• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.1288-1308
• /
• 2017

When looking at the online copyright infringement, the advertisements have served as a revenue source. Recently, copyright holders and state agencies have requested to stop and withdraw posting the ad. in order to prevent copyright infringement. This way is very easy and efficient. However, the problem is that it is not clear whether the request is appropriate. For the request to be valid, posting the ad. should be a kind of indirect infringement, or if not, it must have a suitable reason. If there is no basis or reason for the two, the request should not be asked recklessly. In the US relevant cases, something more than simple relationship with direct infringers or more material contribution to the direct infringement is required to impose secondary liability for copyright infringement. However, just posting the ad. cannot be considered as the close relationship and moreover, it is not material contribution. Thus, posting the ad. is not secondarily liable for copyright infringement. In addition, the bills which was proposed in 2011, so called SOPA and PIPA, had a provision which can stop and withdraw the ads in the piracy sites. Its opponents raised the following problems: withdrawing the ad. is the censorship, gives the burdensome to the sites, and causes the imbalance due to the overload protection of copyright. Also, under the ad blocker case, to remove the ad. discretionally consists of illegal activity or copyright infringement. As a result, because the request to stop and withdraw posting the ad. is not reasonable, the request should be asked carefully.