IA Disputes 'Myths' About DMCA Section 512 Safe Harbors

The Internet Association attempted to dispel what it calls five “myths” about the safe harbors in Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512. The Facebook- and Google-backed group recently warned against proposals to revamp section, saying proposals designed to rein in internet companies would hinder free speech and growth in the digital economy (see 1606210040). IA said in a Thursday blog post it believes “one of the worst arguments for changing the DMCA is that it is old -- the whole point of the safe harbors was that they weren’t meant for the technology of 1998.” Congress “didn’t write the law about 1998 technology for a reason: doing so would create a ceiling on creativity,” IA said. “Instead, policy makers knew the law could never keep pace with technology in the digital age, so they created a future-proof, clear system that established a firm floor of action and (critically) enacted strong incentives for good actors to develop practices that benefited both platforms and creators.” Online copyright infringement has diminished in the U.S. since DMCA enactment, countering the claims of interest groups that “have attempted to diminish the effectiveness of safe harbors by claiming that piracy is up and therefore the law isn’t working for rightsholders,” IA said. “DMCA-compliant platforms seeking legal distribution have flourished, reaching billions of users and growing to 6 percent of U.S. GDP, while infamous sites like Napster and Grooveshark have been unable to survive.” Claims the law hurt creators are “especially troubling, given the wealth of data and examples that we have to prove that just the opposite is true,” IA said. The group said Section 512 doesn't put too much of the onus for identifying copyright infringement on rightsholders, saying “all stakeholders have responsibilities” under the statute and “internet companies are going above and beyond those responsibilities to create a thriving ecosystem.” Proposals to revamp the act to institute a “notice and staydown” system would “shift the responsibility of identifying infringing works from rightsholders to the parties least qualified to make legal determinations about the nature of a work,” IA said. “To avoid staggering liability, platforms would be forced to keep a broad array of potentially legal content offline, limiting the public’s ability to meaningfully access and distribute legitimate sources of creative works.”