Google ordered by BC court to block websites selling pirated goods: Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack | Barry Sookman

The decision made several important findings related to enforcing rights online including that:
 
* the court had territorial jurisdiction over Google
 
* the court had the jurisdictional competence to make a blocking order under its broad equitable jurisdiction even if it would have extra-territorial effects
 
* URL blocking was not as effective as website blocking
 
* the balance of convenience favored granting a blocking order to assist the plaintiffs in enforcing their judgment against defendants who continued to violate their intellectual property rights
 

 
READ THE FULL POST AT BARRY SOOKMAN:
http://www.barrysookman.com/2014/06/18/google-ordered-by-bc-court-to-block-websites-selling-pirated-goods-equustek-solutions-inc-v-jack/

DMCA : The Top 10 Stories on the Must Read List (Digital Millennium Copyright Act)

This week congress will hear testimony on the DMCA as part of it’s on going review of the Copyright Act.

Here’s 10 essential posts and articles to read to understand the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Google Receives Its 100 Millionth Piracy Notice. Nothing Changes… | DMN

Safe Harbor Not Loophole: Five Things We Could Do Right Now to Make the DMCA Notice and Takedown Work Better | Trichordist

Is this really what Congress had in mind when it created the DMCA? | Vox Indie

The DMCA is not an Alibi: The Googlization of Art and Artists  | MTP

The DMCA is Broken… | Trichordist

How DMCA Abuse Hurts Content Creators | Vox Indie

Copyright Erosion: How DMCA Misuse Became A Multimillion Dollar Shakedown and Income Transfer | MTP

Is it Time to Repair the DMCA? | Plagiarism Today

The Failure of the DMCA Notice and Takedown System | CPIP

The DMCA License? | AIMP

The Failure of the DMCA Notice and Takedown System | CPIP

Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act will be turning 15 years old soon, and it’s showing its age. Its design belongs to a different era. Like a 15-year-old automobile, it no longer runs as well as it used to. It can’t keep up with the newer, faster vehicles on the road. Its users are beginning to look for alternative forms of transportation. Pieces of it have been wearing down over time, and ultimately something is going to break that outweighs the cost of replacement.

That time may be now: the notice-and-takedown provision of Section 512 is straining under the weight of a blizzard of notices, as copyright owners struggle to abate the availability of infringing copies of their most highly valued works. The tool is no longer up to the task. Mainstream copyright owners now send takedown notices for more than 6.5 million infringing files, on over 30,000 sites, each month. Printing out the list of sites for which Google receives takedown requests in just one week runs to 393 pages. And that just counts the notices sent to Google; duplicates of many of those notices are sent to the site hosts and to other search engines. For example, over a six-month period ending in August, the member companies of the Motion Picture Association of America sent takedown notices for 11,996,291 files to search engines, but sent even more notices—for 13,238,860 files—directly to site operators. (See chart below.)

The problem is that notice-and-takedown has been pressed into service in a role for which it was never intended. Section 512 was originally designed as an emergency stopgap measure, to be used in isolated instances to remove infringing files from the Internet just long enough to allow a copyright owner to get into court. That design reflected the concerns of its time. In 1998, the dawn of widespread public use of the Internet, there was considerable anxiety about how the law would react to the growing problem of online infringement. Online services worried that they might be held directly liable as publishers for infringing copies of works uploaded by users, despite lacking any knowledge of those copies. Section 512 addressed these concerns by giving service providers a safe harbor to protect them from liability for unknowingly hosting or linking to infringing material.

READ THE FULL STORY AT CPIP:
http://cpip.gmu.edu/2013/12/05/the-failure-of-the-dmca-notice-and-takedown-system-2/