Online Copyright Infringement Research Articles

Research in "Duty of Filtering" of Chinese E-commerce Platform in the Scope of Copyright Protection -- Refer to Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Singles Market

With the development of Internet technology and the advent of the era of user-generated content, copyright infringement occurs frequently. The e-commerce platform, which is dominant in the operating transaction space, needs to supervise and manage the selling activities of the merchants in the platform. The issue under discussion in this paper is whether the "duty of notice" to be performed by e-commerce platforms in the regulation of infringement occurs after the infringement and does not require the right holder to give effective notice of infringement to the e-commerce platform, and the criteria for determining the platform's high duty of care ("Duty of Filtering") in judicial practice. This paper adopts a literature and doctrine analysis method to summarize and analyze the core claims of scholars. By adopting the empirical analysis method, a sample of 200 judicial decisions related to the "Duty of Filtering" of e-commerce platforms in online copyright infringement was collected from various platforms, and the typical cases retrieved were summarized and integrated to summarize the current situation of judicial application of the Duty of Filtering of e-commerce platforms. Through a combination of empirical and theoretical research, the current status of the determination of the "filtering obligation" of e-commerce platforms in China is explored, as well as the court's thinking on the case that should be adjusted in light of Article 17 of the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Singles Market.

온라인상 저작권 침해에 대한 대응방안으로서 모색적 금지명령(dynamic injunction)의 도입 연구

On basis of Article 136 of Korean Copyright Act prescribing criminal sanction against copyright infringement crimes, online information which violates Korean Copyright Act can fall under one of online illegal information under Article 44-7 (1) 9 of the Act On Promotion Of Information And Communications Network Utilization And Information Protection. Article 44-7 (Prohibition on Circulation of Unlawful Information) of the Act On Promotion Of Information And Communications Network Utilization And Information Protection (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) states that “(1) No one may circulate any of the following information through an information and communications network: [omitted] 9. Other information with content that attempts to commit, aids, or abets a crime.”
 Currently, Korea Communications Standards Commission is actively responding to overseas copyright infringement by viewing information resulting from overseas online piracy as illegal information under Article 44-7 (1) 9 of the Information and Communications Network Act, and by requesting a correction measure which blocks access to overseas online sites from domestic key telecommunication operators. Therefore, the Copyright Act applies to copyright infringement on domestic online sites, but the Information and Communications Network Act and the Korea Communications Standards Act apply to copyright infringement on overseas online sites. In this sense, the regulations on online piracy are bifurcated.
 However, regular access blocking measures are not suitable for effectively preventing online copyright infringement. Due to the technical structure of the Internet, access blocking measures can be easily bypassed, and in order to avoid access blocking measures, the infringing server can be moved abroad and the pirated contents can be re-hosted and transmitted again.
 Over the past few years, a new type of injunction has emerged as an effective response to online copyright infringement. It is called as “dynamic injunction.” The dynamic injunction is a legal mechanism that allows the Internet service provider to block both the main domain name and the IP address of the pirated website, and mirror websites which quickly and easily appear under other domain names and thus remain unaffected by the original injunction order as well.
 This dynamic injunction system was implemented in Australia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Austria and the United Kingdom. Hereinafter, this Article looks at overseas legislative examples of dynamic injunction, and, then, propose ways to introduce this system to Korea.

Streaming platforms under Portuguese copyright law

AbstractThe article outlines the regulation of streaming platforms under Portuguese copyright law, against the background of EU legislation and case law. Its purpose is not merely to provide a description of how streaming platforms are regulated in Portugal, but also to highlight some of the specificities of the Portuguese approach to combating online copyright infringement. Throughout the article, reference will be made to three types of online platforms, which are broadly included under the general category of “streaming services”: (i) “legal streaming services,” which grant access to catalogs of music or audiovisual works with the authorization of the respective rightholders; (ii) “semi‐legal streaming services,” specifically online content‐sharing services that, at least before the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, did not require the authorization of rightholders due to their eligibility for the hosting safe harbor; and (iii) “illegal streaming services,” covering not only streaming platforms where content is made available without the permission of rightholders, but also all those platforms whose main purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, even if they do not resort to streaming technology, including popular torrent aggregators like The Pirate Bay.

EFFECTIVE ANTI-PIRACY IN VIETNAM: A JOURNEY THROUGH SITE BLOCKING

The dawn of the Internet has created significant challenges to protecting copyrighted materials from piracy. In the past, copyright protection was mainly concerned with the threat of infringement from the sale of counterfeit goods, like pirated CDs and optical media. However, the Internet has now allowed for online piracy where infringing materials can be accessed online or copied with even greater ease. Vietnam has recently become a jurisdiction that is a hotbed for online piracy and copyright infringement globally. This is largely because Vietnam's current statutory and regulatory regime fail to effectively create an effective antipiracy regime in accordance with its WTO TRIPS obligations. Furthermore, Vietnam's recent accession of various treaties like the CPTPP and WCT further galvanizes a need for change in Vietnam's intellectual property regime. Thus far, Vietnam's attempts at fashioning an effective site-blocking regime have not succeeded. This paper will look at other effective site-blocking regimes, namely Singapore, India, and France, to look prospectively at what may be possible in Vietnam.

The Scope of Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Intellectual Property Disputes: Tackling Online Copyright Infringements

Abstract The aim of this paper is to analyse critically the problems stemming from the current model of enforcing protection in cases of online copyright infringements. The Internet allows for the easy dissemination and exploitation of copyrighted works globally. Remote and immediate access to content may result in simultaneous infringement on a worldwide scale. There is a long history of disputes over the enforcement of protection with regard to online copyright infringement, and while new laws and judgments are passed there are still no effective remedies nor consensus regarding a common approach to the problem of the multiplicity of applicable laws and jurisdictions in the event of infringement – a problem that derives mainly from the principle of the territoriality of intellectual property rights. Throughout the years there have been many attempts to solve it, mostly in the form of soft law instruments. None of the recommendations are binding, therefore the obligation to reconcile the right to the protection of copyright with the limits of the jurisdiction falls on national courts. As a consequence, the current legal status quo does not provide sufficient predictability to the outcome of litigation.

Beyond Whack-a-Mole: Content Protection in the Age of Platform Accountability

This is a story about David vs. Goliath. But with a twist. What happens when the main characters change roles before the story is over? The person whom we are rooting for becomes less clear. Are they the villain or the hero? And, because it’s a story about copyright, and I now work in the film business, let’s put it in those terms: It’s realizing halfway through the movie that maybe the supposed villain, Maleficent, wasn’t so bad after all, or at least she had a very good reason for her distrust of the humans—they did cut off her wings and stuff them in a box. I may be going a bit far with my analogies, and the description of the overall public sentiment towards the protagonists of my story is perhaps a bit hyperbolic. Indeed, many people would probably argue that there are actually no heroes in this particular narrative. But as I discuss, there has unquestionably been a disparity between the public’s perceptions of copyright creators versus technologists throughout the years. This Article assesses how the story of “Copyright and Technology” has progressed over the years and affected related policy making, how the narrative has recently shifted, and how that shift might actually provide a basis for more cooperative efforts between the two “sides” to address Internet piracy, not fewer. Part I of this Article explores the early development of the Internet, the regulatory approach to platform responsibility at that time, and the contrasting pre-existing negative views towards copyright. Part II describes the resulting permissive legal regime, including the adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Right Act (DMCA), early Internet case law addressing online copyright infringement under that legislation, and the development of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Part III highlights the ongoing rise in piracy after the DMCA and backlash to congressional attempts to address it. Part IV discusses recent regulatory and public scrutiny of online platforms and the reassessment of their responsibility for addressing illicit conduct occurring through their services.

论网络版权侵权错误通知赔偿责任的完善与适用

论网络版权侵权错误通知赔偿责任的完善与适用

Protecting video games against online copyright infringement: a Russian approach to site blocking

Throughout recent years Russia has developed a strong anti-piracy and site blocking laws which claim to become effective tools against an ongoing issue of video game piracy. Thousands of pirate torrent indexing websites, illegal marketplaces with unauthorized digital goods and in-game values are shut down yearly by video game right holders in order to prevent illegal content consumption. Torrent sites loose up to 90% of traffic quickly after blocking measures are implemented. However, if the law is too good to be true, it most probably is. The strict domain-specific site blocking approach has been an ongoing issue and an obstacle for right holders to tackle site blocking circumvention tools from Russia. Most pirate sites hop to a new domain name after the right holder obtains first content-removal order making it impossible to sue the website for repeated copyright infringement. The dynamic site blocking approach developed within European case law and best practices may become a potential solution to this problem.

Liability of Internet Service Providers for Online Copyright Infringement: International Experience and Recommendations for Vietnam

The advent of the Internet has posed unprecedented challenges on enforcing copyright. Online copyright infringements are pervasive, while it is not easy to impose liability on direct infringers, i.e., Internet users. This leads to a debate over whether online platforms or online intermediaries, which are often named “Internet Service Providers” (ISPs), should be held liable for these infringing activities or not, and if so, how to balance between Internet freedom, technological innovation and the need for effective copyright enforcement in the digital era. The aim of this paper is to provide answers to these questions by analyzing ISP’s liability from different international approaches such as the United States, the European Union, and China; hence, some experience for Vietnam could be drawn. Finally, the authors make recommendations to address the shortcomings in Vietnam’s intellectual property law with respect to ISP’s liability. This research is perfectly timing, given that Vietnam is amending its Intellectual Property Law to implement its commitments under the new generation free trade agreements and to meet the demand of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Online Copyright Infringement Tracker: Latest wave of research (March 2020) Overview and Key findings

Online Copyright Infringement Tracker: Latest wave of research (March 2020) Overview and Key findings

Online Copyright Infringement Tracker: Wave 11 - This is Independent Research Carried out by AudienceNet on Behalf of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Findings and Opinions are Those of the Researchers, not Necessarily the Views of the IPO or the Government.

Online Copyright Infringement Tracker: Wave 11 - This is Independent Research Carried out by AudienceNet on Behalf of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Findings and Opinions are Those of the Researchers, not Necessarily the Views of the IPO or the Government.

Bloggers, Copyrights and Some Other Legal Issues

The purpose of the study is to find out the place of the blog in the field of copyright; identification the most pressing problems that may arise as a result of blogging; and finding the most effective approaches and options to solve the above problems. The object of research is the system of national and foreign legislation, legal doctrine, bills in the field of intellectual property, and copyright. Empirical methods such as observation and description and theoretical methods such as analysis, synthesis, generalization, and explanation were used in this work. The work has the following structure: first, it takes care of the differences in understanding of copyright regulation in different legal systems, the world experience in regulating intellectual property, and its history. Then, blog copyrights are analyzed, as well as online copyright infringement, ways to protect content, and some other actual realities. As a result of the study of the intellectual property legislation that governs this subject—in particular, in the field of copyright and related rights—there is a clarification of the notion of “blog” and the regulation that governs blogging in Ukraine is identified. In addition, some practical recommendations were given to bloggers on legal protection of their copyrights.

Research on the Copyright Protection of Online Animation from the Perspective of the Internet

For a long time, Chinese animation under the monopoly of TV channels is experiencing the innovation of this new technology of the Internet, creating a new platform economy and ecosystem, but it is undeniable The Internet is a double-edged sword for the Chinese animation industry. Based on the openness of the network operating environment, the problem of network infringement has become increasingly prominent, and the phenomenon of online copyright infringement is particularly serious.Under the Internet environment, the weak power of animation industry in the link of animation copyright protection is one of the important reasons hindering its sustainable development. This article analyzes the difficulties of online animation copyright protection in my country’s Internet environment and proposes corresponding protection measures, which has certain reference significance for the establishment of copyright protection, content payment and other Internet ecosystems.

The Role of Bahraini Law on Online Copyright Infringement

The main aim of this research paper is to look at the role of Bahraini law in copyright infringement. In Bahrain, many commercially pirated audio and video markets have been eliminated through various laws. However, video, software and audio piracy by end-users is still a huge problem. A copyright infringement is considered to be a violation of an organization or individual’s copyright. It describes the copyrighted material’s unauthorized use, such as images, text, videos, software, music and other original content. Copyright infringements have been formally addressed through various copyrights law in Bahrain, but there are some glaring omissions as well. No other protect has been attacked more than computer hardware and software in Bahrain, copying of computer software is “out of control” in Bahrain. Many companies have been accused of using illegal copies of Microsoft computer software products. The study argues that country might have a beautifully tidy and coherent law, but it might not be followed. The mechanisms of criminal and civil enforcement, and the working of patent and trademark offices and of the judicial system itself, are essential to the enforcement of copyright laws in practice. The absence of governmental interference helps Bahraini software pirates to work at will. The study concludes while contended that there should be a law with regard to compulsory licensing since this compulsory licensing would be required by the companies to transfer data to a domestic partner. Furthermore, stricter enforcement of copyright laws is essential because they would help prevent copyright infringements in Bahrain.

A Quiet Harbour: Finding a Balanced Approach to the Copyright Liability of Online Service Providers

The United States, via the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, provides a safe harbour from copyright liability for online service providers. This safe harbour has been described as one of the laws that ‘built’ Silicon Valley. Despite the experience in the United States, Australia has not extended its own copyright safe harbour provisions to online service providers. This article seeks to understand the underlying reasons for such different approaches by adopting a comparative analysis methodology. After reviewing the legislative history and case law in the United States and in Australia, this article presents evidence suggesting copyright safe harbours support innovation. As such, this article contends there is a need to reconsider the scope of Australia’s copyright safe harbour. However, it is also demonstrated that the approach taken by the United States has not been without its flaws and, therefore, rather than a complete adoption of this position, Australia should consider a more ‘balanced’ approach—namely, extending the copyright safe harbour, while also introducing amendments to bring clarity and balance to the safe harbour provisions.

Online Copyright Infringement Tracker: Latest wave of research (March 2019) Overview and key findings

Online Copyright Infringement Tracker: Latest wave of research (March 2019) Overview and key findings

Fighting European ‘Copyright Tourism’: Lessons from Defamation Laws

In the recent cases of Pinckney and Hejduk, the ECJ revised European rules on jurisdiction over online copyright infringement disputes – making it possible for claimants to bring their lawsuits in virtually any European country. Due to the application of lex loci protectionis, this choice of venue also affects the law applicable to disputes. This article shows that this results in a substantial forum shopping risk, despite safety mechanisms built into the ECJ judgments. It explains that forum shopping is not inherently bad, but that it creates major problems for copyright laws, given its potential to shift the balance between the authors and exploiters of the work. In an attempt to identify a possible solution, this article turns to the substantive implementation of de minimis principle in Principles on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP) Principles. The success of this approach is illustrated through the field of media law, and specifically, the way in which United Kingdom solved the problem of libel tourism. Examining the substantive requirement of ‘serious harm’ found in the UK Defamation Act of 2013, the article proposes amending national copyright laws as to state that absent showing of the intention to target a certain Member State by the online infringing activity or, alternatively, a ‘serious harm’ suffered on its territory, no copyright infringement is to be found. This way, forum shopping in online copyright infringement cases may be stopped in its tracks, before it becomes a rampant practice in Europe.

Shielding internet intermediaries from copyright liability—A comparative discourse on safe harbours in Singapore and India

AbstractWithout intermediaries that provide access to, host and link content, the internet will not be the vibrant place it is today. Yet with the rising number of online copyright infringements, right holders have increasingly shifted their focus to intermediaries in their efforts to curb infringements. This has led to internet intermediaries being increasingly exposed to copyright liability. In light of this, safe harbours that provide certain classes of intermediaries with conditional immunity play an important role in maintaining a healthy balance between the interests of right holders and third parties. In the copyright context, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (DMCA) enacted in the United States was the first instance where such a safe harbour was afforded to internet intermediaries. During the two decades of the DMCA's operation, it has been used as a blueprint to shape safe harbours in other jurisdictions. This article focusses on two such jurisdictions—namely, Singapore and India—and provides a comparative and in‐depth analysis of the safe harbour frameworks in the said jurisdictions, while mapping out how they compare with the DMCA. In the process, the article highlights a number of features in the DMCA that have been remodelled in Singapore and India.

Convergence and Conflation in Online Copyright

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) is showing its age. Enacted in 1998, the DMCA succeeded in its initial goal of bringing clarity to wildly inconsistent judicial standards for online copyright infringement. But as time has passed, the Act has been overtaken—not by developments in technology, but by developments in copyright’s case law. Those cases are no longer as divergent as they were in the last millennium. Instead, over time the judicial standards and the statutory standards have converged, to the point where the differences between them are few. The statute whose ascendance was once central to the governance of copyright online is therefore now diminished in importance. At first glance, this development seems unproblematic. After all, uniformity was the DMCA’s goal, and convergence gets us closer to it. But a deeper look reveals that convergence has significantly changed the cost/benefit calculus for those whom the Act governs. The benefits of complying with the Act’s regulatory requirements have decreased, because convergence means that one can ignore the statute and rely solely on the case law. And the costs of complying have increased, because convergence has paradoxically given rise to a new, troubling phenomenon: the mixing and matching of statutory and judicial standards in unpredictable and counterproductive ways, which create new, unintended forms of copyright liability and immunity. In short, convergence has led to conflation, which means that the best course for today’s online community is to steer clear of the DMCA altogether.

Should digital files be considered a commons? Copyright infringement in the eyes of lawyers

In this article, we draw on a survey conducted with elite upcoming lawyers from all around the world to shed new light on the ethical acceptability of file sharing practices. Although file sharing is typically illegal, our findings show that lawyers overwhelmingly perceive it as an acceptable social practice. The main criterion used by lawyers to decide on the ethical acceptability of file sharing is whether or not the infringer derives any monetary benefits from it. Further, our findings show that lawyers in the public sector (including judiciary and academia) are even more tolerant of online copyright infringement than those in the private sector. Interestingly, our data suggests that this is largely the result of self-selection: lawyers who lean more on the side of broad disclosure and social sharing tend to orient themselves toward the public sector. Implications for the current state of the debate on the reform of copyright law are discussed.