Secondary Liability, ISP Immunity, and Incumbent Entrenchment

Abstract

More than fifteen years have passed since the two major U.S. statutes concerning the secondary liability of Internet service providers were adopted-the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The statutes have been criticized; however, very little of the criticism has come from Internet service providers, who have enjoyed the benefits of generous safe harbors and immunity from suit guaranteed by these statutes. This Article raises the question of whether these statutes contribute to incumbent entrenchment-solidifying the position of the existing Internet service providers to the detriment of potential new entrants. The current laws and industry self-regulation may hamper the entry of new service providers into the market and thereby retard the technological progress that best serves society.

Intermediaries liability for copyright infringement: application of the “safe harbor” model

“…Surveys show that unclear and restrictive liability and copyright regulations discourage investors. According to one study, regulations imposing liability on online services for user-generated content reduce the pool of parties interested in investing in such services by 81 per cent [25]. However, clarifying copyright provisions, allowing websites to quickly resolve legal disputes, and limiting penalties for websites operating in good faith can significantly increase the pool of interested investors.…”

Trump v. Twitter

“…Schon bei Erlass des DMCA wurde davor gewarnt, dass die neue Regelung eventuell den technologischen Fortschritt behindern könnte, indem sie Anreize für Provider minimiert, Rechtsverletzungen aus eigenem Antrieb vorzubeugen 256. In einer kürzlich veröffentlichten rechtsgebietübergreifenden Studie257 stellen die Autoren zwar fest, dass diese Gefahr durch andere Faktoren abgeschwächt werde, so im Urheberrecht namentlich durch das Bestreben Auch hier ist die Anspruchsprüfung dort, wo der Provider (z.B. als Inhaltsanbieter) selbst direkt in Rechte Dritter eingreift oder diese auf andere Weise schädigt, soweit ersichtlich nicht problematisch 260.…”