Why The DMCA's Notice & Takedown Already Has First Amendment Problems... And RIAA/MPAA Want To Make That Worse
from the taking-down-speech-is-a-problem dept
The Copyright Office's study concerning Section 512 of the DMCA (the notice-and-takedown/safe harbors part of the law) had its second comment period end this week -- which is why you're seeing stories about how the RIAA is suddenly talking about piracy filters and notice-and-staydown. Via our think tank arm, the Copia Institute we filed our own comments, pointing out the already problematic First Amendment issues with the way the current notice-and-takedown system works. Remember, there's a very high standard set by the Supreme Court before you can take down expressive content. But the notice-and-takedown system ignores all of that:
Because this takedown system functions as a system of extra-judicial injunctions it is critical that the speech they target have at least as much protection as speech targeted by any request for injunctive relief. Ordinarily someone seeking to enjoin speech would need to properly plead and then prove that the targeted speech was indeed actionable. Under present practice, however, senders of takedown notices have not needed to overcome these sorts of hurdles prior to effecting the removal of targeted content via their takedown demands.
A significant reason takedown notice senders have been able to evade these constitutional requirements is because there is no effective consequence for sending non-meritorious takedown demands.
Unfortunately, the likes of the RIAA and others are pushing to make the system even worse, and we point out to the Copyright Office how that would exacerbate the First Amendment issues from the DMCA:
Under no circumstance should the Copyright Office advocate for exacerbating any of the consequences to speech that the DMCA already inflicts. For instance, any proposal to increase the power of a takedown notice, such as by turning it into a permanent injunction through “takedown-and-staydown” proposed by Question #12, would only increase the severity of the Constitutional injury the DMCA inflicts, as would requiring any additional delay in restoring content after receiving a counter-notice, as proposed by Question #5. If the Copyright Office is to do anything it should only be to encourage alleviation of the incursions on free speech that these unchecked takedown notices allow.
In our comment, we also note our concerns about some of the recent court decisions that seem to expand the DMCA in very dangerous ways that could also have serious free speech implications:
... those recent cases have also suggested that these takedown notices effectively start a clock on the intermediary, where once it learns too much about a user’s predilection for potentially infringing activities it must act to remove that user’s access to its systems entirely.
These cases are troublesome for several reasons, not the least of which being that, like jurisprudence relating to Section 512(f), they also infer a statutory requirement not actually in the statute. Section 512(i) only says that an intermediary must have a policy for terminating repeat infringers; it is otherwise silent as to what that policy should be, and post-hoc decisions by a court threaten to make safe harbor protection illusory, given that a platform can never be sure if it has complied with the statute or not.
They are also troublesome because they give the takedown demand a sort of power that such demands would never have outside of the DMCA. As discussed above, and in prior comments and proceedings, infringement allegations can often be false (or even merely mistaken), which is why injunctions are not granted without due process. Due process allows the allegations to be tested, so that only the meritorious accusations can result in any penalty. Allowing a penalty for unproven allegations, particularly with respect to speech, amounts to prior restraint, which is itself anathema to the First Amendment. A penalty that censors speech is bad enough, but a penalty that censors speakers altogether raises the constitutional injury to a whole other level. We have already seen malevolent actors abuse takedown notices to try to suppress criticism. We should not also be handing them the power to use takedown notices to suppress critics’ ability to speak out at all.
It's unfortunate that there has been little to no review at all of the First Amendment implications of the DMCA. And, no, we're not saying that infringement is free speech (heading off the comment that we're sure someone is already itching to make below). But we are saying that any system that removes expression has to take into account the First Amendment. But the DMCA doesn't discriminate and is regularly used to take down content that is clearly not infringing, as well as lots of content where it's not truly determined if it is actually infringing.
And without that analysis exploring the First Amendment implications, we now have the RIAA, MPAA and their friends trying to make the powers to censor even stronger, which is quite ridiculous coming from two organizations that often highlight their commitment to the First Amendment.
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: cathy gellis, censorship, copyright, dmca, dmca 512, first amendment, injunctions, notice & staydown, notice & takedown
Companies: mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's a complicated relationship
And without that analysis exploring the First Amendment implications, we now have the RIAA, MPAA and their friends trying to make the powers to censor even stronger, which is quite ridiculous coming from two organizations that often highlight their commitment to the First Amendment.
The RIAA and MPAA are 'committed' to the First Amendment in the same way that a drunk is 'committed' to the beer they're holding. They'll gush about how much they love it and declare it's the best thing ever... right until it no longer does what they want it to, at which point they'll throw it in the trash without a moment's hesitation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We love the first amendment, but..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "We love the first amendment, but..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, even if it was a corruption of a process that achieved the ascendancy to power. It is bad enough that the government wants to control and manipulate our speech. Letting corporate entities in on the spree might just harm their objectives, and they are dense enough to not even know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are people who are not corrupted by power. But power itself is irresistibly attractive to those who are easily corrupted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reform should include 512(f) boosts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Right of creators is stated directly in the body of the Constitution: "secure to Authors and Inventors the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT"
General opinion here is that explicitly stated Right of creators isn't harmed by rampant piracy -- billions of downloads -- which *Unconstitutionally* denies them justified rewards for their efforts.
Yes, there are valid "fair use" cases, but I think any quantifying by any half-honest party is sure to find thousands of infringements to every speech impairment. Petabytes of infringed content served out round the clock is the real world.
The easy test of whether a DMCA takedown is valid is whether someone else's content is being used: IF SO, then it's ARGUABLE, and there is a dispute mechanism not mentioned above.
So I think the present balance is about right, but more power to creators over pirates wouldn't bother me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: \\
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Right of creators is stated directly in the body of the Constitution: "secure to Authors and Inventors the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT"
Just another little hidden trick they pull here.
Dissent here does not get equal treatment, therefore the site has NO "safe harbor" protections; delaying for approval makes Techdirt the PUBLISHER of all comments; and it's likely in violation of the new CFRA or whatever that was which prohibits stifling unfavorable opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Right of creators is stated directly in the body of the Constitution: "secure to Authors and Inventors the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT"
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1357:_Free_Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheeto in Chief
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Right of creators is stated directly in the body of the Constitution: "secure to Authors and Inventors the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT"
General opinion here is that explicitly stated Right of creators isn't harmed by rampant piracy -- billions of downloads -- which *Unconstitutionally* denies them justified rewards for their efforts.
Yes, there are valid "fair use" cases, but I think any quantifying by any half-honest party is sure to find thousands of infringements to every speech impairment. Petabytes of infringed content served out round the clock is the real world.
The easy test of whether a DMCA takedown is valid is whether someone else's content is being used: IF SO, then it's ARGUABLE, and there is a dispute mechanism not mentioned above.
So I think the present balance is about right, but more power to creators over pirates wouldn't bother me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People use steak knives to rob, murder and maim. Abolish steak knives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And there are laws against using steak knives for those purposes, and legal mechanisms for punishing people who do so, up to and including the death penalty.
I take it from your analogy that you're suggesting that people and organizations who abuse the DMCA and use it to infringe on free speech should be subject to legal consequences?
Oh, I see. You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the one hand, there's an entire industry making vast amounts of money directly and indirectly from the flagrant distribution of unlicensed content. The amount of unlicensed content on the net is truly vast and so it's understandable why the creative industries want filehosting services, upstream providers and search engines to do a lot more to stop this.
However, on the flip side, there are many businesses operating for music, film companies etc that send/have sent questionable DMCA Notices as a result of poor automated procedures.
It's an extremely complex problem with no easy solution.
James Brandes - Digital Copyright Consultancy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]