Online Infringement Research Articles

Violation of Copyright in Pakistan: Issues and Future Prospects

This research delves into the key role of copyright protection in nurturing creativity, innovation, and economic growth within Pakistan's creative industries, shedding light on persistent challenges in the country's legal framework. Despite existing laws encompassing literature, visual arts, music, and film, the absence of precise definitions for originality and fair use has led to widespread confusion, impeding effective enforcement and discouraging legal recourse against infringers. The study scrutinizes the impact of international agreements, such as the Berne Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, on Pakistan's copyright landscape, recognizing positive developments while pinpointing ongoing challenges like resource constraints, limited public awareness, and rampant piracy. The ramifications of copyright infringement on the creative sector are explored, emphasizing financial losses, diminished investment, and a decline in high-quality productions. The paper advocates for legal and policy reforms, encompassing clearer definitions and stringent enforcement mechanisms, alongside capacity building and public awareness initiatives to fortify copyright protection. Furthermore, it recommends international collaboration with internet service providers to combat online infringement, drawing insights from successful strategies in the US and the UK, exemplified by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The paper concludes by underscoring the imperative for robust copyright protection in Pakistan's creative industry, proposing actionable avenues for enhancement. The chosen qualitative research methodology aims to optimize outcomes by addressing previous limitations and synthesizing various research approaches for comprehensive insights.

Study on the Judicial Application of the Short Video Platform Safe Harbour Rule

The development of short videos has been overwhelming, bringing huge economic benefits to platforms. However, as the market sinks, the quality of short video content is more and more difficult to guarantee, and the phenomenon of copyright infringement such as video porting among users is becoming more and more serious. The safe harbour rule is the core system for determining online infringement, in addition to being a balance between the interests of right holders, platforms and users. However, in practice, right holders believe that the duty of care of platforms should be increased, so that they cannot enjoy the traffic dividend brought by short videos while using the "notice-and-takedown" procedure to easily enter the "safe harbour". On the other hand, short video platforms often refuse to assume the responsibility triggered by the uploading of infringing short videos by users on the grounds that they do not have the obligation to review the legality of the copyright. In view of the conflict of interests between the two parties, how to apply the principle of "safe harbour" to better reconcile the demands of the two parties has become a problem that needs to be solved urgently.

The Restriction of the Basic Rights of Netizens——Basic on the Expansion of the Safe Harbor Principle

The provisions of the safe harbor principle in the Civil Code greatly expand its scope of application, which makes the ISPs more room to reduce the liability for compensation. On the contrary, the concept of indirect infringement has a different liability which causes the probability of nuisance obligation of the ISP greatly increase. In addition, because the provisions of other department laws tend to remedy the rights of right holders, the risk of relief liability of the ISP is increased in practical practice. ISPs by the light of nature reduce legal costs, and necessary measures in advance become the most economical and effective means. Moreover, the combination of the natural power of the ISP and the hierarchy of public power makes the behavior of the ISP eventually become a means to protect rights by restricting other obliges’ rights and naturally fall into the stage of constitutionality review. This paper intends to refute the traditional ideal of the safe harbor principle to introduce the movement of the contrary of such a principle. Based on the theory, this paper will provide a way to improve the system of ISPs’ liability for online Infringement.

International Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Infringement of Personality Rights

The legal provision applicable to determine the jurisdiction to decide claims regarding the cross-border infringement of personality rights is Article 7, Section 2, of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Ia). Article 7, Section 2, gives jurisdiction in non-contractual matters to the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. Called to interpret the concept of place where the harmful event occurred, the ECJ was forced to make an interpretative effort in case of online infringement of personality rights. It was so, because the information that is placed online can be accessed in any country. The offenses that occur on the Internet can have a global reach and cause damage with greater geographical extension and repercussions in the legal sphere of the victim, especially due to the geographical wide location of its users. The aim of this study is to highlight the latest trends of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding this topic.

Application Dilemma and Resolution Path of Safe Harbor Rules in the Field of Network Infringement

This paper mainly discusses the origin and content of the “safe harbor” rules of online trading platform providers in online infringement rules, and compares and analyzes the legislative consideration and development of the safe harbor principle in China with the provisions of the safe harbor principle in the United States. Through the legislative sorting of online infringement safe harbor rules, the paper explores the existing problems and legislative considerations of the specific application of the transplanted and introduced “safe harbor” rules in China’s e-commerce trading platform. By comparing and learning from foreign regulatory legislation, this paper combs out the applicability and path choice of “safe harbor” rule in China.

‘Upload filters’ and human rights: implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

ABSTRACTThis paper critically examines to what extent Article 17 of the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) could be implemented in a way which complies with the right of online content-sharing service providers and uploaders to a fair trial, privacy and freedom of expression under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31 and the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679. The analysis draws upon Article 17 CDSM Directive, the case-law of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts, and academic literature. It assesses the compliance of ‘upload filters’ with the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) three-part, non-cumulative test to determine whether the obligations laid down in Article 17 can be implemented: firstly, that it is ‘in accordance with the law’; secondly, that it pursues one or more legitimate aims contained in Article 8(2) and 10(2) Convention; and thirdly, that it is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. The paper also evaluates the compatibility of upload filters with the ECtHR principle of presumption of innocence under Article 6 ECHR. It proposes that for Article 17 to be a human rights-compliant response, upload filters must be targeted specifically at online infringement of copyright on a commercial-scale.

Saving online copyright: Virtual markets need real intervention

AbstractThe internet is a treasure chest of infringing or “pirated” entertainment media, which viewers from around the world access, copy, and share with relative ease. Data and qualitative reviews suggest infringement is ubiquitous in the streaming and downloading domain. The current approach to copyright enforcement places undue burdens on copyright owners who cannot economically advance claims against millions of individual users. Poorly constructed copyright laws and misguided Court decisions have left rights‐holders with too few remedies against commercial entities involved in the storage, retrieval, transmission, access, and streaming of their works. A five‐year exploratory and observational study were conducted to discover facts about online pirate media, how services function, how companies make money, and how they skirt around laws prohibiting unauthorized commercial exploitation of copyright. Sites discovered had multimillion‐dollar valuations and annual revenues, mostly derived from third‐party advertisements. The study found numerous deficiencies in copyright legislation and judicial interpretation that enable massive online infringement to continue. Recommendations include statutory and regulatory amendments, judicial reversals, reconstruction of the law, and development of a binding, compulsory mechanism similar to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ domain name trademark dispute resolution system.

IP Litigation in United States District Courts: 1994 to 2014

This article undertakes a broad-based empirical review of Intellectual Property (IP) litigation in United States federal district courts from 1994 to 2014. Unlike the prior literature, this study analyzes federal copyright, patent and trademark litigation trends as a unified whole. It undertakes a systematic analysis of more than 190,000 individual case filings and examines the subject matter, geographical and temporal variation within federal IP litigation over the last two decades. This article makes a number of significant contributions to our understanding of IP litigation. It analyzes time trends in copyright, patent and trademark litigation filings at the national level, but it does much more than simply count the number of cases; it explores the meaning behind those numbers and shows how in some cases the observable headline data can be positively misleading. Exploring the changes in the distribution of IP litigation over time and their regional distribution leads to a number of significant insights, these are summarized below. Just as importantly, one of the key contributions of this article is that it frames the context for more fine-grained empirical studies in the future. Many of the results and conclusions herein demonstrate the dangers of basing empirical conclusions on narrow slices of data from selected regions or selected time periods. Some of the key findings of this study are as follows: First, the rise of Internet file-sharing has transformed copyright litigation in the United States. More specifically, to the extent that the rate of copyright litigation has increased over the last two decades, that increase appears to be entirely attributable to lawsuits against anonymous Internet file sharers. These lawsuits largely took place in two distinct phases: the first phase largely consisted of lawsuits seeking to discourage illegal downloading; the second phase largely consists lawsuits seeking to monetize online infringement. Second, in relation to patent litigation, the apparent patent litigation explosion between 2010 and 2012 is something of a mirage; however there has been a sustained patent litigation inflation over the last two decades the extent of which has not been fully recognized until now. The reason why this steady inflation was mistaken for a sudden explosion was that the true extent of patent litigation was disguised by permissive joinder.Third, in relation to the geography of IP litigation, it appears that filings in copyright, patent and trademark litigation are generally highly correlated. The major exceptions to that correlation are driven by short term idiosyncratic events in copyright and trademark litigation — these are discussed in detail — and by the dumbfounding willingness of the Eastern district Texas to engage in forum selling to attract patent litigation. The popularity of the Eastern District of Texas as a forum for patent litigation is a well-known phenomenon. However, the data and analysis presented in this study provides a new way of looking at the astonishing ascendancy of this district and the problem of form shopping in patent law more generally.

Enjoining the Cloud: Equity, Irreparability, and Remedies

This article examines the tailoring of remedies in cases involving potential monetary compensation and both lawful and unlawful conduct, especially in online infringement disputes. When websites communicate copyrighted works to members of the public or use trademarks unlawfully, domestic requirements of equitable relief come into tension with global enforcement cultures. Courts are sometimes persuaded to enjoin entire websites or to order the defendant and its cloud service providers to end any use of the copyrights or trademarks at issue, while other courts limit their injunctions to the adjudicated conduct and the parties before them. The question sometimes arises whether a site-killing or device-killing order should issue in light of the defendant's infringement and third parties' facilitation of it, or whether the defendant should simply be ordered to desist from the infringing acts (and related parties from facilitating those specific acts). An increasingly prominent alternative is to withhold an injunctive remedy in view of the potential recovery of monetary relief. This article explores why, despite statutory language, case law precedent, and political consensus that website blocking should not occur, the sweeping remedy of site blocking (enjoining any facilitation of site access) continues to be available. It argues that site-blocking and orders to third parties not to index or provide services to a website are in tension with the Supreme Court's decision in eBay, the First Amendment case for narrowly targeted remedies when publishing and digital communication are at stake, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's limiting language, remedial proportionality doctrine, and the failure of the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2011 in Congress. Remedial inequities are also emerging as between patent and copyright or trademark holders, because the bare loss of control of intellectual property is justifying copyright and trademark injunctions despite patent law cases suggesting that impaired exclusivity and negotiating leverage are not necessarily irreparable injury.

THE CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF NIGERIA COPYRIGHT ADMINISTRATION IN A DIGITAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AGE

Copyright is one of the several existent intellectual property rights which seek to protect original works of authorship fixed in any medium of expression known or later to be developed. While this form of protection exists, the influx of digital revolution also persists to cause a strain in copyright administration and protection due to evolution in means of replication, manipulation, reproduction, dissemination, access to copyrighted materials, etc. This work aimed at examining the approach of the Nigerian copyright system and her administrative structure in the face of digital and internet evolution, by extension Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution which is an emerging technology. Is the new copyright system staller enough to meet the increasing requirements of protection for copyrighted materials, or capable to simultaneously evolve with digital and internet revolution? This work further seeks to examine the inherent weakness in the present copyright system despite the new enactment. The doctrinal methodology was employed in this work. It was discovered that despite the introduction of Copyright Act of 2022, which incorporates several multilateral agreements, expands copyright protection to online works, made provisions regarding technological protection, a practical overhaul of the entire gamut of the copyright system to reflect the intendment of this Act is strictly recommended. Conclusively, incorporation of technology and adequate manpower in the copyright administration will meet the technological requirements of providing protection against digital and online infringement which AI is now a critical tool.

Demystifying the ‘honest’ infringer: reorienting our approach to online copyright infringement using behavioural economics

... There is an intriguing paradox at the heart of online copyright infringement: while most people perceive themselves to be law-abiding and honest,1 the practice of unlawfully downloading copyright material is widespread. In the UK, one in four Internet users consume some infringing content online,2 while in the US nearly half of all adults unlawfully share digital media.3 To the extent that online infringement displaces legal sales, this poses a serious threat to creative industries which are responsible for supporting over 270 000 businesses4 and contribute over £84 billion to the UK economy alone.5 The prevailing response to online copyright infringement among developed countries has been to strengthen and expand laws against copyright infringement.6 Particularly notable developments have been the introduction of graduated response systems and the growing use of website blocking injunctions.7 Yet, the effectiveness of these measures has been mixed. Punitive measures such as graduated response systems are sporadically enforced, and only have short-term effects in reducing infringement.8 In contrast, website blocking injunctions have had more success,9 but the cost of these injunctions often falls upon right-holders, putting them out of the reach of small, medium and micro enterprises (SMEs) and many individual creators.10

The European Court of Justice in Bolagsupplysningen: The Brussels I Recast Regulation's jurisdictional rules for online infringement of personality rights further clarified

In the European Union the Brussels Ibis Regulation governs the jurisdiction of Member State courts in civil and commercial matters. The reference for a preliminary ruling coming from the Estonian Supreme Court in the Bolagsupplysningen case offered the European Court of Justice another opportunity to develop its interpretation of the special ground for non-contractual obligations (article 7.2). The European Court of Justice's Grand Chamber ruled that legal persons, like natural persons, have the option of bringing a claim based on the infringement of personality rights by an online publication before the courts of the Member State where their centre of interests is located. It laid down that the centre of interests of a legal person pursuing an economic activity is determined by reference to the place where the company carries out the main part of its economic activities. The victim of a tortious internet publication can only seek an order for rectification and removal of the incorrect information in the courts that have jurisdiction over the entirety of the harm sustained and not before the courts that only enjoy jurisdiction with regard to the damage suffered in their territory.

Legal Issues: Fair Use 'Goes Crazyy

It all started with a now 9 year old kid who reportedly enjoys Mozart. Back in 2007 a mom in Pennsylvania saw her kid doing something cute and whipped out the video camera. Her 13 month old was pushing a small walker around the kitchen while music played in the background. As mom focused her camera, the kid started “dancing”–well, bouncing up and down, smiling and giggling–and mom kept rolling for about 30 seconds. Since all babies are cute and all such moments should be shared with family and friends, the mom decided to share the video by posting it to YouTube (available online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ) expecting it to only be of interest to grandparents, aunts and uncles, and other assorted relatives and family friends. Mom titled the video clip as “Let’s Go Crazy #1. The song playing in the background was Let’s Go Crazy from the album Purple Rain by Prince. Although the song is difficult to hear amid the static and background noise, there was enough of the song–likely coupled with the title of the video duplicating the title of the song–that Stephanie Lenz, the mom in question, received word that a DMCA takedown notice had been received from Universal. Music Corp, the company that administers Prince’s music copyrights and that YouTube had removed the video. Thus began a multi-year battle over the rights and obligations of copyright owners when targeting online infringement that could be considered fair use.

PayPal is New Money: Extending Secondary Copyright Liability Safe Harbors to Online Payment Processors

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has shaped the Internet as we know it. This legislation shields online service providers from secondary copyright infringement liability in exchange for takedown of infringing content of their users. Yet online payment processors, the backbone of $300 billion in U.S. e-commerce, are completely outside of the DMCA’s protection. This Article uses PayPal, the most popular online payment company in the U.S., to illustrate the growing risk of secondary liability for payment processors. First it looks at jurisprudence that expands secondary copyright liability online, and explains how it might be applied to PayPal. Then it considers legislative proposals and industry-self regulation that similarly target an increasing role for payment processors in the fight against online infringement. It argues that the introduction of a DMCA-like safe harbor for online payment processors offers a fairer and more efficient option for all stakeholders than the status quo of gradually expanding liability risk. It concludes with a discussion of important initial considerations in the design of such a safe harbor.

Intermediary Liability for Online Copyright Infringement - A Recipe for Killing the Internet - A Comparative Analysis of the Law in Us and India

The Internet with which we are all familiar is a colossal network of computer networks. As we look back upon the late twentieth century, the growth of the Internet will be listed as one of mankind's greatest technological achievements. The amazing capability of the Internet to promote the exchange of knowledge, information, and ideas on a universal scale has surely revamped the way people intermingle. As the internet has grown, the problem of online infringement of intellectual property rights has assumed gigantic proportions and developed into an economically major issue. In this scenario, this paper: 1. Defines an Intermediary2. Draws the basis for Intermediary liability3. Analyses the legal standards of liability of Intermediary in US Pre and Post DMCA regime in US4. Examines the provisions of the Copyright Act, 2012 and compares it with the law under Copyright Act 1957

BLACK BOX TINKERING: Beyond Transparency in Algorithmic Enforcement

The pervasive growth of algorithmic enforcement magnifies current debates regarding the virtues of transparency. Not only does using codes to conduct robust online enforcement amplify the settled problem of magnitude, or “too-much-information,” often associated with present-day disclosures, it imposes additional practical difficulties on relying on transparency as an adequate check for algorithmic enforcement. In this Essay we explore the virtues of black box tinkering methodology as means of generating accountability in algorithmic systems of online enforcement. Given the far-reaching implications of algorithmic enforcement of online content for public discourse and fundamental rights, we advocate active public engagement in checking the practices of automatic enforcement systems.Accordingly, we explain the inadequacy of transparency in generating public oversight. First, it is very difficult to read, follow and predict the complex computer code which underlies algorithms as it is inherently non-transparent and capable of evolving according to different patterns of data. Second, mandatory transparency requirements are irrelevant to many private implementations of algorithmic governance which are subject to trade secrecy. Third, algorithmic governance is so robust that even without mandatory transparency it is impossible to review all the information already disclosed. Fourth, when algorithms are called on to replace humans in making determinations that involve discretion, transparency about the algorithms’ inputs (the facts) and outputs (the outcomes) is not enough to allow adequate oversight. This is because a given legal outcome does not necessarily yield sufficient information about the reasoning behind it. Subsequently we establish the benefits of black box tinkering as a proactive methodology that encourages social activism, using the example of a recent study of online copyright enforcement practices by online intermediaries. That study sought to test systematically how hosting websites implement copyright policy by examining the conduct of popular local image-sharing platforms and popular local video-sharing platforms. Particularly, different types of infringing, non-infringing and fair use materials were uploaded to various hosting facilities, each intended to trace choices made by the black box system throughout its enforcement process. The study’s findings demonstrate that hosting platforms are inconsistent, therefore unpredictable in detecting online infringement and enforcing copyrights: some platforms allow content that is filtered by others; some platforms strictly respond to any notice requesting removal of content despite its being clearly non-infringing, while other platforms fail to remove content upon notice of alleged infringement. Moreover, many online mechanisms of algorithmic copyright enforcement generally do very little in terms of minimizing errors and ensuring that interested parties do not abuse the system to silence legitimate speech and over-enforce copyright. Finally, the findings indicate that online platforms do not make full efforts to secure due process and allow affected individuals to follow, and promptly respond to, proceedings that manage their online submissions.Based on these findings, we conclude that black box tinkering methodology could offer an invaluable grasp of algorithmic enforcement practices on the ground. We hence evaluate the possible legal implications of this methodology and propose means to address them.

Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice

It has been nearly twenty years since section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act established the so-called notice and takedown process. Despite its importance to copyright holders, online service providers, and Internet speakers, very little empirical research has been done on how effective section 512 is for addressing copyright infringement, spurring online service provider development, or providing due process for notice targets.This report includes three studies that draw back the curtain on notice and takedown: 1. using detailed surveys and interviews with more than three dozen respondents, the first study gathers information on how online service providers and rightsholders experience and practice notice and takedown on a day-to-day basis;2. the second study examines a random sample from over 100 million notices generated during a six-month period to see who is sending notices, why, and whether they are valid takedown requests; and3. the third study looks specifically at a subset of those notices that were sent to Google Image Search. The findings suggest that whether notice and takedown “works” is highly dependent on who is using it and how it is practiced, though all respondents agreed that the Section 512 safe harbors remain fundamental to the online ecosystem. Perhaps surprisingly in light of large-scale online infringement, a large portion of OSPs still receive relatively few notices and process them by hand. For some major players, however, the scale of online infringement has led to automated, “bot”-based systems that leave little room for human review or discretion, and in a few cases notice and takedown has been abandoned in favor of techniques such as content filtering. The second and third studies revealed surprisingly high percentages of notices of questionable validity, with mistakes made by both “bots” and humans.The findings strongly suggest that the notice and takedown system is important, under strain, and that there is no “one size fits all” approach to improving it. Based on the findings, we suggest a variety of reforms to law and practice.

Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate

This article investigates the public debate over proposed U.S. legislation designed to give prosecutors and copyright holders new tools to pursue suspected online copyright violations. We compiled, mapped, and analyzed a set of 9,757 stories published over 16 months relevant to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). This study applies a mixed-methods approach that combines text and link analysis with human coding and informal interviews to map the evolution of the controversy over time and to analyze the mobilization, roles, and interactions of various actors. We find a vibrant, diverse, and decentralized networked public sphere that exhibited broad participation, leveraged topical expertise, and successfully reframed a debate and focused public sentiment to shape national public policy. A network of small-scale commercial tech media, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and individuals fulfilled the fourth estate function; traditional media then amplified the work of these actors. The campaign involved substantial experimentation and rapid development of mobilization strategies. We observe an increased public awareness of an agenda originating in the networked public sphere, which emerged successfully despite substantial expenditures attempting to produce a mass media narrative that favored the legislation. Moreover, we witness what we call an attention backbone, in which more trafficked sites amplify less-visible individual voices on specific subjects. The data suggest that, at least in this case, the networked public sphere enabled a dynamic public discourse that involved both individual and organizational participants and offered substantive discussion of complex issues contributing to affirmative political action.

The EPL drama – paving the way for more illegal streaming? Digital piracy of live sports broadcasts in Singapore

Along with the rise of digital media technologies, digitisation disrupted and reconfigured the established practices of previously discrete media markets. The erosion of conventional media divisions has resulted in wide-ranging ramifications for sports broadcasts as it shifts from the historically dominant platform of broadcast television to the digital environment of the Internet in the new mediascape. This paper considers how these emergent practices from the advent of media technology have represented significant challenges to the mediascape of sports broadcasts in Singapore. Given the popularity of mediated Western sports in Singapore, it comes as no surprise that the challenge of sports broadcasts piracy is acute in the country. Singapore has an exceedingly high degree of online infringement compared to other countries in the region. Data discloses that Singapore’s per capita infringement ranks first in Asia and fifth highest globally. This paper seeks to review the phenomenon in Singapore, examining the drivers that created the unique market dynamics which shaped the piracy of sports broadcasts in the country. The paper goes on to discuss provisions in Singapore in terms of copyright law and enforcement that are in place for the deterrence of sports broadcasts piracy. It considers the adequacy of these current approaches and concludes with an observation of how Singapore will seek to adjust to the continual digital advancement in its battle against digital sports piracy. The outcome of this assessment helps provide an additional account for its comparison with existing discourse on the challenges of digitisation on sports broadcasts development in advanced capitalist Asian countries.

Leveraging Notice and Takedown to Address Trademark Infringement Online

think it is safe to say that, at an academic conference, most people would not pick that position as their first option—it’s like being asked to discuss how to prepare meatloaf at a conference on new trends in the culinary arts. That said, with respect to the current law in the United States, I don’t completely shy away from the position. To be clear, my position is not that the current state of affairs is perfect. There are real challenges facing brand owners, challenges that I—and Microsoft—truly understand. Microsoft is an online service provider, and our online services, such as Bing, Skype, OneDrive, Office 365 and Xbox Live, are both important lines of business and valuable services that hundreds of millions of customers around the world rely on every day. At the same time, Microsoft owns some of the world’s most valuable brands and is a victim of substantial online infringement. Our infringement battles run the gamut from pirated and counterfeit software to counterfeit hardware, such as computer peripherals and game consoles. The damage caused by these infringements is estimated to be in the billions of dollars annually. Moreover, Microsoft expects our acquisition of Nokia’s phone business to only increase our counterfeiting and IP enforcement challenges. 2 As my background demonstrates, I understand the importance of effective enforcement for brands, and the challenges brands face in getting the job done. For that reason, I believe that we should carefully consider all reasonable proposals that would protect against consumer harm and enable trademark owners to more effectively protect their brands from commercial threats. But before turning to legislative solutions that disrupt the current legal regime, I think we must consider two big picture questions: (1) What have been the results of the current regime? Are platforms being rewarded for good behavior and held liable for bad? Are there