Re: Internet Piracy

On Sun, 13 Jun 1999, C.E. Petit <cepetit[_at_]usa.net> wrote:
>
> (1) Semi-famous author 1 notices, during a web search, that one of her
> short stories generates a hit one an unfamiliar webpage. The webpage
> is hosted by a "free hosting" Service 1, which claims that it will not
> take action against one of its members short of seeing a physical copy
> of a copyright registration. Author 1 has never registered that actual
> story, and does not want it to see print at all, as she feels it is an
> inferior early effort. The actual webpage, though, properly attributes
> the story to author 1, and notes that "some of these stories are posted
> without permission." Further search of the site discloses more
> unauthorized reproduction of work by authors 2, 3, 4, and 5. All email
> links on said site bounce.
>
> Attorney emails to Service 1, informs Service 1 of the continuing and
> admitted violations. After several days of aggressive displays,
> Service 1 backs down and kills the site.
>
> (2) Several months later, Author 2 finds a short article of his posted
> by another user on a different part of Service 1. Author 2 sends email
> to Infringer 2 owner, which itself is through a different "free" email
> provider. Again, the article contains a copyright attribution, but is
> an early work that Author 2 does not wish posted. The email to
> Infringer 2 removes that page. However, Infringer 2 just moves to a
> different "free" service provider (Service 2). Further faxes and
> emails to Infringer 2 and Service 2 finally result in removal from
> THIS website. (It's too early to see if Infringer 2 will open yet
> another site.)
>
> Questions:
>
> (a) In situation 1, did Service 1 lose common carrier status when it
> became aware of an ADMITTED infringement using its service?

Why do you think it would have common carrier status to begin with?

> Should Service 1 bear liability because it refuses to accept proof
> other than the physical registration certificate, even though
> registration is not required to protect the copyright?

I think the best basis for Service 1 to avoid liability is the provisions of section 512; and only if they complied with 512(c)'s provisions.

> (b) Service 2 has several "flavors" of sites. If Infringer 2 opens an
> infringing site on one of these other "flavors," is Service 2 willfully
> abetting infringement by failing to screen out either Infringer 2 in
> general, or the infringing material specifically?

Probably not. Again, I'd look to 512.

-- 
Terry Carroll         |   "AMD represents my worst investment!"
Santa Clara, CA       |      - AMD shareholder Fred Strauss
carroll[_at_]tjc.com       |   "Mine too!"
Modell delendus est   |      - AMD Chairman and CEO Jerry Sanders