Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is called “Limitations on liability relating to material online.” It specifically outlines what an online service provider (OSP) can be held responsible for and the times when they are exempt for responsibility. 512 provides copyright holders the right to ask OSPs to remove material that appears on their sites or in their programs if it is an infringement of copyright. However, a service provider is not liable for “monetary relief” or for “injunction or other equitable relief” if “the service provider does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing” and upon obtaining such knowledge “responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.”

In other words, a service provider is, in many cases, not liable for the content posted by its users, but must act swiftly to remove the infringing material from its site or service once it is notified of the infringement. Basically, if the OSPs comply promptly and effectively with copyright holders’ take down requests then they are protected by a “safe harbor” provision. According to reference.com the definition of a “safe harbor” is “a provision of a statute or a regulation that reduces or eliminates a party's liability under the law, on the condition that the party performed its actions in good faith.”

Therefore, this section of the DMCA is particularly important in determining secondary liability. A safe harbor can only be created if the site or service follows proper protocol and has been cleared of primary liability in the first place. Napster was held liable for the content being uploaded by its users because it provided a centralized server through which all information had to be passed, and thus was not granted a safe harbor.

YouTube is currently being protected by 512 because of its compliance with any and all take down notices it receives. YouTube's safe-harbor status is also helped by the fact that it has partnered itself with big, copyright-holding companies. Of course, if YouTube wasn't also complying with the takedown notices being issued by copyright holders in the first place, these partnerships wouldn't matter - or at least we’d like to think it wouldn't... The business possibilities for YouTube may almost be enough to outweigh the law, if they get the right business partners on their side.

512 is an important provision because it allows sites and services with substantial non-infringing uses to function with the possible existence of infringing material in exchange for removing that infringing material as quickly as possible. A no-tolerance infringement policy seems to be outside the scope of available online practices, therefore 512 allows services to exist with the understanding that there is inherent infringement on the internet.

This article is written by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a non-profit interest group that “seeks to promote free expression, privacy, and individual liberty on the open, decentralized internet.” This document “outlines the limits on the scope of secondary copyright liability,” looking at the Grokster decision, the landmark decision in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984), and patent law precedents relating to inducement liability. The goal of this investigation is to make sure that "secondary liability for copyright infringement does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having lawful promise.’” The Grokster case and the Sony decision can obviously be looked at be looked at individually, but this article does a nice job of synthesizing the information and explaining how they impact each other.

The article focuses on the new implications of the “inducement test,” what repercussions the situation has for the Sony rule and what this all means for vicarious liability. The article focuses on one key difference in clarification between the Grokster and Sony decisions. The language in the Grokster decisions "suggests that the Sony test focuses on 'substantial' non-infringing uses, not 'commercially significant' non-infringing uses." With Grokster, the emphasis was certainly placed on the commerical uses of the site. Monetary gains became one of the most significant factors of the case, not just ethical or legal implications. Certainly the internet is just as much a business as any other commerical frontier in the world, but more and more - especially illustrated with the Grokster decision - financial viability is the determining legal decision making. For example, today YouTube is currently seen as protected by the safe harbor provison, although some of the content being posted on YouTube today was possibly (or probably) also availible on Grokster. YouTube has been able to position itself not only in a safe harbor in a legal sense, but also in a financial sense by teaming up with companies who own many of the copyrighted works that are being infringed.

Of course the Sony case was also motivated by money, but more than ever before the current world of the web and the sites that are allowed to function within its borders are completely a function of their monetary potential for copyright holders. Grokster was taken to court because it posed a threat to the financial success of copyright holders. YouTube poses a similar threat as well, but thus far has been able to keep in partnership with the people who would be taking them to court in the first place.