Recently, there have been several articles about a suit brought by Capitol Records against Vimeo. Billboard’s article, Big Record Labels Push Copyright Claims Against Vimeo talks about a recent decision in the Second Circuit

that an ISP had to have actual knowledge of specific infringements through takedown notices or something else before being required to remove copyright material expeditiously

MediaPost’s article, Vimeo Argues Safe Harbor Protection In Copyright Case goes to talk about whether the alleged infringements are in fact infringements or are “fair use”.

I think this brings up an important point. How does an ISP have “actual knowledge of specific infringements”? Is an allegation of infringement by copyright holder in a takedown notice sufficient? Should the creator of the derivative work be afforded due process in determining whether or not their work is in fact an infringement or is fair use?

I commented on the MediaPost article,

I applaud Vimeo for supporting due process and I hope an important precedent can be established in this case. As I understand the safe harbor law, when a company knows about an infringement, they need to take down the offending content. Unfortunately, many companies take down content, not when they know that it is infringing, but simply when someone alleges that it is infringing. By respecting due process, web platforms should wait to take down alleged infringing content until after it has been determined in the courts to in fact be infringing. Whether or not lip dubbing is fair use, Vimeo cannot know that the alleged infringing content is in fact infringing content until a judge rules on it. If all web platforms would be so responsible and wait until infringements are ruled upon in the courts, it would significantly deter the reckless allegations of many copyright holders.

Thoughts?