We Stand On The Precipice Of World War III, But, Sure, Let's All Talk About The DMCA And 'Standard Technical Measures'

from the what-are-we-even-doing-here dept

A whole bunch of people wasted Tuesday talking about technical measures. What technical measures, you might ask? The ones vaguely alluded to in the DMCA. Subsection 512(i) conditions the safe harbors on platforms (more formally called "Online Service Providers," or OSPs, for the purposes of the DMCA) "accommodat[ing] and [...] not interfer[ing] with standard technical measures." The statute goes on to describe them in general terms as "technical measures [...] used by copyright owners to identify and protect copyrighted works" that meet a few other criteria, including that they don’t unduly burden OSPs.

In 1998 when the DMCA was passed no technical measures met all the criteria. And, still, today, none do either. So it should have been a very short hearing. But it wasn’t. Instead we spent all day, plus lots of time earlier filing comments, all at the instigation of Senators Tillis and Leahy, having some people point out that no technical measure currently existing can meet this statutory criteria to help police for infringement without massive, unacceptable cost to OSPs and the expression – including copyrightable expression – they facilitate, and having other people instead stamp their feet and hold their breath, pretend up is down, left is right, and the world is flat, in order to declare that some somehow do anyway and that platforms should incur any cost necessary to deploy them.

And as for which technical measures we were talking about… we never really got there. There were references to fingerprinting technologies, like ContentID, the huge, expensive, and perpetually inaccurate system Google uses to identify potentially infringing files. There were references to watermarking systems, which some (like us) noted create significant surveillance concerns as people’s consumption of expression is now especially trackable. And there were references to upload filters as well, like the EU keeps wanting to mandate. But at no point was any specific technology ever identified so we could assess the benefits and harms of even encouraging, much less mandating, its broader use. We just all sort of nodded knowingly at each other, as if we all shared some unspoken knowledge of some technology that could somehow magically work this unprecedented miracle to make all rightsholders perfectly happy while not crushing OSPs’ abilities to continue to facilitate expression, create market opportunities for creators, and connect creators to audiences. Nor outright crush lawful expression itself as so many of these systems are already doing. When, of course, no such technology currently exists, nor is likely to exist any time soon, if ever at all.

Since the Copia Institute participated in this exercise in futility, we used the opportunity to remind everyone – and the record – in our comment and testimony that the entire conversation was happening in the shadow of the Constitution. For instance, while a system of safe harbors for OSPs is not inherently in tension with the First Amendment – indeed, protecting the platforms that facilitate Internet expression is a critical statutory tool for advancing First Amendment interests online – recent interpretations of the statutory language of Section 512 have been increasingly putting this safe harbor system at odds with the constitutional proscription against making a law that would impinge free expression. Any system, be it legal or technical, that causes lawful expression to be removed, or to not be allowed to be expressed at all, deeply offends the First Amendment. Such harm cannot and should not be tolerated in any statute or policy promulgated by the Copyright Office. The regulatory priority therefore ought to be, and must be, to abate this constitutional injury that’s already been occurring and keep it from accruing further. And under no circumstances should any provision of Section 512, including and especially the technical measures provision, be amended or interpreted in a way that increases the frequency or severity of this constitutional harm that the statute has already invited.

Because it also offends the spirit if not letter of the Progress Clause animating copyright law. You cannot foster creative expression by creating a system of censorship that in any way injures the public’s ability to express themselves or to consume others’ expression. So it is critically important to recognize how any technological measure might do that, because it will only hurt the creative expression copyright law is itself supposed to foster, as well as all the public benefit it’s supposed to deliver.

Hide this

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: copyright office, dmca, dmca 512, filters, standard technical measures, technical measures, upload filters


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Feb 2022 @ 2:00pm

    Something something regulatory capture...
    We might see tactical nukes used, but really the important thing is making sure we make sure copyright is okay.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2022 @ 2:06pm

    Thanks, Congress. @@

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2022 @ 3:12pm

    Re:

    Not sure which would be worse, a "tactical" nuke, or a tornado or artillery barrage at Chernobyl.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    Jojo (profile), 25 Feb 2022 @ 3:28pm

    We are witnessing the precipice of a major war and if we do nothing, millions of people will die, even more would suffer, any chance for a quick and nonviolent peace is slipping away by passing hour.

    Congress: B-but…. Moi c-c-copyrights….

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    ECA (profile), 25 Feb 2022 @ 3:51pm

    International CR

    "There is no such thing as an “international copyright” that will automatically protect a work throughout the world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends on the national laws of that country.Oct 17, 2018"

    I loved the old days, when the USA didnt acknowledge CR from other countries, but for some reason we are now?
    Whose idea was this?

    "However, most countries offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions that have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions. Even if a particular country is not bound to protect copyrights by international copyright treaties or conventions, protection under the specific provisions of the country’s national laws may still be possible. A listing of countries and the nature of their copyright relations with the United States is available from the U.S. Copyright Office. In addition, the IP Attaché program is ready to assist U.S. stakeholders. IP Attachés are posted at U.S. missions around the world to address intellectual property issues arising in their assigned regions. Find an Attaché in your region. "

    https://www.stopfakes.gov/article?id=Is-My-Copyright-Good-in-Other-Countries#:~:text=There%20 is%20no%20such%20thing,national%20laws%20of%20that%20country.

    https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38 a.pdf
    All the fun of selling in the USA.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Bobvious, 25 Feb 2022 @ 4:28pm

    Re: precipice of a major war

    What's the problem? Congress will be sending its "thoughts and prayers" to swat tank-launched missiles, it will be downing Russian aircraft with its strongly worded calls for restraint, and it will be unstoppably crippling Putin's resolve with its unbreakable commitment to finger waggings of the highest order.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    David, 25 Feb 2022 @ 4:56pm

    I happen to be German.

    It's sort of a consolation price that for once, it's not Germany that started a World War. It's not much of a consolation, mind you. The disappointing thing is that if it walks like a Nazi and quacks like a Nazi, it is any of a number of current-day politicians in a whole lot of countries. If it is wearing brown shirts with a swastika, it is a movie villain or a moron.

    It's really really disappointing that all you need to do these days is leave the shirt behind and you are fit for society and politics again. As if the shirts were the problem.

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.