The Copyright Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Copyright Act of 2004 and focuses primarily on the role of new technologies in the infringement of copyright, with provisions on Internet Service Providers’ (ISPs) liability, including ISPs exemptions for storing infringing material, for caching, a notice and take down regime and a termination for repeated infringers regime. Apparently, the Bill does not include a mere conduit exemption.
(1) Section 3 provides that ISPs must have a termination policy for their Internet service subscribers that repeatedly infringe copyright. In particular, the Bill states that: (i) "An Internet Service Provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet Service Provider of a repeat infringer"; (ii) "This provision applies if a person infringes the copyright in a work . . . without the consent of the Copyright owner." The Bill does not specify how many times an infringer should violate copyright law to be tagged as a repeated infringer nor provides a right of appeal for people whose access rights are terminated.
(2) Section 4 provides for a hosting/storing exemption for ISPs. (i) ISPs are exempted from liability for copyright infringment if they store infringing materials uploaded by a user, unless (a) they know or have reasons to believe that the material infringed copyright in the work, and (b) do not promptly prevent access to the infringing materials as soon as becoming aware of them. (ii) Knowledge of infringment can be proved in court by all relevant means, including whether the Internet Service Provider has received a notice of infringement. (iii) ISPs must promptly give notice to the user that the material has been deleted or access to it prevented.
(3) Section 6 provides for a caching exemption for ISPs. As long as ISPs do not modify the material that they store temporarily for the purpose of allowing faster access by users, they are not liable, unless certain conditions apply (6(2)(a)-(c).
Topic, claim, or defense
Type of service provider
General or Non-Specified
OSP obligation considered
Block or Remove
Type of law
General effect on immunity
General intermediary liability model
Takedown/Act Upon Knowledge (Includes Notice and Takedown)