Should the owner of the site monitor compliance with copyright?

Question

Copyright

On a site, people post content.
At one point, someone A begins to claim that someone B published not his own, but someone else's. That is, he stole and laid out on his own behalf. But B denies everything and confidently declares that he did not steal anything and everything is his. It is impossible to find out who is right and who is not. And then the barrel, in the form of accusations of violating the law, begins to roll on the owner of the site.
The following questions arise:
1. Is the owner of the site obliged to personally find out who the author is and whether the law has been violated?
2. Does the owner of the site bear any responsibility for the fact that without his knowledge, against all the rules, someone has published someone else's?
3. How should such situations be resolved according to the law, who and what actions should be taken, what is the role of the site owner?
In RF.

Answer 1

You didn't mention jurisdiction. Well, we will be guided by the old rule: if the country is not written on the stamps, then this country is Great Britain; if the Internet does not say what right it is, then it is the right of the United States.
IANAL, TINLA.
> 1. Is the owner of the site obliged to personally find out who the author is and whether the law has been violated?
Of course not.
> 2. Does the owner of the site bear any responsibility for the fact that without his knowledge, against all the rules, someone has published someone else's?
If he follows the law, then no.
> 3. How should such situations be resolved according to the law, who and what actions should be taken, what is the role of the site owner?
The owner of the site or server (hereinafter referred to as you), where users post something, must make public the addresses at which he undertakes to receive and consider complaints of copyright infringement.
Having received an official complaint from the copyright holder or his representative (hereinafter referred to as the copyist) with the requirement to remove the work belonging to him from public access, you *must* remove it, and notify the user about it that he posted the controversial work on your website (server).
If the user submits you an official objection, you send it along with his full contact details (which he must not forget to indicate) to a copyist. Further actions of the copywriter are already in the field of litigation.
If within fourteen working days the copyist has not notified you that he intends to start them, you can restore the work in the public domain.

Answer 2

1. The court decides who is the author and who breaks the law.
2. State the responsibility of the parties in the public offer.
3. Leave mail on the site for prompt response to judicial requests and decisions.

Answer 3

The owner of the site has no opportunity for this. No legal obligations.
The case of the site owner:
1. In the offer, which publishers are obliged to accept - clearly indicate that the publisher is responsible for everything.
2. Follow the court order to delete information.
The showdown between A and B is not the business of the site owner.
You are confusing the hoster's technical ability to delete information here.
This technical possibility does not provide any legal basis.