Violazione di copyright (fornendo link a opere protette) da parte della piattaforma

Eric Goldman posta un commento (dandone pure il link, che segue, al testo) a US Appels Court del 10 circuito 16 ottobre 2023, caso No. 21-4128, Greer v. Moon e Kiwi Farms.

Si tratta di azione contro la pericolosissima piattaforma Kiwi Farms che nel caso permise l’upload da parte di terzi di materiale in violazione di copyright.

IL punto giuridico è se ricorra o meno un suo contributory infringement e in particolare l’elemento della material coontribution: cioè del terzo dei tre richiesti dalla giurisprudenza usa (“Mr. Greer had to plausibly allege: (1) his copyrighted work was directly infringed by a third party, (2) Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms “kn[ew] of the infringement,” and (3) Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms “cause[d] or materially contribute[d] to [third parties’] infringing activities.” Diversey, 738 F.3d at 1204.9 We address each in turn“).

Nel caso specifico la piattafroma non solo non rimosse il materiale, anzi dichiarandolo apertamente, ma pure irrise la vittima (tra l’altro affetta da facial paralysis)

Ecco il passaggio:

<<When Mr. Greer discovered the book had been copied and placed in a Google Drive on Kiwi Farms, he “sent Mr. Moon requests to have his book removed . . . .” RI.18. Mr. Moon pointedly refused these requests. RI.18. In fact, instead of honoring the requests, Mr. Moon posted his email exchange with Mr. Greer to Kiwi Farms, belittling Mr. Greer’s attempt to protect his copyrighted material without resort to litigation. RI.18–19.
After the email request, Kiwi Farms users continued to upload audio recordings of Mr. Greer’s book, followed by digital copies of his song. When Mr. Greer discovered the song on Kiwi Farms, he sent Mr. Moon a takedown notice under the DMCA. Mr. Moon not only refused to follow the DMCA’s process for removal and protection of infringing copies, he “published [the] DMCA request onto [Kiwi Farms],” along with Mr. Greer’s “private contact information.” RI.22. Mr. Moon then “emailed Greer . . . and derided him for using a template for his DMCA request” and confirmed “he would not be removing Greer’s copyrighted materials.” RI.23. Following Mr. Moon’s mocking refusal to remove Mr. Greer’s book and his song, Kiwi Farms users “have continued to exploit Greer’s copyrighted material,” including two additional songs and a screenplay. RI.23>>.

Youtube non è corresponsabile delle violazioni di copyright consistite in ripetuti upload sulla sua piattaforma

Youtube non è corresponsabile delle violazioni di copyright date da ripetuti upload sulla sua piattaforma. Così US distr. court southern district of Florida 16 maggio 2023, Case No. 21-21698-Civ-GAYLES/TORRES, Athos overseas ltc c. Youtube-Google.

domanda attorea:

According to Plaintiff, Defendants are liable under direct and secondary infringement theories for YouTube’s failure to prevent the systematic re-posting of Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies to its platform. Plaintiff contends that YouTube has turned a blind eye to rampant infringement of Athos’ copyrights by refusing to employ proprietary video-detection software to block or remove from its website potentially infringing clips, and not just clips specifically identified by URL in Plaintiff’s DMCA takedown notices. In essence, Plaintiff argues that evidence of YouTube’s advanced video detection software, in conjunction with the thousands of takedown notices Athos has tendered upon YouTube, give rise to genuine issues of fact as to whether Defendants have forfeited the DMCA’s safe harbor protections.

Domanda rigettata: il provider non pèerde il suo safe harbour ex 17 US code § 512 per assenbza dell’element soggettivo:

<<Indeed, in Viacom the Second Circuit rejected identical arguments to the ones asserted here by Athos, which were presented in a lawsuit brought by various television networks against YouTube for the unauthorized display of approximately 79,000 video clips that appeared on the website between 2005 and 2008. Viacom, 676 F.3d at 26. Among other things, the Viacom plaintiffs argued that the manner in which YouTube employed its automated video identification tools—including liming its access certain users—removed the ISP from the safe harbor. Id. at 40–41. Yet, the court unequivocally rejected plaintiffs’ arguments, holding that the invocation of YouTube’s technology as a source of disqualifying knowledge must be assessed in conjunction with the express mandate of § 512(m) that “provides that safe harbor protection cannot be conditioned on ‘a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity[.]’”9 Viacom, 676 F.3d at 41 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 512(m)(1))>>


<<Plaintiff conflates two concepts that are separate and distinct in the context of YouTube’s copyright protection software: automated video matches and actual infringements. As explained by YouTube’s copyright management tools representative, software-identified video matches are not necessarily tantamount to  copyright infringements. [D.E. 137-7, 74:21–25]. Rather, the software detects code, audio, or visual cues that may match those of a copyrighted work, and presents those matches to the owner for inspection. Thus, while YouTube systems may be well equipped to detect video matches, the software does not necessarily have the capacity to detect copyright infringements. See id. Further, the accuracy of these automatically identified matches depends on a wide range of factors and variable. [Id. at 75:1–10, 108:2–110:17, 113:3–114:25]. That is why users, not YouTube, are required to make all determinations as to the infringing nature of software selected matches. [Id.].
Second, Plaintiff does not point to any evidence showing that YouTube, through its employees, ever came into contact, reviewed, or interacted in any way with any of the purportedly identified video matches for which Athos was allegedly required to send subsequent DMCA takedown notices (i.e., the clips-in-suit). As explained by YouTube’s product manager, the processes of uploading, fingerprinting, scanning, and identifying video matches is fully automated, involving minimal to no human interaction in the part of YouTube. [Id. at 68:22–69:18, 118:17–119]. The record shows that upon upload of a video to YouTube, a chain of algorithmic processes is triggered, including the automated scanning and matching of potentially overlapping content. If the software detects potential matches, that list of matches is automatically directed towards the copyright owner, by being displayed inside the user’s YouTube interface. [Id. at 68:22–70:25]. Therefore, the record only reflects that YouTube does not rely on human involvement during this specific phase of the scanning and matching detection process, and Plaintiff does not proffer any evidence showing otherwise>>.


<<As the relevant case law makes clear, evidence of the technologies that ISPs independently employ to enhance copyright enforcement within their system cannot form the basis for ascribing disqualifying knowledge of unreported infringing items to the ISP. Such a conception of knowledge would contradict the plain mandate of § 512(m), “would eviscerate the required specificity of notice[,] . . . and would put the provider to the factual search forbidden by § 512(m).” Viacom, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 528. Thus, we find that Athos’ theory that specific knowledge of non-noticed infringing clips can be ascribed to Defendants by virtue of YouTube’s copyright management tools fails as a matter of law>>.

Notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof Eric Goldman

Il motore di ricerca è corresponsabile per associazioni indesiderate ma errate in caso di omonimia?

La risposta è negativa nel diritto USA, dato che Microsoft è coperta dal safe harbour ex § 230 CDA:

Così , confermando il 1° grado, la 1st District court of appeal della Florida, Nos. 1D21-3629 + 1D22-1321 (Consolidated for disposition) del 10 maggio 2023, White c. DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS, ed altri.


Mr. White sued various nonresident defendants for damages in tort resulting from an episode of a reality/crime television show entitled “Evil Lives Here.” Mr. White alleged that beginning with the first broadcast of the episode “I Invited Him In” in August 2018, he was injured by the broadcasting of the episode about a serial killer in New York also named Nathaniel White. According to the allegations in the amended complaint, the defamatory episode used Mr. White’s photograph from a decades-old incarceration by the Florida Department of Corrections. Mr. White alleged that this misuse of his photo during the program gave viewers the impression that he and the New York serial killer with the same name were the same person thereby damaging Mr. White.

Diritto :

The persons who posted the information on the eight URLs provided by Mr. White were the “information content providers” and Microsoft was the “interactive service provider” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) and (3). See Marshall’s Locksmith Serv. Inc. v. Google, LLC, 925 F.3d 1263, 1268 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (noting that a search engine falls within the definition of interactive computer service); see also In re Facebook, Inc., 625 S.W. 3d 80, 90 (Tex. 2021) (internal citations omitted) (“The ‘national consensus’ . . . is that ‘all claims’ against internet companies ‘stemming from their publication of information created by third parties’ effectively treat the defendants as publishers and are barred.”). “By presenting Internet search results to users in a relevant manner, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft facilitate the operations of every website on the internet. The CDA was enacted precisely to prevent these types of interactions from creating civil liability for the Providers.” Baldino’s Lock & Key Serv., Inc. v. Google LLC, 285 F. Supp. 3d 276, 283 (D.D.C. 2018), aff’d sub nom. Marshall’s Locksmith Serv., 925 F.3d at 1265.
In Dowbenko v. Google Inc., 582 Fed. App’x 801, 805 (11th Cir. 2014), the state law defamation claim was “properly dismissed” as “preempted under § 230(c)(1)” since Google, like Microsoft here, merely hosted the content created by other providers through search services. Here, as to Microsoft’s search engine service, the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment finding Microsoft immune from Mr. White’s defamation claim by operation of Section 230 since Microsoft did not publish any defamatory statement.
Mr. White argues that even if Microsoft is immune for any defamation occurring by way of its internet search engine, Microsoft is still liable as a service that streamed the subject episode. Mr. White points to the two letters from Microsoft in support of his argument. For two reasons, we do not reach whether an internet streaming service is an “interactive service provider” immunized from suit for defamation by Section 230.
First, the trial court could not consider the letters in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The letters were not referenced in Mr. White’s written response to Microsoft’s motion. They were only in the record in response to a different defendant’s motion for a protective order. So the trial court could disregard the letters in ruling on Microsoft’s motion. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(5); Lloyd S. Meisels, P.A. v. Dobrofsky, 341 So. 3d 1131, 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). Without the two letters, Mr. White has no argument that Microsoft was a publisher of the episode.
Second, even considering the two letters referenced by Mr. White, they do not show that Microsoft acted as anything but an interactive computer service. That the subject episode was possibly accessible for streaming via a Microsoft search platform does not mean that Microsoft participated in streaming or publishing the episode

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)

La sentenza di L’Aquila sul risarcimento danni a seguito del terremoto del 2009

I giornali hanno dato ampio risalto alla sentenza Tribunale di L’Aquila n. 676/2022 del 11 ottobre 2022, RG 878/2015, laddove addossa un concorso di colpa ai deceduti  per essere rimasti nelle loro abitazioni dopo le prime scosse.

Gli attori sono i familiari di soggetti deceduti , che abitavano in  un determinato palazzo a L’Aquila. Avevano agito col rito sommario (art. 702 bis cpc).

La sentenza è interessanti anche per altri aspetti, ad es. :

1) sulla legittimiazione e poi sulla esistenza di doveri e resposnabilità in capo a vari enti pubblici e privati di controllo: ampia analisi che sarà utile studiare in caso di liti analoghe;

2) lo specifico fatto colposo cioè la negligenza accertata: << Dalla Relazione degli ingg. Benedettini e Salvatori risulta come il progetto strutturale e la relazione
di calcolo presentate al Genio Civile al fine di verificare la conformità alla normativa antisismica
fossero entrambi assai carenti, con una marcata sottostima delle azioni simiche previste dalla
normativa all’epoca vigente e dei carichi reali presenti sull’edificio, tali da renderlo particolarmente
vulnerabile proprio dal punto di vista sismico in particolare nella direzione traversale, proprio quella
nella quale si manifestò il collasso (vd. pagg.48/65; 68/71). Ciò attesta come il crollo sia imputabile
all’inosservanza delle normativa antisismica da applicarsi ed alla negligenza del Genio Civile, che
invece certificava la conformità di progetti e connessa costruzione alla predetta normativa.
Parimenti sussiste la responsabilità del Ministero dell’Interno e delle Eredi Del Beato, in ragione
della inosservanza delle prescrizioni dettate dal RDL n. 2229 del 16 novembre 1939 e della buona
tecnica nonché degli omessi controlli sul in punto

3) il sisma non è forza maggiore : gli edifici vicini hanno resistito.

4) niente regresso a favore dei Ministeri: <<Ciò chiarito, va respinta la domanda di regresso ex art.2055 c.c. formulata dai Ministeri verso gli
altri convenuti nonché il convenuto chiamato Condominio nonché in genere verso i proprietari ai
sensi dell’art.2053 c.c.; premesso che il regresso presuppone il previo pagamento dell’intero,
elemento costitutivo di tale diritto (artt.1299, 2055 II comma c.c., che allo stato non sussiste,
apparendo inutile una pronuncia condizionata a tale eventualità, posto che il fatto del pagamento
dovrebbe comunque essere accertato e provato in un giudizio che, quand’anche nelle forme
monitorie, sarebbe comunque di cognizione) sicché non può in questa sede pronunciarsi condanna
di rimborso verso alcuno, si osserva come l’azione di regresso, presupponendo l’accertamento della
colpa, è incompatibile con una responsabilità quale quella di cui all’art.2053 c.c. che ha carattere
oggettivo e che configura anche una fattispecie di responsabilità per fatto altrui laddove accolla al
proprietario anche il vizio di costruzione, quali quelli ricorrenti e fonte del crollo (…) ed essendo
rimaste indimostrate eventuali posteriori condotte colpose dei proprietari influenti sul collasso. Va
quindi respinta la domanda verso il condominio (e/o gli altri proprietari quali al Di Nicola nonché
verso il Comune, vd. infra) e resta pertanto assorbita la domanda di garanzia del Condominio verso
Reale Mutua>>

Affermazione di  dubbia esattezza.

5) il cit. concorso di colpa: << E’ infatti fondata l’eccezione di concorso di colpa delle vittime ai sensi dell’art.1227 I comma c.c.,
costituendo obiettivamente una condotta incauta quella di trattenersi a dormire – così privandosi
della possibilità di allontanarsi immediatamente dall’edificio al verificarsi della scossa – nonostante
il notorio verificarsi di due scosse nella serata del 5 aprile e poco dopo la mezzanotte del 6 aprile,
concorso che, tenuto conto dell’affidamento che i soggetti poi defunti potevano riporre nella
capacità dell’edificio di resistere al sisma per essere lo stesso in cemento armato e rimasto in piedi
nel corso dello sciame sismico da mesi in atto, può stimarsi in misura del 30% (art.1127 I co. c.c.),
con conseguente proporzionale riduzione del credito risarcitorio degli odierni attori.
Ne deriva che la quota di responsabilità ascrivibile a ciascun Ministero è del 15% ciascuno e per il
residuo 40% in capo agli Eredi del costruttore Del Beato>>

Affermazione pure di assai diubbia esattezza: che fa uno se di notte la terra trema un pò? Dorme in auto ogni volta che ciò succede? In Italia ciò capita spesso. Ed inoltre nel caso specifico la terra tremava da settimane o mesi…