2mo ago

Are the owners of platforms responsible for intellectual property violations if user-created content distribution is decentralized?

Consider an AI chatbot platform. If this platform doesn't allow users to create characters (that are stored on their centralized service) that infringe IP, but allows users to import character definition files that do so from external sites (that are created by community members, and may contain copyright-protected characters), without permanently storing (or storing for private use), is the owner responsible for IP infringement?

11 comments

Ask the BitTorrent directory sites which don't actually host any content at all.

It's about capabilities. If you have the ability to censor, then the censorship laws require you do so.

IANAL, but I'd say in your example: No. If you do it right. Other service also don't need to be super strict with checking the copyright. You can put in stolen text into Office 365, have someone print you a t-shirt with the latest Disney character on it... I mean there are edge-cases and you better don't admit your whole business is about helping people violate copyright... But I guess it's generally alright to offer a service or tool that can be used to violate law.
And it might not even be violating IP. There are exemptions for personal use. I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to write (or generate) Harry Potter fanfiction for myself and my friends. So it'd be completely legal both for me and the service provider.

IANAL but one would sau , "It depends."
Questions in capitalist systems should always start with money. Does anyone profit or lose perceived value by the uses described? If yes, the plaintiff has the beginning of a case

Yes, as long as we live in a world where laws are constantly bent in favor of the ruling class.

I think IP infringement happens when you try to sell something, regardless of where you got that thing from. Unless I'm mistaken? Maybe a legal expert can chime in

is the owner responsible for IP infringement?
In general, the platform owner is required to assist copyright owners with asserting their rights.
If the platform is large enough to be a gatekeeper, the owner is additionally required to actively perform extensive checks and actions regarding several kinds of violations.

OP, please reword to be an open ended question.
- You should say, "please reword to be an open ended question or I'm destroying your post". Don't make merely implicit threats. It's spineless and our respect for you diminishes.
  Lose the "please" too. It's meaningless.
  Most of us don't know that you are the moderator or that your polite requests are actually demands backed by executive threat. Best to make it clear.

If this is in the US section 220 makes a distinction for sites that have curation or a say in what's posted vs those that don't. Usually there's some liability if the site creates or selects the things that are posted. But usually either way the site would have to comply with a valid takedown request from the rights holder if they don't want to get sued.
- It'd be interesting to see how something like Hyphanet (nee Freenet) interacts with such a requirement, as data is stored in a redundant distributed hash table that spans the whole network, there's no way to contact the operator of a given node, redundant storage of data, and no real mechanisms for taking any content off the DHT once uploaded.

11 comments