Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
In 2008, Congress passed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization of Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (“PRO IP Act”) for the “critical” purpose of “improving IP enforcement both domestically and internationally.” Among other changes, the PRO IP Act created the position of Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (“IPEC”) within the Executive Office of the President.
Comments closed
As noted in the Report, the Office believes that the identification and adoption of standard technical measures (“STMs”) may provide an opportunity to improve the overall functioning of the notice-and-takedown system through relatively small, incremental changes that nonetheless could have a large impact on the ability of all rightsholders to protect their rights online.
Comments closed
In addition to civil enforcement measures harmonised by the Enforcement Directive and the Information Society Directive, EU Member States also apply criminal procedure and penalties to ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights, in line with Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Comments closed
Intangible assets such as inventions, artistic and cultural creations, brands, software, knowhow, business processes and data are the cornerstones of today’s economy. Over the last two decades, the volume of annual investments in such ‘intellectual property products’ increased by 87% in the EU, while the volume of tangible (non-residential) investments increased by only 30%. Investments in intangibles were also significantly less affected by the 2008 economic crisis.
Comments closed
The technology that allows copyright owners to distribute content directly to consumers’ living rooms via streaming services also enables new forms of piracy: streaming of unlicensed content and stream-ripping – that is, using software to make an unlicensed copy of streamed content that would otherwise be licensed.
Comments closed
Requirements that pose a relatively minimal burden for large, established OSPs could be crippling for a small startup that lacks access to enterprise-level technology. Larger rightsholders with in-house enforcement teams may have more resources to monitor online infringement than small rightsholders that must face a choice between devoting their time to creative endeavors or to enforcing their rights.
Comments closed
Irrespective of establishment of liability, EU law ensures that rights holders have the possibility to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe their Intellectual property rights (IPR).
Comments closed
OSPs seeking protection under the safe harbors in sections 512(b), (c), or (d), must, in addition to the section 512(i) requirements, maintain a compliant notice-and-takedown process by responding expeditiously to remove or disable access to material claimed to be infringing upon receipt of proper notice from a copyright owner or the owner’s authorized agent.
Comments closed
First, the Office recommends that Congress clarify the distinction between “actual knowledge” and “red flag knowledge.” Court decisions interpreting the red flag knowledge provision have often required a level of specificity regarding the types of information from which infringing activity is present as to blur the line between actual and red flag knowledge and conflate the existence of either knowledge type with receipt of a takedown notice from a rightsholder.
Comments closed
Key points: