaf70e1581f.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43436",
          "sha1": "20adc3c92ec8bd76e4af3e4f1c1dff6a79a70ca0",
          "filename": "files/20140326_R43436_20adc3c92ec8bd76e4af3e4f1c1dff6a79a70ca0.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 2688,
          "name": "Intellectual Property Rights"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}