Sending Liability Up The Stack: Domain Registrars Potentially Liable For Infringement By End Users

from the tertiary-liability dept

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

For quite some time now, we've been concerned about the continued expansion of "secondary liability" concepts, adding more and more liability for copyright infringement to parties who are oftenremoved from any actual infringement. There are two major concerns with this. First, putting liability on one party for the actions of another just seems generally problematic. But, perhaps more importantly, when you put potential liability on an unrelated party, the end result is almost alwaysin a manner that hinders or entirely blocks perfectly legitimate activity and speech.That's why a recent court ruling in Germany is so problematic. It's the followup to an earlier ruling that found a domain registrar, Key-Systems, liable for actions done byof a torrent tracking site H33T. H33T just hosted the torrent (which, we should remind you, is not the actual infringing file), and some users used that tracker to torrent the album. When H33T failed to respond to a takedown notice, Universal Music went after the registrar, and the court said it was Key-System's responsibility to stop the infringement. Of course, the only way for the registrar to do that is to yank the entire domain.The case was appealed, but the appeals court upheld the lower court ruling . Even though the registrar pointed out (accurately) that it had no way of knowing if the torrent was actually infringing, the court said that the registrar was responsible foronce it had contacted the domain owners and not received a response. That's an interesting shifting of the burden of proof. The court also seems unconcerned that the only way the registrar can remedy the situation is to, saying that if the website didn't want this to happen it should have responded promptly to the takedown notices it had received.Much of this seems to focus on assuming guilt unless one can prove innocence, and further believing that it's somehow "obvious" to recognize when someone is infringing on copyrights. As the Universal Music lawyer tells TorrentFreak in the link above, the company is quite excited about this new power, and will "have this in mind when looking at other domains."

Filed Under: copyright, germany, liability, registrars, secondary liability, tertiary liability

Companies: h33t, key systems