Appeals Court Gives Big Loss To Record Labels In Their Quixotic Lawsuit Against Vimeo For Lipdubs

from the let-it-go,-guys dept

The record labels basically will find no innovation that's not worth suing, and so back in 2013 they sued the online video hosting/streaming site Vimeo, in part because the site had created a popular genre of videos known as "lipdubs" where people would lip sync to a song in a video. In the fall of 2013, the district court rejected most, but not all, of the record labels' arguments about the DMCA. The labels had argued that Vimeo lost its DMCA safe harbors for a variety of reasons, including not having a reasonable repeat infringer policy (and by "reasonable" the labels claimed it had to be the same as YouTube's), red flag knowledge, and the fact that because Vimeo lets people download videos there's no safe harbor. The court rejected basically all of those arguments -- but did leave open the possibility that red flag knowledge might apply if Vimeo employees had watched some of the videos at play in the case. There was also one very problematic part of the ruling, which is that the court said that pre-1972 sound recordings do not qualify for the DMCA's safe harbors because of the weird quirk of copyright law history by which pre-1972 sound recordings are not actually covered by federal copyright law (but, instead, various state laws and common law).

It's taken quite some time, but on appeal the 2nd Circuit has finally released a ruling that trashes every single of of the record labels' arguments and sides with Vimeo across the board. That is, it upholds all of the stuff the district court had about Vimeo not losing its safe harbors and goes one step further in overturning the lower court's ruling concerning pre-1972 music. The decision was written by Judge Pierre Leval, who tends to be awesome on copyright issues.

In overturning the district court on whether or not the DMCA applies to pre-1972 recordings, the ruling is pretty clear, even going against the Copyright Office's views that argued against the DMCA covering such works.

While we unhesitatingly acknowledge the Copyright Office’s superior expertise on the Copyright Act, we cannot accept its reading of § 512(c). It is based in major part on a misreading of the statute. The Report’s main argument—that § 501(a) defines the words “infringement of copyright” as meaning infringement of the rights granted by the federal statute—misreads this provision. And as for the arguments based on canons of statutory construction, a subject not within the special expertise of the Copyright Office, we respectfully conclude that the pertinent canons were misunderstood and misapplied.

To get to this conclusion, the court just reads the actual law:

A literal and natural reading of the text of § 512(c) leads to the conclusion that its use of the phrase “infringement of copyright” does include infringement of state laws of copyright. One who has been found liable for infringement of copyright under state laws has indisputably been found “liable for infringement of copyright.” In this instance, Congress did not qualify the phrase “infringement of copyright” by adding, as it did in other circumstances, the words, “under this title.” See, e.g., § 106 (“Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following . . . .); § 201(a) (“Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work.”). To interpret § 512(c)’s guarantee that service providers “shall not be liable . . . for infringement of copyright” to mean that they may nonetheless be liable for infringement of copyright under state laws would be, at the very least, a strained interpretation—one that could be justified only by concluding that Congress must have meant something different from what it said.

In contrast, there is every reason to believe that Congress meant exactly what it said. As explained above, what Congress intended in passing § 512(c) was to strike a compromise under which, in return for the obligation to take down infringing works promptly on receipt of notice of infringement from the owner, Internet service providers would be relieved of liability for user-posted infringements of which they were unaware, as well as of the obligation to scour matter posted on their services to ensure against copyright infringement. The purpose of the compromise was to make economically feasible the provision of valuable Internet services while expanding protections of the interests of copyright owners through the new notice-and-takedown provision. To construe § 512(c) as leaving service providers subject to liability under state copyright laws for postings by users of infringements of which the service providers were unaware would defeat the very purpose Congress sought to achieve in passing the statute. Service providers would be compelled either to incur heavy costs of monitoring every posting to be sure it did not contain infringing pre-1972 recordings, or incurring potentially crushing liabilities under state copyright laws. It is not as if pre-1972 sound recordings were sufficiently outdated as to render the potential liabilities insignificant. Some of the most popular recorded music of all time was recorded before 1972, including work of The Beatles, The Supremes, Elvis Presley, Aretha Franklin, Barbra Streisand, and Marvin Gaye.

Whether we confine our examination to the plain meaning of the text, or consider in addition the purpose the text was intended to achieve, we find no reason to doubt that § 512(c), as it states, protects service providers from all liability for infringement of copyright, and not merely from liability under the federal statute.

Later the court doubles down on the idea that pretending the DMCA's safe harbors don't apply to pre-1972 sound recordings would basically undermine the entire DMCA:

Finally, construing the safe harbor of § 512(c) as not granting protection to service providers from liability for state-law-based copyright infringements would substantially defeat the statute’s purposes. Internet service providers that allow the public to post works on their sites would either need to incur enormous expenses to monitor all postings to ensure the absence of infringing material (contravening the provision of § 512(m) excusing them from such obligation), or would incur state law-based liabilities for copyright infringement by reason of user-posted infringements of which they were unaware. The financial burdens in either case would be substantial and would likely either dissuade service providers from making large investments in the expansion of the growth and speed of the Internet (which Congress sought to encourage) or perhaps cause them to charge so much for the service as to undermine substantially the public usefulness of the service Congress undertook to promote.

On the infamous question of "red flag knowledge" the court notes that the Viacom v. YouTube case settled this a while ago. And this includes the fact that employees of Vimeo may have seen copyright-covered music on Vimeo, so the lower court was wrong to say that just because an employee watched a video, the "red flag" knowledge question could go to trial:

The mere fact that an employee of the service provider has viewed a video posted by a user (absent specific information regarding how much of the video the employee saw or the reason for which it was viewed), and that the video contains all or nearly all of a copyrighted song that is “recognizable,” would be insufficient for many reasons to make infringement obvious to an ordinary reasonable person, who is not an expert in music or the law of copyright.

This is a useful point. Over and over again we see people who support the current copyright system (or who want it expanded) insist that it's "obvious" to everyone when there's infringement happening. We've tried to explain repeatedly why that's not necessarily the case. There are all sorts of factors that make it difficult -- from the fact that the songs may be authorized to questions around fair use to a variety of other issues. So it's good to see the court make such a clear statement on this point and to overturn the lower court ruling that would have made life difficult for a number of platform companies. The court clearly understands this issue that so many copyright maximalists miss:

First, the employee’s viewing might have been brief. The fact that an employee viewed enough of a video to post a brief comment, add it to a channel (such as kitten videos) or hit the “like” button, would not show that she had ascertained that its audio track contains all or virtually all of a piece of music. Second, the insufficiency of some viewing by a service provider’s employee to prove the viewer’s awareness that a video contains all or virtually all of a song is all the more true in contemplation of the many different business purposes for which the employee might have viewed the video. The purpose of the viewing might include application of technical elements of computer expertise, classification by subject matter, sampling to detect inappropriate obscenity or bigotry, and innumerable other objectives having nothing to do with recognition of infringing music in the soundtrack. Furthermore, the fact that music is “recognizable” (which, in its dictionary definition of “capable of being recognized” would seem to apply to all music that is original and thus distinguishable from other music), or even famous (which is perhaps what the district court meant by “recognizable”), is insufficient to demonstrate that the music was in fact recognized by a hypothetical ordinary individual who has no specialized knowledge of the field of music. Some ordinary people know little or nothing of music. Lovers of one style or category of music may have no familiarity with other categories. For example, 60-year-olds, 40-year-olds, and 20-year-olds, even those who are music lovers, may know and love entirely different bodies of music, so that music intimately familiar to some may be entirely unfamiliar to others.

Furthermore, employees of service providers cannot be assumed to have expertise in the laws of copyright. Even assuming awareness that a user posting contains copyrighted music, the service provider’s employee cannot be expected to know how to distinguish, for example, between infringements and parodies that may qualify as fair use. Nor can every employee of a service provider be automatically expected to know how likely or unlikely it may be that the user who posted the material had authorization to use the copyrighted music. Even an employee who was a copyright expert cannot be expected to know when use of a copyrighted song has been licensed. Additionally, the service provider is under no legal obligation to have its employees investigate to determine the answers to these questions.

The court does allow that, during discovery, a copyright plaintiff may work to establish that employees who did view the videos were able to understand that it was infringing, but merely having employees view a video is not evidence of red flag knowledge. The court also rejects the idea -- as many copyright maximalists insist -- that this interpretation of red flag knowledge writes it out of the statute. Not so, the court points out:

This argument has no merit. While the difference between actual knowledge of infringement under § 512(c)(1)(A)(i) and red flag knowledge under § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii) may not be vast, it is nonetheless a real difference. If the facts actually known by an employee of the service provider make infringement obvious, the service provider cannot escape liability through the mechanism of the safe harbor on the ground that the person with knowledge of those facts never thought of the obvious significance of what she knew in relation to infringement. Plaintiffs further argue that this understanding of red flag knowledge reduces it to a very small category. Assuming this is so, it is of no significance. The fact that Congress was unwilling to extend the safe harbor to circumstances where the service provider did not subjectively know that the posted material infringed, but did know facts that made infringement objectively obvious, does not compel the conclusion that Congress expected this extension to cover a large number of instances. That is especially so in view of the fact that the purpose of § 512(c) was to give service providers immunity, in exchange for augmenting the arsenal of copyright owners by creating the notice and-takedown mechanism.

The court goes into detail about the different burdens that each party needs to carry in trying to establish red flag knowledge:

A significant aspect of our ruling relates to the burdens of proof on the question of the defendant’s entitlement to the safe harbor—particularly with respect to the issue of red flag knowledge. The issue is potentially confusing because of the large numbers of factual questions that can arise in connection with a claim of the safe harbor. A service provider’s entitlement to the safe harbor is properly seen as an affirmative defense, and therefore must be raised by the defendant. The defendant undoubtedly bears the burden of raising entitlement to the safe harbor and of demonstrating that it has the status of service provider, as defined, and has taken the steps necessary for eligibility. On the other hand, on the question whether the service provider should be disqualified based on the copyright owner’s accusations of misconduct—i.e., by reason of the service provider’s failure to act as the statute requires after receiving the copyright owner’s notification or otherwise acquiring actual or red flag knowledge—the burden of proof more appropriately shifts to the plaintiff. The service provider cannot reasonably be expected to prove broad negatives, providing affidavits of every person who was in its employ during the time the video was on its site, attesting that they did not know of the infringement and did not know of the innumerable facts that might make infringement obvious. And to read the statute as requiring a trial whenever the plaintiff contests the credibility of such attestations would largely destroy the benefit of the safe harbor Congress intended to create.

Finally the court is fine with the lower court rejecting the argument of "willful blindness." The court points out that the law is clear that services have no proactive duty to monitor sites for infringement, no matter how many times copyright holders insist they must. And this holds true even if they monitor for other stuff:

We see no reason why Vimeo’s voluntary undertaking to monitor videos for infringement of visual material should deprive it of the statutory privilege not to monitor for infringement of music.

The court also rejects the related claim that once Vimeo had some info suggesting some music may be infringing, it had a duty to further investigate -- and the failure to do that was willful blindness. Not so, says the court:

Section 512(c) specifies the consequences of a service provider’s knowledge of facts that might show infringement. If the service provider knows of the infringement, or learns of facts and circumstances that make infringement obvious, it must act expeditiously to take down the infringing matter, or lose the protection of the safe harbor. But we can see no reason to construe the statute as vitiating the protection of § 512(m) and requiring investigation merely because the service provider learns facts raising a suspicion of infringement (as opposed to facts making infringement obvious). Protecting service providers from the expense of monitoring was an important part of the compromise embodied in the safe harbor. Congress’s objective was to serve the public interest by encouraging Internet service providers to make expensive investments in the expansion of the speed and capacity of the Internet by relieving them of burdensome expenses and liabilities to copyright owners, while granting to the latter compensating protections in the service providers’ takedown obligations. If service providers were compelled constantly to take stock of all information their employees may have acquired that might suggest the presence of infringements in user postings, and to undertake monitoring investigations whenever some level of suspicion was surpassed, these obligations would largely undo the value of § 512(m). We see no merit in this argument.

Finally, the labels had tried to argue that Vimeo employees encouraging users to create lipdubs constituted a form of willful blindness because they then refused to recognize that this encouraged infringement. The court isn't buying it:

The evidence cited to us by Plaintiffs, consisting of a handful of sporadic instances (amongst the millions of posted videos) in which Vimeo employees inappropriately encouraged users to post videos that infringed music cannot support a finding of the sort of generalized encouragement of infringement supposed by their legal theory. It therefore cannot suffice to justify stripping Vimeo completely of the protection of § 512(m).

In short, just because some employees may have encouraged lipdub videos it most certainly does not remove all of Vimeo's safe harbors.

This ruling is a complete and total victory for Vimeo against the labels -- and an important win for the safe harbors of the DMCA (and for the ability for websites that create useful services for the public to protect themselves). I'm sure the labels will try to challenge this decision, but it's a very strong and useful ruling as it stands.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 512, dmca safe harbors, lipdubs, pierre leval, pre-1972 sound recordings, red flag knowledge, safe harbors, willful blindness
Companies: riaa, vimeo

Pure Bullshit: AMC Threatens Huge Fan Community With Copyright Claim Over 'Spoiler' Predictions

from the argh dept

What's up, Hollywood TV people? Hey, could you do everyone a favor and maybe stop being complete assholes to your biggest fans -- and especially completely abusing copyright law to harass and bully those people? Almost exactly a month ago we wrote about HBO abusing the DMCA process to go after people who were predicting what would happen in Game of Thrones, accusing them of violating copyright law in accurately predicting what would happen in the future. As we noted, that's not at all how copyright law works, but apparently AMC took a look at what HBO was doing and said "hey, let's do that too."

A large Facebook fan group (with almost 400,000 subscribers) called "The Spoiling Dead Fans" has announced that it has received a completely bogus DMCA notice from AMC:

After two years, AMC finally reached out to us! But it wasn’t a request not to post any info about the Lucille Victim or any type of friendly attempt at compromise, it was a cease and desist and a threat of a lawsuit by AMC Holdings, LLC’s attorney, Dennis Wilson. They say we can’t make any type of prediction about the Lucille Victim. Their stance is that making such a prediction would be considered copyright infringement. AMC tells us that we made some claim somewhere that says we received “copyright protected, trade secret information about the most critical plot information in the unreleased next season of The Walking Dead” and that we announced we were going to disclose this protected information. We still aren't sure where we supposedly made this claim because they did not identify where it was.

Their stance is wrong and short-sighted. It's wrong because merely predicting what's going to happen in a show is not copyright infringement. It's short-sighted because the people making these guesses tend to be the show's biggest fans. Pissing off your shows' biggest fans not only seems monumentally assholish, but also entirely counterproductive.

The folks who run the Facebook page note that they don't think there's a legitimate legal issue here, but they're also doing this for fun, and getting sued is no fun, so they're shutting up thanks to the assholes at AMC legal:

Basically what it all comes down to is if we post our Lucille Victim prediction and we're right, AMC says they will sue us. Whether there are grounds for it or not is not the issue, it still costs money to defend. That is the way our justice system works. Would we have defenses? Sure. But it also costs money to mount that defense. If someone brings us a potential Lucille spoiler and we confirm it and it turns out accurate we could get sued. That doesn’t mean they’re right and we’re wrong, but like so many other situations in this world, they have the money and power and we do not. So we lose. In the past two years, AMC has filed several wrongful DMCA notices against us with full knowledge that we could not file counter-notices, hired investigators to intimidate our members, and threatened our local members with arrest, among other questionable acts.

It would be nice to know more about the details of those previous wrongful DMCA notices (and I've reached out to the people who operate the page to see if they will provide them), but this appears to be a situation of pure copyright abuse by AMC to silence a Facebook group they don't like. While there were reports last year that this same group leaked a clip from an upcoming show, that's an entirely different issue. Leaking a clip is likely infringement (caveats apply, but...). Still, that doesn't appear to be what happened here at all.

The report also claims that AMC has ramped up aggressiveness here: "AMC has been harassing us for four days now by contacting our homes, our family members and our employers." Again, that seems insane.

But, of course, as you can readily predict from the paragraph quoted above, the folks behind the site don't want to take the risk and are no longer in the prediction business:

After consultation with our legal counsel, we have responded to AMC that the TSDF staff will not be posting our prediction on who gets Lucilled on any of our outlets. We will also not be answering any questions about who we think it is. If you hear a potential spoiler elsewhere and bring it to us for confirmation, we will not confirm or deny it. If you message us privately and ask who we think gets Lucilled, we will not respond. The info may find another outlet on its own, but an official prediction will not come from the TSDF staff.

I still can't figure out how or why anyone at AMC thinks this is a good idea. The copyright claim is ridiculous. Predicting what will happen in a TV show is not copyright infringement. Pissing off the people who love your show so much they want more of it seems even more ridiculous. What possible good could this serve?

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fans, spoilers, the walking dead
Companies: amc

Another Entity Thinks A Random Bundle Of URLs Is A Legitimate DMCA Takedown Request

from the please-delist-'*.com'-thx dept

Copyright as censorship is one thing. Copyright as blundering, drunken bull in the DMCA china shop is another. We've seen this before: sloppy algorithms generating DMCA notices targeting not only possibly infringing content, but also the rights holders' own websites, listings as IMDb, critics' reviews -- basically anything that might have the copyrighted content's name in the URL.

Now, there's this, uncovered by TorrentFreak: some thing calling itself "Copyright UNIVERSAL" (but not apparently related at all to Universal Pictures) has issued a string of colossal failures in DMCA notice form.

Over the course of a few days reporting organization Copyright UNIVERSAL asked Google to remove thousands of links from its search engine. In their listing we do indeed see some infringing URLs, but it’s the legal content that really stands out.

In fact, it is safe to say that no website is safe for the overzealous anti-piracy group.

Over the past week Copyright UNIVERSAL has asked Google to remove 4,224 URLs including various high profile sites.

TorrentFreak's rundown shows Copyright UNIVERSAL has "targeted" the MPAA's website, IMDb, various movie theaters' websites, Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, Verizon, Cox, the NBA, the NFL, the Verge… the list literally goes on and on.

At some point during the early part of CU's onslaught, Google itself declared the "rights holder" to be an imposter:

But it apparently withdrew that tag, either in resignation or because, despite itself, CU managed to occasionally hit its target. That being said, it's tough to tell what CU is attempting to protect. Many of its DMCA notices never declare what content it actually holds the rights to.

Instead, CU just gets down to business by listing every URL it can think of, covering such things as… Metal Gear Solid creator Hideo Kojima's Twitter account… or an actor's own Facebook page. Digging around in just a single bogus takedown request, you'll find a link to a Steam FAQ page, a listing of French Open match times at SBNation, a Netflix page, and an interview with Jodie Foster at an Australian news site.

Fortunately, Google has done little more than allow Copyright UNIVERSAL to repeatedly beclown itself. Its most recent requests seem to be a bit more targeted, but still fail to explain why an entity using the name "UNIVERSAL" is "protecting" content owned by rival movie studios.

And it's only marginally better at hitting its targets. This particular DMCA notice may only target 38 URLs, but that includes multiple web pages featuring nothing more than interviews with "Barbershop 3" cast members or trailers promoting the film.

Because rights holders want the severest of consequences for those who don't comply with DMCA requests, but refuse to apply the same standard to themselves or their DMCA takedown bots, this sort of abuse remains common. Until that end of the exchange is taken more seriously, there's nothing stopping DMCA takedown companies from solemnly swearing that every single bogus URL is correct to the best of their knowledge, even when the most cursory review shows otherwise.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, takedowns
Companies: copyright universal

Web Sheriff Accuses Us Of Breaking Basically Every Possible Law For Pointing Out That It's Abusing DMCA Takedowns

from the but-i-didn't-shoot-the-deputy dept

Remember Web Sheriff? That's the wacky firm that claims it will send DMCA takedowns on your behalf or protect your online reputation by taking down stuff you don't like. The company is somewhat infamous for being a joke and not doing its job particularly well. A couple of weeks ago we wrote about the company abusing the DMCA to try to get Google to delist stories relating to that "celebrity threesome" media injunction in the UK that has been making news for a few months. We highlighted just how ridiculous this was on many accounts, including using a copyright takedown notice on an issue that wasn't about copyright at all. And they even tried to take down the company's own Zendesk request to remove content from Reddit.

Well, suffice it to say that Web Sheriff was none too pleased with our article. Just a day after it went up, we received an email from "JP" at Web Sheriff (though it was "signed" by "John E. Henehan") telling us that we had basically violated all the laws with that post (shouting caps in the original):

UK CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT (CONTEMPT OF COURT NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 §1 (INVASION OF PRIVACY NOTICE)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ARTICLE 8 (INVASION OF PRIVACY NOTICE)
FEDERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATIONS (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
EU DATA PROTECTION DIRECTIVE (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
UK DATA PROTECTION ACT (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §646.9 & §653.2 (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 1708.7 (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK COMMUNICATIONS ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK PREVENTION OF HARASSMENT ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK COMPUTER MISUSE ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT (COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE)
EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE (COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION E-COMMERCE REGULATIONS (CONSUMER PROTECTION NOTICE)
EUROPEAN UNION E-COMMERCE DIRECTIVE (CONSUMER PROTECTION NOTICE)
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME (PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING NOTICE)

– and –

NOTICE OF BREACH OF ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE
NOTICE OF BREACH OF WEB-SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE

Yeah, so, none of that is true. The email pretends to be a DMCA notice (among other things), but is not a valid notice in that it fails to actually name what copyright was infringed upon. Here's what it says is the "infringing materials" where you'll note despite quite a lot of SHOUTING TEXT, no actual materials are named.

5. Infringing / Violating Materials : A. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION & ALLIED REPORTING RESTRICTIONS UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE HIGH COURTS OF JUSTICE, LONDON, ENGLAND (AND THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH CONTRAVENES & VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THE SAID INJUNCTION & REPORTING RESTRICTIONS), B. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION & TREATIES, C. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE HUMAN RIGHTS / RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, D. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY OF THE PERTINENT SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, E. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, F. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, G. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION & TREATIES, H. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING LEGISLATION & TREATIES, I. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION & TREATIES, J. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED & PIRATED COPYRIGHT CONTENT / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE COMPLAINANT'S COPYRIGHT, K. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH BREACHES THE ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY, L. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH BREACHES THE INFRINGING / VIOLATING WEB SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (AS APPLICABLE – PLEASE SEE URL LIST BELOW).

The email then goes on to try to explain how we broke all these laws and basically refuses to provide any details at all. I won't go through them all (you can see the full email published below), but just for fun, here's how we've been violating human rights:

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS (VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND TREATIES THROUGH FAILURE TO ABIDE BY RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY PURSUANT TO, INTER ALIA, ARTICLE 8 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & ARTICLE 1 §1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND WAY OF THE ILLEGAL PUBLICATION, DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION & EXPLOITATION OF PRIVATE INFORMATION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF A COURT INJUNCTION AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SUBJECTS OF SUCH INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF AND LEGAL ENTITLEMENT TO PRIVACY)

Or, my personal favorite -- money laundering:

PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING VIOLATIONS (VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION & TREATIES THROUGH THE HANDLING AND / OR LAUNDERING OF THE PROCEEDS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY)

Yes, that's right. Pointing out (accurately!) that Web Sheriff is trying to abuse the DMCA to take down material that is not subject to a copyright claim is -- in the demented views of Web Sheriff -- "money laundering."

There's also "harassment, malicious communications and cyber-stalking" where they can't even bother to name a statute:

HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING VIOLATIONS (VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING LEGISLATION & TREATIES THROUGH THE POSTING OF MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHERWISE THROUGH THE PUBLICATION OF MATERIALS WITH THE INTENTION TO WILFULLY & MALICIOUSLY HARASS)

For added fun, twice in the email, the company notes that the email itself is covered by copyright, and then includes this bit of pure bullshit at the end:

This communication may not be disclosed or otherwise communicated to anyone other than the addressee(s), nor may it be copied or reproduced in any way without the written authorization of Web Sheriff®.

Yeah, that's not how this works, though I wouldn't be surprised to see them send another email claiming otherwise.

For what it's worth, the very next day, we received another email from Web Sheriff that was basically identical, but demanding that we remove six comments on our earlier story about the UK injunction.

I do wonder if this kind of bullshit works for other people, in intimidating them to remove stuff from the internet because of the spaghetti/wall aspect of it all. But, rest assured, we're not concerned because Web Sheriff is full of shit here. We violated none of those laws, and the fact that the company is so focused on trying to censor an article that highlights its own bogus conduct should tell you a lot about what a complete joke this company is.

Filed Under: celebrity threesome, censorship, copyright, dmca, injunction, uk
Companies: techdirt, web sheriff

Warner Bros. DMCAs Insanely Awesome Recreation Of Blade Runner By Artificial Intelligence

from the oh-the-irony dept

I'm going to dispense with any introduction here, because the meat of this story is amazing and interesting in many different ways, so we'll jump right in. Blade Runner, the film based off of Philip K. Dick's classic novel, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep, is a film classic in every last sense of the word. If you haven't seen it, you absolutely should. Also, if you indeed haven't seen the movie, you've watched at least one less film than an amazing artificial intelligence software developed by Terrance Broad, a London-based researcher working on his advanced degree in creative computing.

His dissertation, "Autoencoding Video Frames," sounds straightforwardly boring, until you realize that it's the key to the weird tangle of remix culture, internet copyright issues, and artificial intelligence that led Warner Bros. to file its takedown notice in the first place. Broad's goal was to apply "deep learning" — a fundamental piece of artificial intelligence that uses algorithmic machine learning — to video; he wanted to discover what kinds of creations a rudimentary form of AI might be able to generate when it was "taught" to understand real video data.

The practical application of Broad's research was to instruct the artificial neural network, an AI that is something of a simulacrum of the human brain or thought process, to watch Blade Runner several times and attempt to reconstruct its impression of what it had seen. In other words, the original film is the interpretation of the film through human eyes, while Broad's AI reconstructed what is essentially what the film looks like through the eyes of an artificial intelligence. And if that hasn't gotten your heartrate up a bit, then you and I live on entirely different planets.

The AI first had to learn to discern footage from Blade Runner from other footage. Once it had done that, Broad has the AI "watch" numerical representations of frames from the film and then attempt to reconstruct them into a visual medium.

Once it had taught itself to recognize the Blade Runner data, the encoder reduced each frame of the film to a 200-digit representation of itself and reconstructed those 200 digits into a new frame intended to match the original. (Broad chose a small file size, which contributes to the blurriness of the reconstruction in the images and videos I've included in this story.) Finally, Broad had the encoder resequence the reconstructed frames to match the order of the original film.

Broad repeated the "learning" process a total of six times for both films, each time tweaking the algorithm he used to help the machine get smarter about deciding how to read the assembled data. Here's what selected frames from Blade Runner looked like to the encoder after the sixth training. Below we see two columns of before/after shots. On the left is the original frame; on the right is the encoder's interpretation of the frame.

Below is video of the original film and the reconstruction side by side.

The blur and image issues are due in part to the compression of what the AI was asked to learn from and its response in reconstructing it. Regardless, the output product is amazingly accurate. The irony of having this AI learn to do this via Blade Runner specifically was intentional, of course. The irony of one unintended response to this project was not.

Last week, Warner Bros. issued a DMCA takedown notice to the video streaming website Vimeo. The notice concerned a pretty standard list of illegally uploaded files from media properties Warner owns the copyright to — including episodes of Friends and Pretty Little Liars, as well as two uploads featuring footage from the Ridley Scott movie Blade Runner.

Just a routine example of copyright infringement, right? Not exactly. Warner Bros. had just made a fascinating mistake. Some of the Blade Runner footage — which Warner has since reinstated — wasn't actually Blade Runner footage. Or, rather, it was, but not in any form the world had ever seen.

Yes, Warner Bros. DMCA'd the video of this project. To its credit, it later rescinded the DMCA request, but this project has fascinating implications for the copyright process and its collision with this kind of work. For instance, if the automatic crawlers looking for film footage snagged this automatically, is that essentially punishing Broad's AI for doing its task so accurately that its interpretation of the film so closely matched the original? And, at a more basic level, is the output of the AI even a reproduction copy of the original film, subjecting it to the DMCA process, or is it some kind of new "work" entirely? As the Vox post notes:

In other words: Warner had just DMCA'd an artificial reconstruction of a film about artificial intelligence being indistinguishable from humans, because it couldn't distinguish between the simulation and the real thing.

Other comments have made the point that if the video is simply the visual interpretation of the "thoughts" of an artificial intelligence, then how is that copyrightable? One can't copyright thoughts, after all, only the expression of those thoughts. If these are the thoughts of an AI, are they subject to copyright by virtue of the AI not being "human?" And I'm just going to totally leave alone the obvious subsequent question as to how we're going to define human, because, hell, that's the entire point of Dick's original work.

Broad noted to Vox that the way he used Blade Runner in his AI research doesn't exactly constitute a cut-and-dried legal case: "No one has ever made a video like this before, so I guess there is no precedent for this and no legal definition of whether these reconstructed videos are an infringement of copyright."

It's an as yet unanswered question, but one which will need to be tackled. Video encoding and delivery, like many other currently human tasks, is ripe for the employment of AI of the kind that Broad is trying to develop. The closer that software gets to becoming wetware, questions of copyright will have to be answered, lest they get in the way of progress.

Filed Under: ai, automation, blade runner, dmca, simulation, terrance broad
Companies: warner bros.

The DMCA Should Not Be An All Purpose Tool For Taking Down Content; And It's Espeically Bad For Harassment

from the so-dumb dept

Remember not too long ago when some internet dude was saying that the best way to deal with harassment on the internet was to basically create a DMCA for harassment, where people could issue takedowns? And remember how we pointed out that this would make things worse, because just as the DMCA is regularly abused to silence people, this new tool would actually be used as a tool to harass more people and silence their speech? Here's just a little example of why a DMCA-like approach is a really, really, really bad idea as a way to deal with harassment or abuse online. Business Insider has a story about an unfortunate setup where a woman who is clearly being harassed was told by Twitter that she should file a DMCA notice, since some of the harassment involved using some of her photos. Following the sending of the DMCA notice, Twitter forwarded her notice to the folks harassing her, making them somewhat gleeful since it included her full contact info.

The Business Insider story doesn't reveal who the person is, and we're not going to do so either, because having looked at the details it's not going to do anyone any good. Suffice it to say that the story is legit. It involves a "controversial" topic (that shouldn't be controversial, if you're even remotely informed) and I don't want the comments on this story to devolve into an argument about said controversial topic. Either way, this is a clear story where some people on "one side" of this issue decided they were going to harass and intimidate someone on the other side. And this wasn't just garden variety "disagreement on the internet" that someone claims is harassing. This was a dedicated plan to intimidate the person. And they were clearly happy about getting her info and planned to do more with it: Elsewhere the same people discussed literally using the general controversy over the DMCA to create further harassment of the individual.

The person complained to Twitter about the harassment and it appears that someone from Twitter told her that since the people harassing her were using photos, she should make a DMCA complaint. This was mistake number one. The DMCA should never be used for things that aren't really about copyright issues. It's not designed for that kind of thing and Twitter deserves to be chided for one of its employees suggesting that. However, in looking at the commentary around all of this, a lot of people are angry that DMCA notices involve passing on the full notices. I saw someone complain that companies should never forward on DMCA notices because it only will be used for abuse. That's a really bad idea.

There are good policy reasons for why we should want companies to forward DMCA notices on to the person who gets their work taken down. For one, given all the bogus takedown notices we talk about, things would be a lot worse if the people who were accused of infringement never were able to find out the details of who sent the notice. That's part of the point of the DMCA, to create at least some channel of communication between the copyright holder and those accused of infringing. Obviously, in a harassment situation, things are totally different and it's why the DMCA notice-and-takedown is exactly the wrong tool for this sort of thing, and any attempt to expand it in that direction is a really, really bad idea.

Furthermore, we should want DMCA notices passed on, including to places like Lumen Database, because that's how we actually get some information about how the DMCA notice and takedown process is working -- or not working. Worrying about censoring information in notices or not passing them along is not a good move. It just highlights why the DMCA process is a bad idea in contexts like harassment.

Now, the Business Insider article does make a good point that other companies, like Automattic and Github, are much clearer to people who are submitting DMCA notices that their details will be passed on to those who they're accusing of infringement -- and point out that you can have an agent file on your behalf. That's also something that Twitter should do. But people complaining that Twitter should not forward on DMCA notices are confusing two separate issues. Twitter absolutely should forward on DMCA notices. That's important. What they shouldn't do is tell people to file DMCA notices over harassment issues.

Filed Under: abuse, copyright, dmca, harassment, stalking, takedowns
Companies: twitter

YouTube Personality Files Bogus Copyright Infringement Lawsuit To Shut Up Two Critics

from the 'this-will-end-the-criticism-once-and-for-all!' dept

Copyright: for when you just don't feel like being criticized. (Currently available for periods up to, and including, seventy years past your death!)

Matt Hosseinzadeh, a.k.a. "Matt Hoss," a.k.a. "Bold Guy," a.k.a. "Horny Tony," runs a moderately successful YouTube channel containing his moderately well-done videos of his "characters" performing feats of pickup artistry and parkour. It's all fairly ridiculous, but considering the depths pickup artists can plumb, the HossZone videos are actually fairly tame.

However, they aren't immune to criticsm. The two people behind YouTube channel H3H3 Productions posted a reaction video containing parts of one of HossZone's pickup-and-parkour recordings. The video, which the Kleins made private shortly after the legal threats began, has been mirrored here. This made Hoss irritable and he sent a lawyer after Ethan and Hila Klein of H3H3 Productions.

They've detailed the experience here:

According to H3H3, it all began with a demand for the removal of the video and $3,750 in legal fees racked up so far by Hoss's lawyer. From there, it got stupider. After failing to secure instant capitulation, HossZone's lawyer altered the terms of the deal. ("Pray I don't alter it stupider...") H3H3 could avoid paying any money by apologizing via their channel for misappropriating Hoss's "art," say some nice stuff about him in their apology video, and throw additional compliments HossZone's way for a period of no less than 60 days. (I am not kidding. Watch the video above.)

H3H3 refused to do so, so Hoss has now filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Ethan and Hila Klein. Hoss also hit H3H3 with a copyright strike, despite the fact that the video central to the complaint had been set to "private" shortly after his lawyer began issuing legal threats.

Unlike others who have sought to abuse copyright to censor critics, Hoss appears to have his end of it pretty much nailed down. He has a valid, registered copyright that predates the H3H3 reaction video and his complaint isn't filled with vagues assertions about ethereal property and even vaguer assertions about how it's been violated.

That being said, detailed allegations aren't always credible allegations. It appears that fair use is still misunderstood by a great deal of the population, including those representing plaintiffs in copyright infringement lawsuits. From the complaint:

On or about February 15, 2016, Defendants published a video on their YouTube channel that copied and displayed virtually all of Mr. Hoss’s original Work (the “Infringing Video”).

The Infringing Video features the Defendants purporting to discuss the Work in what they believe to be a humorous manner but in fact reproduces virtually all of the Work as nothing more than a prop in the Defendants’ “comedy routine.”

Contrary to what Hoss's lawyer implies here, there is nothing in caselaw that forbids the use of "virtually all" of a work under fair use. Judges and juries may be more sympathetic if you don't, but this does not automatically make a work infringing, rather than fair use.

And, contrary to what is stated in the complaint, the ratio of H3H3-to-Hoss is far less that his lawyer would make it appear. [link to ad-blocker blocker Forbes]

The 13 minute h3h3 productions video in question uses about three minutes of HossZone’s skit, while the rest of the video features Ethan and Hila talking about the setting, script, character development, and even the costume design used by HossZone. They also talk about random things pertaining to their life, as most vlogs of theirs do.

The original video runs 5:25, so H3H3 used a little more than half of it, but that half only makes up about a third of the total reaction video runtime. Not that all this math makes much of a difference when fair use is raised as a defense, but it does serve two purposes: it illustrates there was a great deal of commentary surrounding Hoss's content and it appears to contradict the claims made by the plaintiff.

Moving on:

The Infringing Video was created and published without license from Mr. Hoss in direct violation of Mr. Hoss's exclusive rights as an author pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 106.

Fair use does not require the obtaining of a license from a copyright holder (no matter what Sony Music claims...) because that's exactly what "fair use" is: the use of copyrighted works in a non-infringing way.

The Infringing Video does nothing to alter the original Work with new expression, meaning, or message

The Infringing Video fails to contribute a single substantive comment, criticism, or even parody to or of the original Work.

These are opinions, not factual assertions. The court will determine how substantive Hoss's take on H3H3's video is, but even those standing far outside of the IP-wonk circle can plainly see these are purely subjective statements.

Aside from the fact, as described in greater detail above, that the Infringing Video does not constitute a transformative fair use, it is also the fact that the Defendants operate the Ethan and Hila YouTube channel, where they published the Infringing Video, as an entertainment channel via which the Defendants generate advertising revenues.

People make money from fair use all the time. This argument has been debunked so often, it should ingrained in the mind of any decent IP lawyer.

What's interesting about this lawsuit is that HossZone also accuses H3H3 of filing a "false" DMCA counter notification in response to Hosszone's takedown request.

On or about April 26, 2016, the Defendants submitted to YouTube a counter notification, pursuant to 17 USC § 512(g)(3), affirming under penalty of perjury that the Infringing Video was improperly removed because it was, among other reasons, a fair use and “noncommercial.”

And if it's Hoss's takedown that delivered a strike to H3H3's account is determined to be bogus, what then? Still going to go HAM on the "perjury" angle?

Hoss's lawyer seems to take particular issue with the possibility that the Klein's may have received ad revenue from their reaction video. In addition to claiming YouTube's third-party advertising makes any uploaded video a "commercial" product, the attorney claims that most of H3H3's popularity is due to Hoss's talent and inherent likability, rather than the commentary added to the video or the rest of H3H3's video productions.

Upon information and belief, the Defendants have unfairly derived profit from the Infringing Video in the form of their YouTube channel, which generates advertising revenue, increasing in popularity during the two-month period that the Infringing Video was displayed.

Upon information and belief, the Defendants’ YouTube channel more than doubled its number of subscribers due, at least in part, to the popularity generated by the Infringing Video.

The lawsuit also claims that Hoss is so charismatic his 3-minute appearance in a video mocking him somehow resulted in the Kleins being able to generate income from Patreon and Kickstarter.

All in all, it's a fairly ridiculous lawsuit which is made worse by its apparent motivation: to remove something Matt Hoss doesn't like from the internet. Even if this somehow works out for the parkouring pickup artist, the battle is already lost. A supporter of the Kleins set up a fundraiser for their legal defense, which amassed over $100,000 in under 24 hours. Meanwhile, what's left of Matt Hosszone's web presence is being savaged by dozens of angry commenters -- most of it far more brutal than anything the Kleins said during their criticism of his video.

Filed Under: bold guy, censorship, copyright, criticism, dmca, free speech, matt hoss, matt hosseinzadeh, reaction videos, reviews, threats
Companies: h3h3, youtube

Web Sheriff Abuses DMCA In Weak Attempt To Hide Info Under UK High Court Injunction, Fails Miserably

from the hopefully-clients-are-only-paying-for-successful-takedown-requests dept

Last week, Twitter engaged in some dubious behavior on behalf of a few super-secret someones who'd rather the press didn't discuss their sexual activity. Twitter was apparently firing off "letters of warning" to users who had dared break an injunction issued by the UK Supreme Court forbidding anyone in the media from discussing a threesome involving a prominent British celebrity.

There was very little legal force behind the "warning letters" (despite threats from local authorities) and Twitter users were under no obligation to comply with the company's request. The fact that Twitter even bothered to issue these highlights the utter futility of injunctions/super-injunctions of this variety, which are really just a way for British citizens of a certain level of importance to control local media. It doesn't really matter if the UK's highest court upholds a super-injunction if it has no way of enforcing it beyond its super-limited purview.

That doesn't mean the lawyers who have obtained these injunctions on behalf of their clients aren't trying. While doing a bit of research for an unrelated story, I stumbled across Web Sheriff's utter failure to talk Google into delisting URLs by waving this injunction around in a threatening manner.

The copyright owner is (apparently): APPELLANT (COMPLAINANT’S IDENTITY PROTECTED BY COURT OF APPEAL RULING / ORDER)

Whatever these clients are paying Web Sheriff, it's far too much. Web Sheriff has issued 12 requests targeting 447 URLs. And so far, all 447 URLs are still live.

Contained in these takedown notices is an awe-inspiring wall of text -- something that might impress the average DMCA notice recipient. But Google? Not so much. Here's just a very small portion of it:

Then, of course, there are the URLs targeted for delisting, which -- thanks to Web Sheriff's failed injunction-quoting requests -- are all basically injunction spoilers.

Included in the failed notices are some seriously dubious requests, like Web Sheriff demanding an entire post at the Onion's AV Club be taken down because of a single comment and what appears to be Web Sheriff's own attempted Zendesk request for removal of content from Reddit.

Thanks to Web Sheriff's efforts to force the rest of the world to comply with UK law and its ridiculously unenforceable injunctions, more people are now aware of who's being "protected" by the ruling and where to find more details.

Filed Under: celebrity threesome, copyright, dmca, free speech, injunction, super injunction, uk
Companies: google, web sheriff

Fantastic: Now British Firms Are Getting In On The Bogus Website/Bogus DMCA Notice Scam

from the YET-ANOTHER-ANOMALY dept

Here we go again: intellectual property laws being abused to silence critics. In this case -- which resembles the tactics exposed by Pissed Consumer recently -- bogus copyright claims contained in bogus DMCA notices are being used to remove negative reviews from websites.

In this case, it's a British firm -- one that first tried to abuse that country's oft-abused defamation laws.

[Annabelle] Narey, who is the head of programme at an international children’s charity, had turned to London-based BuildTeam for a side return extension, but almost six months later, the relationship had turned acrimonious. The build, which was only supposed to take 10–14 weeks, was still unfinished, she wrote. “On Christmas day a ceiling fell down in an upstairs bedroom,” she says, apparently due to an issue with the plumbing. “Mercifully no one was hurt. [That] there seem to be so many glowing reports out there it is frankly curious. Proceed at your own risk,” the review concluded.

BuildTeam disputes her account. In a letter sent to Mumsnet, which the site passed on to Narey, the builders complained that the comments were defamatory. They say it is “untrue” that the ceiling fell down due to an issue with plumbing, and cited a total of 11 statements they claimed were defamatory.

Mumsnet refused to remove the post, so BuildTeam decided to start harassing Narey at her home, showing up with printouts of the negative review and asking for it to be taken down. BuildTeam's reps refused to discuss Narey's accusations or verify for themselves the damage allegedly caused by their work. They were only interested in the removal of the review.

More unsatisfied customers joined Narey's thread at Mumsnet. So, BuildTeam decided to nuke the entire thread from orbit by abusing the DMCA process and IP laws meant to protect artistic endeavors, not shoddy construction work.

As soon as the DMCA takedown request had been filed, Google de-listed the entire thread. All 126 posts are now not discoverable when a user searches Google for BuildTeam – or any other terms. The search company told Mumsnet it could make a counterclaim, if it was certain no infringement had taken place, but since the site couldn’t verify that its users weren’t actually posting copyrighted material, it would have opened it up to further legal pressure.

But there was no copyright infringement. The DMCA notice links back to a bogus site created solely for the purpose of posting the review BuildTeam wanted removed, backdating it so it appeared to predate Narey's complaint, and use that post as the basis of a bogus takedown request.

The website crafted for the purpose of crafting bogus takedown requests follows the same M.O. we've seen elsewhere: random bits of content are scraped to create the appearance of a legitimate website. After that, the reviews companies/individuals want to see vanished are mixed in and DMCA notices issued.

Someone calling themselves "Douglas Bush" now claims Narey's negative review of BuildTeam was written by him, according to his overwrought DMCA takedown request.

I'm upset at finding out my article was copied without my permission starting at "Do not be taken in by the slick facade this company presents to the public", word for word, till the very end. My name was also removed from the post, and now it looks like it's not mine. I flagged the post and mentioned that it was stolen, but they did not remove it (about a month passed). At least I want it to be removed from Google. Thank you

As the Guardian's Alex Hern points out, there is no "Douglas Bush."

The post, headlined “Buildteam interior designers” was backdated to September 14 2015, three months before Narey had written it, and was signed by a “Douglas Bush” of South Bend, Indiana. The website was registered to someone quite different, though: Muhammed Ashraf, from Faisalabad, Pakistan.

BuildTeam denies having anything to do with Ashraf, Bush, the bogus website, or its bogus DMCA takedown notice -- a statement that deserves no more credibility than "Douglas Bush" himself. This sort of thing does not happen in a vacuum. It may be that BuildTeam has created plausible deniability by placing a series of intermediaries between it and this bogus DMCA takedown, but it's no coincidence that a review it wanted removed badly enough it sent reps to Narey's house has now been destroyed by a scraper site doing double duty as a half-assed reputation management service.

Filed Under: abuse, censorship, dmca, reviews, uk
Companies: buildteam, mumsnet

A Dozen Bad Ideas That Were Raised At The Copyright Office's DMCA Roundtables

from the not-looking-good dept

The Copyright Office has been holding a series of "roundtable discussions" on copyright reform that it's going to use to produce a paper supporting certain changes to copyright law. We already know that some sort of copyright reform bill is expected in the near future, and what comes out of this whole process is going to be fairly important. Unfortunately, the roundtables are not encouraging. There was one held in NY a few weeks ago, which Rebecca Tushnet blogged about in great detail, and I attended the ones last week in San Francisco and I've gathered up my tweeted commentary, if you feel like reading through it.

Unlike the House Judiciary Committee roundtable that was held in Silicon Valley last year, where the Representatives surprised many of us by actually asking good questions and listening to the answers, the Copyright Office's roundtables were bizarre and troubling. First, the whole setup of the two two-day events was problematic. The Copyright Office wanted to make sure that everyone who applied to speak was allowed to participate in some manner, so for each set of roundtables, they set up 7 roundtables of 20 people each on pre-defined topics, where each roundtable was only 90 minutes.

This was problematic in many ways, because the very fact that the Copyright Office already assigned the topics of each "panel" suggested the preconceived notions that the Office came into the hearings with. Second, 20 people in 90 minutes meant a kind of soundbite culture, rather than an actual discussion. Basically, 4 people from the Copyright Office sat up front and would declare the topic and ask a single (usually general) question to kick off the panel. Then anyone who wanted to respond would turn their name placards on the side. Each person speaking was told they had 2 minutes, and a Copyright Office person would hold up cards counting down the time until finally holding up a giant STOP sign when time ran out. If the Copyright Office people felt like it, they might pepper you with follow up questions, or just move on to the next upturned placard. Only a few times during two full days of everyone locked in a courtroom was there any real discussion or attempt at moving the ball forward on issues. Instead, there were a lot of 2 minute speeches, often totally contradictory, and sometimes with people saying blatantly false things.

The hearings were not livestreamed, though there was a court reporter who apparently is creating a transcript that will be distributed at some point (hopefully soon). While anyone could sign up to participate, the public was definitely a big missing factor. The Copyright Office itself repeatedly seemed to act as if copyright law is about two industries at war with each other -- "content" v. "tech" -- and unfortunately seemed to think that all content creators who mattered were against the tech industry. While the public could, in theory, have attended, there was very little seating available for non-participants, and we were all quite literally locked into a courtroom in San Francisco (getting out was always fun as we had to wait for the doors to unlock).

If I had to summarize the most general theme throughout the hearings, it was this: many individuals and businesses that relied on a certain way of doing business in past decades have not been able to adapt to the changing internet world, and they're very upset about this. They see that companies like Google (especially) are now making lots of money, and assume that somehow that money belongs to them. This ridiculous chart was waved around by one of the participants. It's basically the old way of doing business lashing out at the new way. Attempts to point out that there are many more new content creators today, and many more ways to make money, were dismissed, ignored or ridiculed. Attempts to point out that the "obvious" solutions weren't at all obvious and might cause more harm than good were similarly ignored. There were many attempts to "blame Google" and to use copyright law to "force Google" to do... something. Many of the things that people were asking for, Google actually already does, but people wanted more.

With that as background, here are twelve really troubling ideas that were raised during the hearing, many (though not all) by representatives from the Copyright Office itself:

1. Notice & Staydown: If there was one overarching theme to the hearings it was the idea that many kept pushing for a "notice and staydown" regime to replace the current "notice and takedown" regime in the DMCA today. There would be weird alternating comments from people where a recording industry person would say something like "look, we need notice & staydown!" and then someone who actually understood the technology or the law would explain the problems of a notice & staydown regime, only to have the next person ignore all of that and say "what we truly need is notice and staydown." Concerns raised about abusive takedowns were mostly ignored. The Copyright Office kept arguing that people can just counternotice abusive takedowns, and didn't seem to care that evidence suggests many people are too afraid to counternotice. They also totally ignored the fact that if you move to a notice and staydown regime, there won't be notices to counter in many cases.
   
   Related to this, there seemed to be little willingness to recognize that copyright is context specific, and that the same content in one realm may be infringing, while in another may be non-infringing. Which brings us to:
   
   
2. Notice & Staydown For Full-Length Content: This appears to be the "compromise" solution that the Copyright Office kept pushing during the discussions, repeatedly bringing this up as an option. Their argument is that "okay, some people are worried about notice and staydown interfering with fair use, but 'full-length content' isn't fair use, so perhaps we just say that if it's 'full-length' movies, books and music, then any platform needs to have a notice & staydown setup."
   
   Of course, there are numerous problems with this as well. First off, such filtering platforms are both expensive and often not very good (see: ContentID, which cost $60 million to build, and still sucks). A requirement for such a filtering system would basically stop all new entrants into the market and lock the big players (YouTube, Facebook) in as the dominant platforms. It also doesn't make sense for all kinds of content. A lawyer from Wikimedia pointed out that a technology filter mandate would be insane for Wikipedia, since its human editors already seemed to be better and more efficient at removing infringing stuff.
   
   Most importantly, plenty of full-length content may be non-infringing. I mean, we just had the Google Books ruling not too long ago, which found that scanning, indexing and storing full-length books was fair use. Or there's the Bloomberg/Swatch case where full-length recordings of investor conference calls were used in a way that was fair use. Or what about people backing up their own movies? After all, one of the most famous copyright lawsuits ever, the Betamax case over the legality of home video recordings, found that recording full-length video... was fair use. Creating a bright line rule saying that full-length content isn't fair use would go against settled law and harm many forms of innovation.
   
   And that brings us to:
   
   
3. One-size-fits-all tech mandates and carve-out attempts: Because of the points above, the Copyright Office and some others kept trying to see if there were ways to write the rules so that they would only target certain players (i.e., "Google"). This makes little sense for a variety of reasons. First, as Google itself noted, when you're talking about something like YouTube, it already offers a notice-and-staydown tool in the form of ContentID, but many people choose not to use the staydown portion, because Google also offers an option to "monetize" those works. Whether or not we agree with how ContentID works, it's clear that it already provides a lot more than what the law currently says YouTube needs to do, and people still aren't satisfied.
   
   But it's nearly impossible to create mandates for technology in a way that doesn't (1) harm many other companies in the space and (2) create weird and dangerous incentives. The most common suggestion was some sort of special safe harbor for "small" companies, so that the next startup wasn't burdened with having to build or buy a filter... until they reached a certain size. But that doesn't work either. Both Wikimedia and the Internet Archive noted that in terms of traffic, they're both pretty big... but they're also both non-profits with limited funding and where a mandated tech filter would be both prohibitively expensive and total overkill. So, then the Copyright Office suggested maybe a carve-out for "non-profits." But, as someone from eBay pointed out, that still creates problems for a site like eBay. eBay notes that it doesn't have a huge issue of copyright infringement, but there is always some that happens -- usually in the form of people using photographs for an auction without having a license. But, as eBay notes, the "harm" here is pretty minimal, and the idea that eBay should need to purchase an expensive tech filter to weed that out is clearly overkill.
   
   
4. Only some kinds of content matter: Perhaps the most frustrating thing was how clearly the Copyright Office and many of the participants who had experience in the legacy content creation world seemed to totally dismiss the idea of new content creators, new kinds of content and new content business models. When lawyer Cathy Gellis mentioned that she was an amateur singer who was able to make some money today, whereas in the past she'd be totally out of luck, the Copyright Office's immediate response was to basically say, "but that doesn't count" for content creators who need to invest in their content creation. Similarly, one musician did the "get off my lawn" style of complaint, saying that all the music today sounds the same, and blamed piracy and Google for that happening (which is incredible, since there is so much more music, including so many different kinds of music, more widely available than ever before). Over and over again people suggested that their own content mattered much more than anyone else's.
   
   Too often, panelists absolutely dismissed amateur content or even professional content from new kinds of content creators. People dismissed YouTube as just being about "cat videos." And, again, the Copyright Office seemed to support this idea. In fact, somewhat astoundingly, at one point, someone from the Copyright Office tossed out the suggestion that political content could get extra rights, compared to other kinds of content, suggesting that maybe political related videos could get a carve-out such that it would get put back up online faster if it gets a bogus takedown, whereas a "dancing baby" doesn't matter enough. That would clearly violate the First Amendment in determining that some kinds of speech get extra rights compared to other kinds of speech. Update: In the original post, I wrote that Copyright Office General Counsel Jacqueline Charlesworth made the comparison between political speech and "dancing baby" speech. It turns out that it was another Copyright Office employee, Karyn Temple Claggett. I apologize for the error.
   
   
5. Service providers shouldn't be allowed to reject takedown notices: This one was pretty incredible (especially combined with the next one). The Copyright Office's General Counsel seemed taken aback by the idea that service providers might choose, of their own volition, to reject DMCA takedown notices. She came back to this point multiple times on day one, suggesting that she was somehow uncomfortable with the idea that a service provider might choose to "adjudicate" whether or not a takedown notice was valid. This was surprising, because the law is pretty clear. The DMCA does not say what a service provider must do. It just describes steps that are necessary to keep the safe harbors. That doesn't mean that if you don't follow the safe harbor requirements you're violating the law, it just means that if you're sued, you don't get an automatic pass on liability. But Charlesworth seemed really disturbed by that idea. And that's problematic, because if you talk to various platforms that receive lots of takedowns, they need to be able to reject some to avoid completely bogus takedowns.
   
   
6. Service providers should lose their safe harbors based on a single decision to reject safe harbors over a single takedown: This one could potentially be lumped together with the one above, but it's so crazy that it deserves its own bullet point. Basically, Charlesworth suggested that if a service provider decides to forego the safe harbors for a single item (e.g., refusing to take down content based on an obviously frivolous takedown notice), it might mean that they've removed safe harbors for the entire site. This came up during a direct discussion with a lawyer from Google, in which she interrupted him to ask why a service provider would refuse to take down content, and it was explained that if the takedown was obviously bogus, a site shouldn't take it down. Charlesworth then questioned the lawyer about whether or not the safe harbors only applied to each individual instance, or to the site as a whole, leaving many people in the audience stunned that this was even a question -- including the Google lawyer, who basically said that "obviously" the safe harbor question applied to each individual takedown.
   
   Put these two things together and the suggestion is that service providers should never be allowed to question a takedown, no matter how bogus, and if they do, they automatically lose the DMCA's safe harbors entirely. Talk about a recipe for mass censorship.
   
   
7. Punishment for false counternotices: Another bizarre idea that came up during these discussions was adding punishment for false counternotices. This is crazy. The system is already totally imbalanced in favor of the person sending the takedown. They get to remove content in most cases based on a single email, and there's no real punishment for false takedowns at all. But after one person complained about false counternotices (a problem that I find it difficult to believe actually exists at any type of scale that warrants further corrective action), suddenly the Copyright Office suggested that maybe there could be additional punishment for bogus counternotices (but without suggesting there should be any punishment for false notices). This makes no sense. There's already punishment for false counternotices, which is that the copyright holder gets to sue the person for up to $150k per infringed work.
   
   And, indeed, as various studies have pointed out, the fear of such a lawsuit already greatly chills the willingness of many people to file counternotices at all. The idea of chilling the counternotice process even further, especially without fixing the problem of abusive takedowns, is crazy.
   
   
8. Artists struggling to make money have piracy/Google to blame: Over and over again speakers and the Copyright Office kept pointing out this or that content creator who is struggling to make money as proof of "the problem." But that's a massive logical leap. I'm sure that some content creators are losing some earning opportunities because of infringement, but making money as a content creator has always been incredibly difficult. Most musicians don't make very much money. Most movies don't make much money. And it was that way before the internet was even around, and it's still true today. It seems ridiculous to assume that single examples of artists struggling must be a result of piracy. The author TJ Stiles, who is on the board of the Authors Guild, literally claimed that because of infringement he was less creative and wrote less, saying piracy meant he couldn't pay healthcare or his mortgage.
   
   Yet, I can just as easily point to new authors or other content creators who are now making a living entirely because of these new platforms that so many people at last week's hearings were angry about. These days, there are new business models using Kickstarter, Patreon, IndieGogo, YouTube, Vine, Instagram, Snapchat, Amazon and many, many more. And many of the artists making money from those platforms wouldn't even have been able to create content in the old world. So those seem to wipe out the claims that it's "piracy" undermining the ability to make money. It seems to suggest that it frequently is a number of other factors from (1) a lack of an audience, (2) an audience that is no longer interested, (3) an inability to go where the audience wants to go these days or (4) an unwillingness to adapt to new business models. One filmmaker even claimed that he didn't think the law should allow "new media" business models to upend "old media" business models. That's an interesting viewpoint, given that under that thinking, film shouldn't have been allowed, since it undermined the market for theater.
   
   
9. Public comments are a "denial of service" attack: As mentioned earlier, it was somewhat distressing how frequently the public was ignored in all of this. The Copyright Office was clearly not entirely happy with the fact that Fight for the Future and the YouTube creators (yes, actual content creators!) urged the public to file comments with the Copyright Office on the problems with bogus takedowns. But perhaps the most ridiculous comment came from (known Techdirt hater) Jonathan Taplin, who suggested that because the Copyright Office's servers couldn't handle the ~87,000 inbound comments, it might be considered a "denial of service attack." Really? Helping the public to comment is a denial of service attack?
   
   On one of the panels that I was on, I raised the issue of the public being left out of all of this, and the focus on tech v. content -- neither of which might have the public's best interests in mind. The Copyright Office asked about how to better engage the public, and I suggested that encouraging more public comments, rather than dismissing them or labeling them "zombies" or a denial of service attack, might be a good start.
   
   
10. Gov't-supported "Voluntary measures" as a panacea: Repeatedly this was one area where the Copyright Office kept claiming "we have some agreement!" where both tech and the legacy content players kept insisting that "voluntary measures" between these parties could solve many of the issues. Representatives from Microsoft and Google excitedly talked up all the great "voluntary measures" that were going on in working with the content industries to come up with solutions that went beyond what the law required. Others talked up various efforts to stop ad networks or payment processors from working with "pirate sites."
    
    But, again, this seems dangerous to me. Voluntary measures between two giant industries leave the public and the public interest out of the discussion. Attacking "pirate" sites sounds great until you ask, "how is that list made?" Considering that the Internet Archive, personal blogs and even 50 Cent's personal website have been called pirate sites in previous attempts to build such lists, it's not quite as obvious as some would have you believe.
    
    On top of that, lots of brilliant innovations look like piracy when they're first created, but later turn out to be revolutionary. As I noted in my 2-minute soundbite opportunity, radio, the photocopier, cable TV, the VCR, the DVR, the mp3 player and online video were all decried as nothing but piracy tools when they first came out. And yet all of them turned into significant business opportunities for content creators. Cutting those off in the early days through the collusion of "voluntary measures" could stifle all sorts of powerful innovations that actually would help content creators make more money and reach a wider audience.
    
    
11. The Lumen Database as a rogue site: One filmmaker was particularly concerned about the fact that Lumen Database (formerly known as ChillingEffects.org) archived DMCA takedown notices that were forwarded to the site. The claim was that people seeking infringing versions of content would search through Lumen to find the URLs listed for takedown. Someone else pointed out that there's no evidence that this is happening at any sense of scale, but someone from the Copyright Office substituted anecdotes for data, and claimed, "well, it's come up a lot." The suggestion was that perhaps Lumen should be required to redact the details of takedowns, and that only certified researchers should be allowed to access the full corpus.
    
    This is troubling on any number of levels. One of the things that was clear throughout the discussion is that we need more data and more research into what's working and what's not working. And you don't do that by locking up important data and then suggesting that only a special class of people should be allowed in. Though, I guess it fits with the idea that only some kinds of content creators matter. Apparently only some kinds of researchers might matter as well.
    
    
12. Technology is magic: Over and over again, folks who actually understood the technology pointed out why technology is no magic bullet. You can't automate understanding what is and what is not infringing. But someone from a lobbying group for the legacy copyright players pulled out the "you're all so smart, nerd harder" card by saying that if Silicon Valley can build a self-driving car, surely it can build a technology that can determine what is and what is not fair use. This has echoes of the debate over backdooring encryption, which is another of these "nerd harder" situations, in which non-technologists assume that technology is magic and doing x and doing y are somehow equivalent. All I can say in response to that is obligatory xkcd:
    

All in all, the two days of hearings was somewhat frustrating. I had hoped that it might be a way to actually have some productive discussions that actually focused on what was best for "promoting the progress." Instead, it seemed to involve the Copyright Office coming in with preconceived notions, mainly focused on how copyright law can be changed to better prop up legacy business models, at the expense of the public and innovation -- including all of the new creators who rely on that innovation.

Filed Under: 512, copyright, copyright office, dmca, dmca 512, fair use, notice and staydown, notice and takedown, safe harbors