| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.
''Ouellette v. Viacom'', CV 10–133–M–DWM–JCL; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liability for service providers that take down non-infringing works (works having a fair use defense to copyright infringement). This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown.〔 Thus, service providers can rest easier knowing that they do not have to do a fair use analysis of content suspected of infringing copyright.
The court's opinion was also noteworthy in its treatment of the American Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that online service providers would not be held liable for failure to provide services for disabled persons unless the company maintained a physical structure equivalent to the website. The order enforcing this magistrate judge's determination came out the same day as ''Young v. Facebook'' on May 17, 2011. In oddly parallel decisions, each court found that the service providers (Myspace, YouTube, and Facebook) were not places of public accommodation, so they did not have to meet the requirements of the ADA. Thus, a company does not have to worry about its website being accessible to the disabled, unless its online business replicates a physical space.
==Facts==
The case began when Plaintiff Todd Ouellette filed his complaint without an attorney (pro se). He claimed that YouTube and Myspace had wrongfully taken down his homemade videos. Plaintiff asked for $9,999,000 in damages. Defendants replied that the videos violated copyright. Plaintiff further alleged that the videos were fair use and that defendants’ refusal to put them back up was in violation of the DMCA takedown provisions. Plaintiff alleged that removal of the videos did not comply with the DMCA’s established procedure. of the DMCA grants safe harbor (immunity) to service providers that follow the DMCA’s takedown procedure.
The plaintiff sent counter notices to defendants that he alleged were complete except for minor errors due to his dyslexia.〔 He contended that the failure to restore the videos shows a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by depriving him of his “right to fair access to () ‘public accommodation.’”. He also claimed that these websites did not comply with the ADA by having text and formatting impossible for him to read as a dyslexic person, particularly in the Terms of Service. He mentioned that there was no audio version to help him navigate either YouTube or Myspace. The Court waived the normal fees for filing the action because the plaintiff was unable to pay them (In Forma Pauperis under ).
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|