Yet Another Study Says First Person Shooters Are Good For Your Eyesight

Chile Leads The Way On Intermediary Liability Protections

from the european-commission-please-take-note dept

Tue, Sep 11th 2012 11:58pm — Glyn Moody

As Techdirt reported, the European Commission is conducting a major consultation on the "procedures for notifying and acting on illegal content hosted by online intermediaries" that could radically affect the liability of online service providers in the European Union. Other parts of the world are doubtless examining this area too, and one at least -- Chile -- has already come up with a novel approach.

This emerged as part of a major overhaul of its copyright laws that was required as the result of a bilateral trade agreement with the US. The legislation is wide ranging, including copyright enforcement (sadly, the usual over-the-top stuff, like $100,000 fines for repeat offenders, and allowing retail value to be used for compensation calculations), but a rather enlightened set of copyright exceptions. Here's how a 2010 WIPO article on Chile's new law broke them down:

Acts of reproduction, adaptation, distribution or public communication of works will be considered lawful if done for the benefit of disabled persons where normal access to such works is not available.

Under certain conditions, non-profit libraries and archives may reproduce works that are no longer obtainable in the market. These institutions may also make electronic copies of works from their collections available for study at user terminals.

Reverse engineering activities are allowed on software, but only for compatibility purposes and research and development – or to test, investigate or correct the operation and safety of software.

Satire or parody is considered lawful if it makes an artistic contribution that sets it apart from the work or performance to which it refers.

It is lawful to reproduce or communicate a work to the public in order to comply with judicial, administrative and legislative proceedings.

Chile's comprehensive regulations governing the liability of ISPs, the first in Latin America according to the WIPO magazine, have now been analyzed in detail by the Center for Democracy & Technology, which provides the following summary: A cornerstone of the US legislation is a private notice-and-takedown system, under which the liability protections of service providers are contingent on those providers complying with rightsholdersʼ formal notices to take down allegedly infringing material. Chileʼs law does not include such a private notice-and-takedown system; instead, a court order is required to compel blocking or removal of infringing content. Due to concern over the protection of Internet users' constitutional rights, the Chilean National Congress rejected several amendments that would have introduced a non-judicial takedown procedure. The law thus strikes a different balance than the DMCA -- one that is arguably more favorable to Internet free expression and innovation -- with implications for rightsholders, intermediaries, and Internet users.
The rest of the short CDT report (pdf) explores in detail the new Chilean law. It's well worth reading in order to appreciate the way the Chilean lawmakers took pains to safeguard free expression and to provide plenty of scope for innovation. Here's one important point that it highlights: as under the DMCA and the ECD, the liability protection afforded by Chileʼs law is not contingent on service providers monitoring the data they transmit, store, or refer to, nor are service providers required to actively seek out facts or circumstances indicating illegal activities
Let's hope the European Commission takes note of this approach when it draws up its own proposals in the wake of the consultation, and that it requires a similarly active role of the courts in blocking or removing illegal content hosted by online intermediaries.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: chile, copyright, intermediary liability

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2012 @ 12:30am

" instead, a court order is required to compel blocking or removal of infringing content."

Don't you think that is truly screwed up? Can you imagine the cost and effort required to deal with a single blatant copyright infringement case, as well as the time it would take to get the job completed?

It seems like an entirely unfair tilting of the balance towards widespread infringement, with little for rights holders to get back. What a crock!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- explicit coward (profile), 12 Sep 2012 @ 1:04am
  
  Re:
  "Can you imagine the cost and effort required to deal with a single blatant copyright infringement case, as well as the time it would take to get the job completed?"
  
  Due process is a bitch, isn't it? ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2012 @ 1:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Due process? Not really - when you think that all the process is only to get a removal, not a settlement. That means putting it up takes a second, taking it down could take a year, and there would be no liability created.
    
    Sounds like a 'tardian paradise. How about you move there?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - explicit coward (profile), 12 Sep 2012 @ 1:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Innocent until proven guilty, sounds familiar? I know you prefer it the other way around - but only when it suits your interests. I bet you'd cry bitter tears if you got caught up in a system where you get accused and have to prove you're innocent...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2012 @ 2:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They probably took note of the abuses and serious concerns on unaccountable corporate driven censorship.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Seegras (profile), 12 Sep 2012 @ 2:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You know, they could do it as they did BEFORE the DMCA, when the could not just send a takedown notice.
      
      You'd mail the user politely that he'd infringe on your rights, and he should take the offending content down. If nothing happened, you'd mail the user with the ISP in the Cc. And in 95% of all cases, this worked.
      
      Actually, that's how it still works in most of europe.
      
      And if nothing happened, the content was still there, you get a judge to sign a subpoena instructing the ISP to take down the content of the user. And that's how we do it still in most of Europe.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 12 Sep 2012 @ 2:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, but you see, that sort of system requires actual work, and that just takes all the fun out of robo-censoring things.
        
        Much easier to just send out automatic takedown notices in the thousands(per day), in the good belief that at least a couple of them might actually be infringing, with everything else collateral damage and shrugged off with a 'mistakes happen'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Prisoner 201, 12 Sep 2012 @ 3:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...with everything else collateral damage and shrugged off with a 'sweet, less competition'."
        
        Fixed that for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2012 @ 3:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You know, they could do it as they did BEFORE the DMCA, when the could not just send a takedown notice. "
        
        Yes, except that before DMCA the posting site had actual liability. This seems to set it back to pre-DMCA, but with the service provider type exceptions in place. Basically, service providers would have no risk, no liability, and it would take ages to get a court to act - with no liability attached.
        
        If you can't see the problem, you are willfully blind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        explicit coward (profile), 12 Sep 2012 @ 4:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If you can't see the problem, you are willfully blind."
        
        Or not obtuse enough to think it is perfectly reasonable that the ones who build and mantain the streets should be made liable for bankrobbers using cars...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 12 Sep 2012 @ 4:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, they still have reduced liability. There's a difference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Prisoner 201, 12 Sep 2012 @ 3:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why should due process be ignored for removal?
      
      Why should anyone have their content removed before its is established that it is actually infringing?
      
      And how can you argue for this travesty of justice and still claim the moral high ground?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2012 @ 7:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why should rights holders rights be ignored by the courts?
        
        Why should rights holders have no recourse against sites that profit from their content?
        
        Why should anyone be allowed to use copyright content without first proving they have a license?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2012 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're arguing about countries that aren't under the DMCA, and might still have liability under their jurisdictions. None of the questions you ask are relevant to the conversation, and most are willful ignorance on your part.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Prisoner 201, 12 Sep 2012 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Why should rights holders rights be ignored by the courts?"
        It is not ignored by the courts. We want it to be dealt with by courts. Courts use due process. Robots do not.
        
        "Why should rights holders have no recourse against sites that profit from their content?"
        Right holders have recourse, just go to court.
        
        "Why should anyone be allowed to use copyright content without first proving they have a license?"
        Because copyright is a nice gesture that we, as a society, extend to content creators so that they will be encouraged to create more content for us to enjoy. It is not a natural right, and in fact it restricts natural rights.
        
        I hope that cleared up your confusion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2012 @ 3:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny how he thinks that people under SOPA could have just gone to court to defend themselves from reckless accusations of copyright infringement, but he also thinks that rightsholders going to court is too much of a hassle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2012 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright Killbots Strike Again: Official DNC Livestream Taken Down By Just About Every Copyright Holder
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Donglebert the Lengthy, 12 Sep 2012 @ 4:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Only to get a removal? I think most people would recognise that as protecting freedom of speech. It shouldn't be easy to silence a voice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2012 @ 1:27am

for once, there does at least appear to have been a bit of common sense used. also, the entertainment industries haven't had everything their way, with a little consideration being given to the public and to ISPs, rather than the entertainment industries just sitting back and expecting everyone else to do the work for them at their own expense, whilst getting all the 'benefits'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 12 Sep 2012 @ 4:24am

wow, I'm shocked at that amount of sanity in copyright. It's obviously too much sanity to the US but I do hope it strikes the EU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2012 @ 7:35am

Some of the text is actually from the EU's own directive:

See e.g. the Directive 2000/31/EC Directive on electronic commerce Art. 15:

1. Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers, when providing the services covered by Articles 12, 13 and 14, to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]