Analysis Of The Copyright Content Filtering Obligation Of Internet Service Provider

In recent years,the limitations of the safe harbor rule have become increasingly apparent in the study of the legal aspects of online copyright infringement.While many in the legislative,judicial and academic communities have worked to improve the safe harbor rule to make it more responsive to the times,more radical views have advocated for an overall increase in the specification of the obligations of internet service providers to undertake the task of filtering online infringing content in order to better combat online infringement.The European Union’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market has taken this step forward in legislative practice,while other countries are holding back and waiting to see what happens.All things considered,there is a real need for a statutory copyright filtering obligation.In terms of practicality,advances in intelligent recognition technology have compensated for the lack of censorship by ISPs in the past,and there are already many examples of filtering systems in use by large service providers.In terms of legal theory,the obligation to filter copyrighted content on the part of ISPs is the most efficient option under the analysis of economics of law,addressing market failures and reshaping the balance of interests between ISPs and copyright owners.Naturally,the precept of filtering obligation has also been challenged,where concerns about user privacy are a false proposition,and where raising the threshold for market entry can be avoided by a flexible clause on the principle of proportionality.The limitations of the algorithm,which impede freedom of information and the private enforcement of the law by the service provider,are real obstacles to this legislative solution.Solutions to these problems could be further developed by drawing on the operation mode of the Content ID system,the design of commercial agreements such as the Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content and the latest EU legislation.These include: replacing the “filterdelete” model with a “discover-advise” model in the construction of postfiltering mechanisms,and refining the rules to avoid as much as possible the negative potential of technical tools.The automatic review should be“moderately stringent”,taking into account the inherent limitations of algorithmic technology and supplemented by an appropriate amount of manual review as a backstop.Ultimately,the principle of proportionality should be followed in EU legislation and the criteria should be further refined by the executive branch.