10 Oct Take Down Agreement
The concept of notification and residence has been criticized; It was found that the only way to reliably enforce such an obligation would be automatic filtering, which is subject to the possibility of false alarms, and the inability to detect legitimate uses of a relevant plant (e.g. B equitable use). The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that proactive monitoring user content would impose the burden of copyright enforcement on service providers (which would destroy the purpose of safe havens) and would be too costly for newly created companies (thereby strengthening established companies like Google and stifling innovation).   The term «notice and stay down» refers to the concept that a service, after receiving an invitation to remove a copyrighted work, must also prevent the same work from being available on the service again in the future.    Proposals for these concepts generally require the introduction of automatic content recognition similar to YouTube`s «Content ID» system, which proactively filters identified works and prevents them from being reloaded. In the United States, proposals for notification and stay-down rules have been made by copyright lobbyists and constitute Article 17 of the European Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.      If the court finds that the copyright owner misunderstood the copyright infringement right, the copyright owner is liable for all damages suffered by the online service provider as a result of the improper removal of the material.  The online service provider is also required to respond appropriately to «repeat infringers», including the termination of online accounts. On this basis, online service providers may insert clauses in user service agreements allowing them to terminate or deactivate user accounts after repeated copyright infringement. The identification of a «repeat infringer» can be achieved through repeated requests for notification and withdrawal, while other online service providers require a judicial finding.  Global Crossing will provide the Services in accordance with the «Take Down Schedule» described in Appendix D, and Exodus will use them. In October 2013, in the case of Delfi AS v. Estonia, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Estonian news site Delfi was held responsible for defamatory comments by users in an article.
The court found that the company should have «expected insulting contributions and exercised an additional degree of caution to avoid being held liable for damage to a person`s reputation,» and its moderation system for notification and filing of comments was «insufficient to prevent third parties from being harmed.»   Unlike the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the E-Commerce Directive does not define the notification and redress procedures referred to in Article 14 of the Directive. Member States have implemented different approaches regarding the obligation to act quickly and when an online host acquires «real knowledge» about notifications. . . .