Starting July 1, 2015, the Act, Florida Statute 501.155, will take effect. The Act reads, in pertinent part:
A person who owns or operates a website or online service dealing in substantial part in the electronic dissemination of commercial recordings or audiovisual works, directly or indirectly, and who electronically disseminates such works to consumers in this state shall clearly and conspicuously disclose his or her true and correct name, physical address, and telephone number or e-mail address on his or her website or online service in a location readily accessible to a consumer using or visiting the website or online service.
The goal of the Act is to provide yet another right to copyright owners, this time aimed at identifying infringers and contributory infringers. The Act, which expressly excludes video games, video game streaming, or depictions of video game play, requires websites and online services dealing, in substantial part, in “commercial recordings or audiovisual works” to conspicuously disclose their contact information should copyright holders feel their intellectual property is being infringed upon, and therefore want to file a claim against the site owner. Disclosure is required even if all the recordings or “audiovisual works” disseminated by the website are owned by the site’s owner. The question of course is how will in substantial part be interpreted? For example, what about sites that share videos or songs on a blog for discussion purposes? Is that in substantial part? The bill is vague about which sites must comply, although it expressly excludes “a homepage or channel page for the user account of a person that is not the owner or operator of the website upon which such user homepage or channel page appears,” which most likely includes megasite YouTube.
Even more questions arise over the topic of anonymity. The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls it a “dangerous anti-anonymity” bill, claiming that it justifies illegal restraints on communication covered under the First Amendment, and forces anonymous bloggers to reveal themselves or risk having their website removed. Writers and artists rely on the freedom to speak anonymously through their blogs or amateur websites, and often count on anonymity to voice unpopular opinions or speak without fear of backlash. This opinion has been echoed on various blogs, with countless articles online agreeing that this bill threatens free speech and also undermines the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). The DMCA already gives copyrights owner’s full power of the courts should they want to identify the owner of the website who they claim is infringing on their works. Another argument is that this new bill most likely will have an out-of-state effect, in which case the lines become even more blurry as to which websites are included.
Despite public concerns, the bill was overwhelmingly passed by the Florida legislature, with Recording Industry Association of America Chairman and CEO Cary Sherman saying: “This bill is a major step forward in preserving the integrity and transparency of today’s internet environment.” Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, said the law would allow Floridians “to protect themselves against websites that distribute music content illegally.” Local Latin music artists are in favor of the bill, saying that piracy has greatly impacted their revenue, and that songwriters, producers, and engineers are not being paid for their hard work.
In our opinion, all websites should be required to disclose who they are. How often have you looked at a “Contact Us” section to find an address, only to find a proprietary email form that tells you nothing? We could name that the “Who the Heck Am I Dealing With Act.”
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.