believes the removal was a result of a
“misidentification” or “mistake” of the
material to be removed or disabled by
the ISP, then the user/infringer can contest the author’s allegations of infringement by sending a Counter-notification
to the ISP.
STEP 5. ISP promptly sends the author a copy
of the actual Counter-notification. 49
If the ISP receives a Counter-notification,
it must promptly forward a copy of the
actual Counter-notification to the author.
STEP 6. ISP restores or enables the UGC if it
receives a Counter-notification. 50
If the ISP receives a Counter-notification, it
must restore or enable the UGC within 10
to 14 business days after the ISP’s receipt of
the Counter-notification.
STEP 7. ISP removes or disables the UGC
permanently if it timely receives a copy of or
notice of a lawsuit brought by the author
against the user/infringer. 51
If the ISP has received a Counter-notifica-
tion and if the ISP receives, no later than 10
business days after the ISP’s receipt of the
Counter-notification, either a written notice
from the author that the author has filed a
lawsuit, or a copy of the lawsuit brought by
the author against the user/infringer and
the lawsuit seeks a court order to restrain
the user/infringer from engaging in infring-
ing activity, then the ISP must “permanent-
ly” remove or disable the infringing UGC
to avoid liability to the author for monetary
damages.
STEP 8. ISP terminates the account of the
user/infringer according to the ISP’s “repeat
infringer” policy. 52
The DMCA requires that the ISP terminate
the account of a “repeat infringer” in
“appropriate circumstances.” It is up to the
ISP to prepare a policy that defines “repeat
infringer” and the ISP must implement its
policy by strictly following it.
Conclusion
Pinterest and all other websites that allow
UGC to be posted to their websites depend
on the DMCA to ensure that they are not
sued out of existence for copyright infringement. Since its enactment in 1998, the
DMCA has withstood substantial court
scrutiny; however, the safe harbors that
immunize ISPs from liability from monetary relief for copyright infringement remain
strong and intact. However, a new “willful
blindness” standard may be applied in the
near future to prevent many websites like
Pinterest from being eligible for the DMCA
safe harbors. Lawyers will turn to the
DMCA to advise their ISP clients how to
take advantage of the safe harbors for
infringing UGC that is transmitted, cached,
stored or indexed on their client’s servers,
system, network or website. AZ AT
endnotes
1. www.pinterest.com.
(last visited Jan. 9, 2013).
2. A&M Records, Inc., et al. v.
Napster, Inc., et al., 239 F.3d
1004 (9th Cir. 2001); MGM
Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
545 U.S. 913 (2005); On Jan.
19, 2012, seven individuals
and two corporations were
charged in the United States
with running an international
enterprise allegedly responsible
for massive worldwide online
piracy of numerous types of
copyrighted works, through
www.megaupload.com.
3. DMCA, Pub. L. No. 105-
304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998);
17 U.S.C. § 512 et seq. The
DMCA protects qualifying
ISPs from liability for all monetary relief for direct, vicarious, and contributory copyright infringement. H.R.
Conf. Rep. No. 105-796, at
64; S. Rep. No. 105-190, at
18, 36; H.R. Rep. No. 105-
551, pt. 2, at 50. The DMCA
also limits injunctive relief to
qualifying ISPs. See 17 U.S.C.
§ 512(j).
4. 17 U.S.C. § 512(a)-(d).
5. The DMCA does not protect
the ISP from liability for copy-
right infringement for infring-
ing content provided by the
ISP. 17 U.S.C. § 512(a)-(d).
19. Id.
20. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d
1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004);
H.R. Rep. No. 105-551,
pt. 2, at 49 (1998).
21. 17 U.S.C. § 512(b)-(d).
22. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)( 2); 37
C.F.R. § 201.38.
23. www.copyright.gov/
onlinesp/.
24 See Napster, 239 F.3d at
1004.
25. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)( 1)(A)(i).
26. See Napster, 239 F.3d at 1004.
27. 17 U.S.C. §512(c)( 1)(A)(i).
28. S. Rep. 105-190, S. Rep 190,
105th Cong., 2nd Sess., May
11, 1998, at 8-10.
29 3 NIMMER ONCOPYRIGHT, §
12B.04[A][ 1], at 12B- 49;
Corbis Corporation v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F.
Supp. 2d 1090, 1108 (W.D.
Wash. 2004).
30. Corbis, 351 F. Supp. 2d at
1108.
31. Id.
32. H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt.
2, at 42.
33. Corbis, 351 F. Supp. 2d at
1108.
34. H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt.
2, at 42.
35. Viacom Int’l, Inc., et al. v.
You Tube, Inc., et al., 676 F.3d
19 (2d Cir. 2012).
36. Id. at 35 (quoting United
States v. Rodriguez, 983 F.2d
455, 458 (2d Cir.1993)).
37 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)( 1)(A)(iii);
17 U.S.C. § 512(c)( 1)(C).
38. Io Grp., Inc. v. Veoh Networks,
Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132,
1143 (N.D. Cal. 2008);
Costar Grp. Inc. v. Loopnet,
Inc., 164 F. Supp. 2d 688,
704-05 (D. Md. 2001).
39. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)( 1)(B).
40. Io Grp., 586 F. Supp. 2d at
1143.
41. Costar, 164 F. Supp. 2d at
699, 704, n. 9.
42. Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc., 165
F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1093-94
(C.D. Cal. 2001).
43. Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1051.
44. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet
Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp.
2d 1146, 1177 (C.D. Cal.
2002).
45. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)( 3).
46. Id. § 512(c)( 1)(C).
47. Id. § 512(g)( 2)(A).
48. Id. § 512(g)( 3).
49. Id. § 512(g)( 2)(B).
50. Id. § 512(g)( 2)(C).
51. Id. § 512(c)( 2)(C).