Tech Sector Urges CO Against Recommending Changes to DMCA Section 512
The Computer & Communications Industry Association and other tech sector stakeholders urged the Copyright Office not to recommend sweeping changes to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512’s notice-and-takedown process and the statute's safe harbors, as expected (see 1702210059). The…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
CO reported receiving 77 comments through midnight Tuesday on its second round of questions on the study of Section 512, which targeted questions on how Section 512 balances the need to foster online innovation and the rights of the content industry. The CO sought input on how policymakers should factor divergent views on the efficacy of Section 512’s safe harbors and divergent views on how to update the statute (see 1611080021). “Because online content such as commentary and parody may require using pre-existing content in ways permitted by limitations and exceptions, ‘stay-down’ obligations are likely to lead to suppression of content making lawful use of works that were previously the subject of takedown demands,” CCIA said in its filing. Re:Create Coalition said Section 512 helped foster a “growing and important class of ‘new creators,’” and “failing to listen to them would be to ignore the core mission of the Copyright Office and any government entity -- to serve the public.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation said a “filtering mandate would not be the minor change to existing law that the anodyne phrase ‘notice-and-stay-down’ suggests, but would rather dismantle the careful balance reflected in the DMCA.” Policymakers “should be wary of tampering with the delicate balance of the current regime, which could jeopardize the rights of both copyright holders and users while also undermining the foundations of the digital economy,” said the R Street Institute and the Center for Democracy and Technology in their joint comments. “Absent these protections, online services and access providers would feel compelled to strictly monitor or restrict their customers' activity for fear of litigation, likely leading to the suppression of significant amounts of protected speech.”