0.6 Enforcement  (Page 3/7)

The European Union has created a similar, though more open-ended, take-down system in Directive 2000/31/EC (Directive on Electronic Commerce) [discussed in  Module 2 ]. This Directive contains different rules for different kinds of service providers. Mere “conduits,” or services that only route and cache online traffic, are exempted from liability entirely. Providers that actually host data, however, are exempted only if they have no “actual knowledge” or “awareness” of illegal activities, and if they act quickly to remove or disable access to the infringing materials once they have been notified.

However, the question of what constitutes “actual knowledge” of hosting infringing materials has been left largely unanswered. This creates serious problems. It is unclear whether a service provider who receives a notice from a copyright holder that it may be hosting infringing materials will be deemed to have "actual knowledge" of hosting the materials. Likewise, it is uncertain what, if any, evidence such notices must include, whether the person sending it is required to identify himself and include a good-faith statement of belief of infringement, and under what circumstances the service provider is obligated to remove the content in order to take advantage of the safe-harbor provisions. The “awareness” of illegal activities criterion is similarly vague, and it is far from clear how rigorously providers must self-regulate and monitor the data they host or provide access to in order to come within the safe harbor provisions.

The European Union directive is broader than the US approach in that it does not provide a clearly articulated, multi-step approach for initiating and responding to take-down notices. Because of this lack of clarity, service providers have incentives to respond aggressively to take-down notices. Further, under the Directive, there does not appear to be a set procedure in place for a user to object to removal of the material, nor are providers required to notify a user when material is removed or made inaccessible.

The approaches taken by other countries to the exemption of online service providers from liability for infringement committed by their users may differ substantially. Australian law, for example, contains an exemption that is similar to that codified in the United States. However, it does not require service providers to notify the person who posted the material that has been removed. Israel likewise has a notice and take-down procedure as part of its safe harbor statute. Unlike the United States, though, it does not require the service provider to remove the material quickly upon the receipt of a complaint. Instead, it allows users three days to respond to the complaint before the material will be removed. Some countries - such as India - do not recognize safe harbor provisions for Internet service providers, and may hold them liable for copyright infringement committed by their users even if the provider has no active or direct involvement in that infringement.