The document outlines 3 preliminary proposals for amending the DMCA: 1. Clarify safe harbor for YouTube-like sites and increase requirements for providing repeat infringer information. 2. Create separate safe harbor provisions for sharing sites that require non-anonymous user identification and banning repeat infringers. 3. Create a new section within the DOJ to review copyright law, implement an online response system, clarify liability standards, and require ISP filtering and education campaigns.

1. Preliminary Proposals for DMCA AmendmentsCongressional CommitteeCameron Zinsli, Luca Guidobaldi, Dana Halevy Rozner, Andrew Asplund, Jin Han, Lawrence Wang, Katherine Rea, Anna Bakhmetyeva

2. Proposal OneDana Halevy Rozner, Luca Guidobaldi, Cameron Zinsli

3. Clarify that YouTube-like sites fall within the safe harbor of §512(c).-> New §512(c)(2): “Any activity relating to the indexing, aggregation, presentation, access, or sharing of protected material, stored at the direction of a user, shall not forfeit the application of this Section insofar the service provider does not engage in the selection or modification of the content stored.”

4. Increase the burden on YouTube like sites to provide information about repeat infringers when requested by content holders (§512(h))-> Definition of “repeat infringers”: “Any user whose uploaded material has been repeatedly notified as infringing material by the service providers based on the content owner’s notification made pursuant to §512(c)(4) [former §512(c)(3)]”In 512(h)(2)(D): Require content owners requesting a subpoena of “repeat infringers” identity to make a prima facie showing of an absence of fair use.

5. Under §512(c), if apparent (& continuous) infringement is present, only allow sites that have implemented reasonable filtering measures to remain protected by the safe harbor.

6. A defendant can show reasonable filtering measures by demonstrating a good faith effort of reducing infringement.Overview of Proposed Changes

7. The system needs minor tweaks not major overhauls: the existing scheme of the DMCA is sufficient

8. Preserving the openness of existing YouTube-like sites to prevent the law from forcing sites into closed, subscription based services and obliterating anonymity.

9. We do not want to discourage businesses and users from participating in these markets.

10. Encourage cooperation amongst stakeholders: the burden stays with the content owners but ISPs should facilitate copyright holders’ policing activities, acting in good faith according to the degree of technical and contractual control they might retain on the material.Policy Justifications

11. Adding new safe harbor categories is not necessary: “sharing sites” already fall within §512(c)

12. Might restrict the business models that could develop in the marketplace

13. Case law has developed around the existing framework