DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Third-Party Copyright Liability of Online Service Providers in The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Third-Party Copyright Liability of Online Service Providers in The Third-Party Copyright Liability of Online Service Providers in the United Kingdom & United States of America By Martin Arthur Kuppers A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Commercial Law Studies Queen Mary, University of London 2011 1 Declaration I do hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own, except where referenced. Martin Arthur Kuppers 2 Abstract The music and film content providing industry asserts that unauthorised widespread Online Service Provider (OSP) enabled use of their works has played a large part in the factually evident decline in unit sales of the industry’s essential products such as CDs and DVDs, and has thus also allegedly diminished revenue and profits. In this regard, content providing industry legal recourse against OSPs takes two forms. The first is to claim primary copyright infringement, and the second to establish third-party copyright liability for the infringing acts of an OSP’s users. The choice is dictated by the specific facts in individual cases. The latter important and complex case law based category, which applies to a spectrum of OSP connections to infringements, some more direct than others, is specifically treated in this thesis. This thesis examines the, it is argued, inadequate case law based operation of UK third-party copyright liability. By firstly comprehensively studying UK copyright law as it pertains to OSPs, including primary liability as well as exceptions and limitations, UK third-party copyright liability is suitably extrinsically defined. Its intrinsic operation is then analysed. Severe deficiencies having been found and explained in this regard, a basis for reform is sought by conducting a similar examination of US third-party copyright liability, said law being more developed. Thus, a mirrored approach to the preceding UK analysis is taken in the analysis of US copyright law; carefully defining third-party copyright liability and ensuring overall systemic compatibility. Having established the need for reform and having provided a second compatible but more developed source, both strands of third- party copyright liability are compared and contrasted and entirely novel changes to the UK concepts are proposed for legislative adoption. The reformulations allow for apposite future risk analysis by market actors, resulting in greater legal certainty for all parties concerned. 3 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... 4 Table of Abbreviations ................................................................................................ 12 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... 16 PART 1 – INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 17 A. The Technological and Industry Context ............................................................. 17 I. The World Wide Web .......................................................................................... 17 II. The Content Providing and Using Industries ...................................................... 18 B. The Legal & Structural Aspects ............................................................................ 21 I. The General Legal Context .................................................................................. 21 II. The Focused Legal Context ................................................................................. 22 1) Objective.......................................................................................................... 22 2) Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 23 3) Methodology ................................................................................................... 23 a) Overview ....................................................................................................... 23 b) The Comparative Discourse .......................................................................... 24 4) Parts Outline, Sources and Limitations ........................................................... 27 a) Parts Outline ................................................................................................. 27 b) Sources & Limitations ................................................................................... 27 PART 2 – UNITED KINGDOM ............................................................................... 29 A. The System of Copyright Protection .................................................................... 29 I. Statutory Regime ................................................................................................. 29 1) The Dominion of EU Law ................................................................................. 30 2) Relevant International Law ............................................................................. 31 3) A Compact Taxonomy of Works in the UK ...................................................... 33 4) Formalities/Registration .................................................................................. 38 5) Term of Copyright ............................................................................................ 38 6) Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 42 B. Primary Copyright Infringement .......................................................................... 42 I. Delineation & Meaning of Restricted Acts .......................................................... 43 II. The Communication to the Public Right ............................................................ 45 1) Background ...................................................................................................... 46 4 a) The ‘old’ UK regime ....................................................................................... 46 b) International Treaties (1996) ........................................................................ 46 c) EC Response (2001) ....................................................................................... 47 d) The Current Status Quo ................................................................................ 49 2) The Broadcasting Right .................................................................................... 50 a) The Exclusive Right ........................................................................................ 50 b) Infringement ................................................................................................. 51 c) The Previous Cable Programme Right ........................................................... 53 3) The Making Available Right ............................................................................. 57 a) Definition ...................................................................................................... 57 b) Scope ............................................................................................................. 57 c) The Right in Context: Jurisprudential Consideration .................................... 58 4) The ‘Other’ Communications to the Public Right ............................................ 62 5) Uncertainty in the Scope of the Right: Possibly Enlarged OSP Liability .......... 63 a) Other Communication to the Public as Non-Simultaneous Transmissions .. 63 b) European Communication to the Public ‘reduced’ to Making Available ...... 64 c) The Wider European Perspective .................................................................. 65 6) The Relationship between Broadcasting and Making Available ..................... 67 7) Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 69 III. The Reproduction Right .................................................................................... 70 1) Demarcation of Infringing Reproductions ....................................................... 70 2) Transient and Incidental Reproduction ........................................................... 71 3) Little and Often ................................................................................................ 75 4) Substantial Taking ........................................................................................... 76 IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 77 C. Relevant Defences against Copyright Claims ....................................................... 77 I. Acts Permitted in Relation to Copyright Works .................................................. 78 1) Fair Dealing under the CDPA 1988 .................................................................. 79 2) The Applicability of s.28A CDPA 1988 ............................................................. 80 a) The Four Elements of the Defence ............................................................... 81 b) The Impact of European Jurisprudence ........................................................ 83 II. E-Commerce Directive Regulations 2002 ........................................................... 87 1) The Mere Conduit Defence ............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Avanquest Hallmark 2010 FINAL
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact: Alan Penchansky The Pen Group (305) 529-1944 [email protected] NEW HALLMARK CARD STUDIO 2010 SOFTWARE TITLES RELEASED FOR THE HOLIDAYS BY NOVA DEVELOPMENT UNIT OF AVANQUEST SOFTWARE Best-Selling Hallmark Cards Software Helps Busy Families Make the Most of the Holidays with Cards, Gifts, and a Planner to Manager it All CALABASAS, CA, November 9, 2009 – Nova Development, a consumer software unit of leading global software developer and publisher Avanquest Software (EPA: AVQ), today announced the release of Hallmark Card Studio 2010 and Hallmark Card Studio Deluxe 2010. These new versions update the top-selling card software with more designs, images, and sentiments so families can create and print customized Hallmark cards and calendars from home. “With families so stretched this year, we know this is going to be an especially busy holiday. That’s why these new releases include even more ways for people to design and create professional, personalized cards from home anytime,” said Todd Helfstein, president, Avanquest North America. “But Hallmark Card Studio software includes much more than just cards. You can create custom calendars, stationery, photo frames, certificates, invitations, and scrapbooks. There’s even a planner to manage it all and keep track of birthdays, anniversaries, and special events throughout the year.” Hallmark Card Studio 2010 and Hallmark Card Studio Deluxe 2010 include thousands of Hallmark cards and projects for all occasions, plus an exclusive graphics library, Hallmark fonts and sentiments. Hallmark Card Studio Deluxe 2010 adds more of all of these, plus improved photo editing. The interface to both has been made even easier to use and more engaging, and a note-writing guide provides tips and suggestions to craft the perfect personal message.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Report
    Cost-Effective Cloud Edge Traffic Engineering with CASCARA Rachee Singh Sharad Agarwal Matt Calder Victor Bahl Microsoft Abstract Inter-domain bandwidth costs comprise a significant amount of the operating expenditure of cloud providers. Traffic engi- neering systems at the cloud edge must strike a fine balance between minimizing costs and maintaining the latency ex- pected by clients. The nature of this tradeoff is complex due to non-linear pricing schemes prevalent in the market for inter-domain bandwidth. We quantify this tradeoff and un- cover several key insights from the link-utilization between a large cloud provider and Internet service providers. Based Figure 1: Present-day and CASCARA-optimized bandwidth allo- on these insights, we propose CASCARA, a cloud edge traffic cation distributions for one week, across a pair of links between a engineering framework to optimize inter-domain bandwidth large cloud provider and tier-1 North American ISPs. Costs depend allocations with non-linear pricing schemes. CASCARA lever- on the 95th-percentile of the allocation distributions (vertical lines). ages the abundance of latency-equivalent peer links on the CASCARA-optimized allocations reduce total costs by 35% over the cloud edge to minimize costs without impacting latency sig- present-day allocations while satisfying the same demand. nificantly. Extensive evaluation on production traffic demands of a commercial cloud provider shows that CASCARA saves In this work, we show that recent increases in interconnec- 11–50% in bandwidth costs per cloud PoP, while bounding tion and infrastructure scale enable significant potential to re- the increase in client latency by 3 milliseconds1. duce the costs of inter-domain traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Ben Adamson 7242107 Phd Thesis Final Submission Sep 2017
    IP in the Corridors of Power A study of lobbying, its impact on the development of intellectual property law, and the implications for the meaning of democracy A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2017 Ben Adamson School of Law Contents Title Page 1 Contents 2 Table of Abbreviations 7 Abstract 8 Declaration 9 Copyright Statement 10 Acknowledgements 11 Chapter 1: Introduction 13 1. What is Lobbying? 15 2. Setting the Scene 16 3. Core Themes 20 3.1 A Model of Democracy 20 3.2 The Importance of Stakeholder Input 21 3.3 Equality of Access and Influence 22 4. A Matter of Method 23 4.1 Quality vs. Quantity 24 4.2 Why Case Studies? 25 4.3 Gathering Data 27 4.4 Style and Substance 28 4.5 Objectivity and Subjectivity – The Balance of Fairness 29 4.6 Questions by Design 30 4.7 Confidentiality & Anonymity 31 5. Thesis Outline 32 Chapter 2: Conceptions of Governance and Democracy: A 34 Contemporary Model of Democracy 2 1. Governance 34 1.1 Definitions of Governance 39 1.2 Complexity and Multiple Actors 45 1.3 Relationships Between Actors & Policy Networks 49 1.4 Policy Networks in the EU Context 58 1.5 Conclusions on Governance 60 2. Democracy 62 2.1 Classical Models of Democracy 63 2.2 Organisations as Citizens? 69 2.3 Pluralism 75 2.4 A Minimal Role for the State? 82 2.5 Participation By All? 84 2.6 Towards A Working Model? 88 2.7 Wealth and Equality 89 2.8 Wealth, Equality and Lobbying 97 2.9 MPs: Delegates or Trustees? 101 2.10 All Party Groups 102 2.11 Who to Lobby? 102 2.12 Opening Up Access 104 2.13 The Media 105 2.14 Digital Media and Participation 107 2.15 Concluding Remarks 110 3.
    [Show full text]
  • “Site Blocking” to Reduce Online Copyright Infringement
    “Site Blocking” to reduce online copyright infringement A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has redacted some parts of this document where it refers to techniques that could be used to circumvent website blocks. There is a low risk of this information being useful to people wanting to bypass or undermine the Internet Watch Foundation‟s blocks on child sexual abuse images. The text in these sections has been blocked out. Advice Date: 27 May 2011 1 Contents Section Page 1. Executive summary 3 2. Introduction 9 3. Understanding how the internet operates 17 4. Blocking sites 26 5. Effectiveness of Section 17 & 18 46 6. Conclusion 50 Annex Page 1 Technical Glossary 52 2 Whois domain privacy service output 54 Section 1 1. Executive summary The Secretary of State has asked Ofcom to consider a number of questions related to the blocking of sites to reduce online copyright infringement. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has asked Ofcom to report on certain technical matters relating to sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA). Sections 17 and 18 provide the Secretary of State with the power to grant the Courts the ability to require service providers, including internet service providers (ISPs) and other intermediaries, to prohibit access to sites on the internet that are found to be infringing copyright. Specifically, we have been asked to consider the following questions: Is it possible for internet service providers to block site access? Do
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 Table of Cases (References Are to Pages in the Text.) 16 Casa
    Table of Cases (References are to pages in the text.) 16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin, 791 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) .....6-14 A A Slice of Pie Prods. LLC v. Wayans Bros. Entm’t, 487 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D. Conn. 2007) ......................... 3-7, 3-8, ........................................................................7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 17-7 Aaron Basha Corp. v. Felix B. Vollman, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .................... 10-18, 17-10 Accolade, Inc. v. Distinctive Software, Inc., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14305 (N.D. Cal. 1990) ..............8-16 Acker v. King, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1220 (D. Conn. 2014) ............1-11 Act Grp., Inc. v. Hamlin, No. CV-12-567-PHX, 2014 WL 1285857 (D. Ariz. Mar. 28, 2014) ............. 3-29, 6-3 Act Young Imps., Inc. v. B&E Sales Co., 667 F. Supp. 85 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) .....................................16-15 Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Jostens, Inc., 988 F. Supp. 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 155 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 1998) ............1-6, 2-15, 2-17, 9-3 Addison-Wesley Publ’g Co. v. Brown, 223 F. Supp. 219 (E.D.N.Y. 1963) .........2-27, 6-6, App. B-14 Advanced Tech. Servs., Inc. v. KM Docs, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134567 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 9, 2013) ......................................................17-4 Adventures in Good Eating v. Best Places to Eat, 131 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1942) ................................................1-5 (Osterberg/Osterberg, Rel. #13, 5/16) T–1 SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY IN COPYRIGHT LAW Alberto-Culver Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington University Record, July 2, 1987
    Washington University School of Medicine Digital Commons@Becker Washington University Record Washington University Publications 7-2-1987 Washington University Record, July 2, 1987 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record Recommended Citation "Washington University Record, July 2, 1987" (1987). Washington University Record. Book 414. http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record/414 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington University Publications at Digital Commons@Becker. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Record by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Becker. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I '/^OH/MGr / O/N/ /V//i/5/7V ,~*:-- § Washington WASHINGTON ■ UNIVERSITY- IN • ST- LOUIS ARCHIVES u*«ry JUL i '87 RECORD Vol. 11 No. 36/July 2, 1987 Science academy's medical institute elects two faculty Two faculty members at the School of Medicine have been elected mem- bers of the prestigious Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. New members of the institute are Michel M. Ter-Pogossian, Ph.D., and Samuel A. Wells Jr., M.D. Ter- Pogossian is professor of radiology at the School of Medicine and director of radiation sciences for Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology. Wells is Bixby Professor and chairman of the De- partment of Surgery at the medical school. He is also chief of surgery at Barnes and Children's Hospitals in the Washington University Medical Center. The two are among 40 new members elected to the institute in recognition of their contributions to health and medicine or related fields. As members of the institute, which was established in 1970, Wells and Ter-Pogossian will help examine health policy issues and advise the federal government.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Communication Decency Act's Section
    Legal Sidebari Liability for Content Hosts: An Overview of the Communication Decency Act’s Section 230 Valerie C. Brannon Legislative Attorney June 6, 2019 Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), broadly protects online service providers like social media companies from being held liable for transmitting or taking down user-generated content. In part because of this broad immunity, social media platforms and other online content hosts have largely operated without outside regulation, resulting in a mostly self-policing industry. However, while the immunity created by Section 230 is significant, it is not absolute. For example, courts have said that if a service provider “passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties,” Section 230 immunity will apply; but if the service provider helps to develop the problematic content, it may be subject to liability. Commentators and regulators have questioned in recent years whether Section 230 goes too far in immunizing service providers. In 2018, Congress created a new exception to Section 230 in the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, commonly known as FOSTA. Post-FOSTA, Section 230 immunity will not apply to bar claims alleging violations of certain sex trafficking laws. Some have argued that Congress should further narrow Section 230 immunity—or even repeal it entirely. This Sidebar provides background information on Section 230, reviewing its history, text, and interpretation in the courts. Legislative History Section 230 was enacted in early 1996, in the CDA’s Section 509, titled “Online Family Empowerment.” In part, this provision responded to a 1995 decision issued by a New York state trial court: Stratton- Oakmont, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • National Council on the Humanities Minutes, No. 21-25
    6fftce of tha Caoara! Couris National rctiiiu^iion o-i the ArU and th Hurr.anstiS^ MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES Held Thursday and Friday, October 21-22, 1971 10th Floor Conference Room Veterans Administration Building . 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. Members present: Wallace B. Edgerton, Acting Chairman Jacob Avshalomov Paul G. Horgan Edmund F. Ball Leslie Koltai Lewis White Beck Mathilde Krim Robert T. Bower Walter J . Ong Gerald F. Else . Rosemary Park Leslie H. Fishel Arthur L. Peterson Allan A. Glatthom Eugene B. Power Henry Haskell Robert Ward Stephen J . Wright Members absent: Kenneth B. Clark James Wm. Morgan Albert William Levi Robert 0. Anderson Soia Mentschikoff Sherman E. Lee Charles E. Odegaard Herman H. Long 21:2 Guests present Professor Richard D. Lambert, Department of South Asia Studies, University of Pennsylvania Dr. William D. Schaefer, Executive Secretary of the M o d e m Language Association Dr. Edmund Pellegrino, Vice President for Medical Affairs of the State University of New York at Stony Brook Dr. Daniel Callahan, Director of the Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences Mr. John Lively, Budget Examiner, Office of Management and Budget Mr. G. Phillips Hanna,Chief,Community Development Program Unit, Office of Management and Budget Staff Members present Dennis Atwood, Personnel Management Specialist, NFAH John Barcroft, Director, State and Community Programs, NEH Betty L. Barnes, Grants Specialist, Office of Grants, NEH, NFAH Janet W. Berls, Program Assistant, Division of Education, NEH Paul P. Berman, Director of Administration, NFAH James H.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Piracy: Can File Sharing Be Regulated Without Impeding the Digital Revolution?
    CYBER PIRACY: CAN FILE SHARING BE REGULATED WITHOUT IMPEDING THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION? Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester Michael Robert Filby School of Law University of Leicester May 2012 Cyber Piracy: Can File Sharing be Regulated without Impeding the Digital Revolution? Abstract This thesis explores regulatory mechanisms of managing the phenomenon of file sharing in the online environment without impeding key aspects of digital innovation, utilising a modified version of Lessig’s modalities of regulation to demonstrate significant asymmetries in various regulatory approaches. After laying the foundational legal context, the boundaries of future reform are identified as being limited by extra-jurisdictional considerations, and the regulatory direction of legal strategies to which these are related are linked with reliance on design-based regulation. The analysis of the plasticity of this regulatory form reveals fundamental vulnerabilities to the synthesis of hierarchical and architectural constraint, that illustrate the challenges faced by the regulator to date by countervailing forces. Examination of market-based influences suggests that the theoretical justification for the legal regulatory approach is not consistent with academic or policy research analysis, but the extant effect could impede openness and generational waves of innovation. A two-pronged investigation of entertainment industry-based market models indicates that the impact of file sharing could be mitigated through adaptation of the traditional model, or that informational decommodification could be harnessed through a suggested alternative model that embraces the flow of free copies. The latter model demonstrates how the interrelationships between extant network effects and sub-model externalities can be stimulated to maximise capture of revenue without recourse to disruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Economy Bill [HL]
    Digital Economy Bill [HL] EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, are published separately as HL Bill 1—EN. EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Lord Mandelson has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Digital Economy Bill [HL] are compatible with the Convention rights. HL Bill 1 54/5 Digital Economy Bill [HL] CONTENTS General duties of OFCOM 1 General duties of OFCOM 2 OFCOM reports on infrastructure, internet domain names etc 3 OFCOM reports on media content Online infringement of copyright 4 Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements 5 Obligation to provide infringement lists to copyright owners 6 Approval of code about the initial obligations 7 Initial obligations code by OFCOM in the absence of an approved code 8 Contents of initial obligations code 9 Progress reports 10 Obligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation 11 Obligations to limit internet access 12 Code by OFCOM about obligations to limit internet access 13 Contents of code about obligations to limit internet access 14 Enforcement of obligations 15 Sharing of costs 16 Interpretation and consequential provision 17 Power to amend copyright provisions Powers in relation to internet domain registries 18 Powers in relation to internet domain registries 19 Appointment of manager of internet domain registry 20 Application to court to alter constitution
    [Show full text]
  • Player, Pirate Or Conducer? a Consideration of the Rights of Online Gamers
    ARTICLE PLAYER,PIRATE OR CONDUCER? A CONSIDERATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ONLINE GAMERS MIA GARLICK I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 423 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................. 426 A. KEY FEATURES OF ONLINE GAMES ............................ 427 B. AGAMER’S RIGHT OF OUT-OF-GAME TRADING?......... 428 C. AGAMER’S RIGHT OF IN-GAME TECHNICAL ADVANCEMENT?......................................................... 431 D. A GAMER’S RIGHTS OF CREATIVE GAME-RELATED EXPRESSION? ............................................................ 434 III. AN INITIAL REVIEW OF LIKELY LEGAL RIGHTS IN ONLINE GAMES............................................................................ 435 A. WHO OWNS THE GAME? .............................................. 436 B. DO GAMERS HAVE RIGHTS TO IN-GAME ELEMENTS? .... 442 C. DO GAMERS CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS?................ 444 1. SALE OF IN-GAME ITEMS - TOO COMMERCIAL? ...... 449 2. USE OF ‘CHEATS’MAY NOT INFRINGE. .................. 450 3. CREATIVE FAN EXPRESSION –ASPECTRUM OF INFRINGEMENT LIKELIHOOD?.............................. 452 IV. THE CHALLENGES GAMER RIGHTS POSE. ....................... 454 A. THE PROBLEM OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. ................ 455 B. THE DERIVATIVE WORKS PARADOX............................ 458 C. THE PROBLEM OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICATION OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS. ....................................... 461 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................. 462 © 2005 YALE
    [Show full text]
  • Reevaluating Internet Service Providers' Liability for Third Party Content and Copyright Infringement Lucy H
    Roger Williams University Law Review Volume 7 Issue 1 Symposium: Information and Electronic Article 6 Commerce Law: Comparative Perspectives Fall 2001 Making Waves in Statutory Safe Harbors: Reevaluating Internet Service Providers' Liability for Third Party Content and Copyright Infringement Lucy H. Holmes Roger Williams University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR Recommended Citation Holmes, Lucy H. (2001) "Making Waves in Statutory Safe Harbors: Reevaluating Internet Service Providers' Liability for Third Party Content and Copyright Infringement," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol7/iss1/6 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Roger Williams University Law Review by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Notes and Comments Making Waves In Statutory Safe Harbors: Reevaluating Internet Service Providers' Liability for Third-Party Content and Copyright Infringement With the growth of the Internet" as a medium of communica- tion, the appropriate standard of liability for access providers has emerged as an international legal debate. 2 Internet Service Prov- iders (ISPs) 3 have faced, and continue to face, potential liability for the acts of individuals using their services to access, post, or download information.4 Two areas of law where this potential lia- bility has been discussed extensively are defamation and copyright 5 law. In the United States, ISP liability for the content of third- party postings has been dramatically limited by the Communica- tions Decency Act of 1996 (CDA).
    [Show full text]