How Quickly Do Internet Companies Need To Take Content Down Following A DMCA Notice?
from the questions-questions dept
By now, you should be mostly aware of the DMCA's "notice-and-takedown provisions." Most elements of it have been litigated to death, and while there are still a few points of contention (such as what really constitutes "red flag knowledge"), a lot of the key points are pretty well settled in the law. But, there are always opportunities for new questions to be raised -- and it's kind of incredible that this particular one hasn't been that widely litigated: just how quickly does a service provider need to act in pulling down content upon receipt of a takedown notice? The law 17 USC 512(c) just says "expeditiously":upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.But... what is "expeditiously?" It's a vague enough word, subject to lots of interpretation, and now we've got a case that is likely to test if "48 hours" is expeditiously. It involves fight promoter Square Ring (owned by boxer Roy Jones Jr.) suing live streaming video site UStream, over its supposed failure to takedown livestreams of a boxing match between Roy Jones Jr. and Omar Sheika from March of 2009. Square Ring claims it warned UStream ahead of time and then sent three DMCA takedowns during the event. However, UStream responded to Square Ring two days later, saying the links in the takedown notices had been taken down. Square Ring says that's too long and UStream should lose its DMCA safe harbor protections. It also argued a bunch of other things, all of which the court rejected. However, on the question of "is 48 hours expeditiously" the court wouldn't make a summary judgment and wants the case to go to trial.
The court easily rejected Square Ring's argument that the DMCA safe harbors somehow don't apply to live broadcasts. Square Ring argued that such events are not covered because Congress "could not have foreseen the possibility of streaming live events on the internet in 1998 when the legislation was passed." But, as UStream pointed out (and the court agreed) that's just wrong:
Square Ring cites no evidence for this assertion while UStream provides a number of examples of live internet broadcasts occurring in the years prior to 1998.... The court is not persuadeded that Congress intended to exclude live broadcasts from safe harbor protection and will proceed through the statutory analysis.However, on the expeditious question, the court basically says "well, no one's really looked at this, so let's go to trial."
The court is persuaded, not by Square Ring's lengthy and convoluted attempts to utilize 17 U.S.C. 411(c) nor by its self-serving declarations, but rather by the complete lack of legal precedent for this factual situation. The court is not prepared to make a factual determination as to whether UStream acted expeditiously as required by the safe harbor provision. A number of questions of fact exist as to what precisely was done during the time period in which UStream received the March 17, 2009 notices and the ultimate takedown on March 23, 2009, a full fortyeight hours after the DMCA-compliant notices were received.As Eric Goldman points out in the link above, a jury trial has a high likelihood of a bad result for UStream -- in part because a jury may assume (totally incorrectly) that it's magically easy for a company like UStream to find and kill off "infringing" live stream events. People who don't quite understand how these things work always seem to assume that it's easy to just "know" what's infringing and to kill it, without recognizing (1) the massive scale of streaming videos that need to be analyzed and (2) the risk of taking things down too fast, thereby killing perfectly legitimate content. As Goldman notes:
For the above reasons, the court concludes that there are material issues of fact that warrant proceeding to trial.
I assume Square Ring opted for a jury trial, and a jury would be a dangerous place for UStream. Outsiders can easily imagine that Internet companies can make copyright infringing activity magically disappear at no cost with zero turnaround time (see, e.g., every Congressional hearing on online copyright issues). I think the risks are even higher for a pay-per-view plaintiff, where the video goes from hot news to mostly archival information quickly, perhaps in a matter of hours. Further, a jury is more likely to evaluate UStream’s handling of these takedowns in isolation, instead of considering the many hundreds of thousands of other takedowns–many of which are bogus or tendentious–that UStream processed in a reasonable manner. A good lawyer can help tell UStream’s story to the jury, but I think it will be hard for a jury to absorb that message.Given that, I wonder if UStream will just look to settle the case to make it go away. It would be nice to get a ruling on the record that gives companies the necessary flexibility, but I fear that the result could be the opposite -- setting up some arbitrary and impossible standard (especially for smaller companies), which expects near real-time responses to takedown notices.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dmca, expeditious remval, takedown
Companies: square ring, ustream
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Jury trial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is possible
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jury trial.
Also the cost involved could come up and other issues that the Jury could say gives the rightsholder too much power and that the websites should have 21 days to take content down when requested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It is possible
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
(I do agree they're sometimes FUBAR, though.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's VERY rare for a Grand Jury to not send someone to trial, because prosecutors don't like to be embarrassed and generally won't charge somebody unless there's a pretty good case (they would drop it or settle it with a plea agreement).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How quickly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Strange
Someone WAS streaming the event?
And how did it get to Ustream?
Someone re-directed the steam they were receiving?
Someone included it in the Streaming services?
This is a live stream, and the signal/data was coming from Somewhere..
So, unless someone signed up to Stream through Ustream and HID/FAKED there information, there should be a Data point of origination..
So WHO sent the stream?
That is the info i would want..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Warned how? Are the live streams given a URL ahead of time? How can you put in a DCMA before and infringement occurs? And with all the automated infringement notice bots and shady companies sending out notice after notice, a good lawyer could argue that 48 hours is too short of a time to investigate the validity of the claims.
Sounds like Square Ring wants priority over any other claims coming in due to the nature of their "property." Deeper digging into the process could make an uphill battle for Square Rings' case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Logic?
UStream: Ok, sure. What does the footage look like?
Square: We don't know it is a live event.
UStream: How do expect us to block something if you don't know what it is you want us to block?
Not a lawyer but sounds like a solid argument to me to make the jury understand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe the jury will assume that UStream is an expert in the business of streaming and find accordingly. In which case a bad result for UStream is both likely and warranted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is the "gold standard" that all copyright enforcers seek to achieve, one way or the other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What color hoodie goes best with red crocs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let me put it this way:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Square Ring: "Objection, not relevant to the case."
Judge: "Objection held."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Our lawyers seem to think that two business days is expeditious. Something else to consider in cases of livestreaming is whether a provider's DMCA-handling staff is even in the office and able to respond to a request at the time the stream occurs. My company's legal department is not 24/7, for example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Confused
OK - my math aint all that good, but are we talking working hours - 8 hour days - here. Does the DMCA notice only cover working hours??
That's 6 full days between the 17th and 23rd, so in order to get 48 hours, one has to see each day as only eight hours long, or assume that we're talking about working hours, like 9AM to 5PM.
When did anything on the "Internet" have working hours??
S'up?
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There is another solution of course...
Of course, to *qualify* for an account on the system, the content provider would need to sign an agreement that they will carefully check each and every takedown under the system, and should they take down a link that wasn't infringing, would be liable for UStream's legal costs and compensation of $500 to the uploader - but hey, that's fine, yes? they aren't going to use a comparebot or blanket-select hundreds of urls without checking, so it shouldn't matter...
(and it creates a brand new revenue stream for eager young users; if you can create a link that looks infringing to a bot but isn't, hey, $500 a pop :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
another layer
[ link to this | view in thread ]