Does The US Copyright Office Not Know That Copyright Policy's Main Stakeholders Are The Public?

from the how-is-this-possible? dept

More than four years ago, the Copyright Office kicked off a project to do a big "study" on Section 512 of the DMCA, better known as either the "notice-and-takedown" section of copyright law, or the "safe harbors" section for websites. The Office took comments, held a few, somewhat bizarre "roundtables" (that we participated in)... and then... silence. Years of silence. Until yesterday when it finally released the report. It's 250 pages and there's a lot in there -- and we're likely to have a few more posts on it as we dig into the details, but to kick it off, I wanted to highlight just how bizarre a report it is, in that the authors don't seem to realize or ever acknowledge that the purpose of copyright law (and even this section) is to create the best possible services for the public.

Instead, the report seems to frame the entire Section 512 debate as a battle between the legacy copyright industry and giant internet companies. From the executive summary:

In enacting section 512, Congress sought to create a balance between two goals. One is providing important legal certainty for OSPs, so that the internet ecosystem can flourish without the threat of the potentially devastating economic impact of liability for copyright infringement as a result of their users’ activity. The other is protecting the legitimate interests of authors and other rightsholders against the threat of rampant, low-barrier online infringement. Congress balanced these interests through a system where OSPs can enjoy limitations on copyright liability—known as “safe harbors”—in exchange for meeting certain conditions, while giving rightsholders an expeditious and extra-judicial method for addressing infringement of their works. Thus, for some types of OSPs, their safe harbors are conditioned on taking down infringing content expeditiously upon notification by a rightsholder.

In the twenty-plus years since section 512 went into effect, the question has often been asked whether the balance that Congress sought has been achieved, particularly in the light of the enormous changes that the internet has undergone. Indeed, that is the question that motivated the Study that led to the present Report.

But the entire framing of that premise is wrong on multiple levels. For proof, let's go back to the legislative record and the the Senate Judiciary Committee's report on why DMCA 512 was necessary, written by long term buddy to the recording industry, Senator Orin Hatch. (As a reminder, Senator Hatch was considered so in the tank for the recording industry that in Rob Reid's satirical sci-fi novel, Year Zero, about the recording industry, he jokes that Hatch is nicknamed "Senator Fido" for his willingness to do whatever the recording industry told him -- so not exactly a defender of the public). Yet, the report makes it abundantly clear that a major stakeholder of the DMCA is the "end-user" and that the DMCA needs to be careful not to be used to take down works that are legitimately placed online. From that report:

The Committee was acutely concerned that it provide all end-users--whether contracting with private or public sector online service providers--with appropriate procedural protections to ensure that material is not disabled without proper justification. The provisions in the bill balance the need for rapid response to potential infringement with the end-users legitimate interests in not having material removed without recourse.

The Copyright Office was told repeatedly both about this clear stakeholder and was given many, many examples of how the DMCA 512 has failed on that front. And, yet very little of that is reflected in the report. Instead, the report mainly focuses on large internet providers liking the safe harbors, and copyright holders wanting it to be worse... and then claims that since only one side is "upset" clearly that means things are out of balance.

Roughly speaking, many OSPs spoke of section 512 as being a success, enabling them to grow exponentially and serve the public without facing debilitating lawsuits. Rightsholders reported a markedly different perspective, noting grave concerns with the ability of individual creators to meaningfully use the section 512 system to address copyright infringement and the “whack-a-mole” problem of infringing content reappearing after being taken down. Based upon its own analysis of the present effectiveness of section 512, the Office has concluded that Congress’ original intended balance has been tilted askew.

It's like the public's interest has just been written right out of the law by the Copyright Office. And that's stunning. And it's also disappointing because our own comments (along with many others) to the Copyright Office highlighted the failing of the notice-and-takedown process in that it frequently censors non-infringing material.

Also, the "conclusion" that the "original intended balance has been tilted askew" also further misrepresents the entire history of the DMCA. Remember, there were two major sections to the DMCA: 512 (the part we're discussing here, which is the notice-and-takedown safe harbors) and 1201 (which is the digital locks/anti-circumvention parts). Part of the "negotiation" to get the DMCA passed (mainly between legacy copyright holders and telcos) was that these two sections were balanced against each other. That is "copyright guys get 1201 if we protect service providers with 512 safe harbors." Some of us already had trouble with how unbalanced a trade that was, but the really ridiculous thing here is to have the Copyright Office pretend that 512 alone was designed to be a "balance" between service providers and copyright holders (ignoring the massively unbalanced 1201).

This is like saying "I'll trade you a bucket of oranges for a watermelon" and then, after that trade is concluded, whining "how come you get all the oranges! That's unfair!"

There are many, many other problems with the report, and we'll likely be digging into those in the coming weeks, but the very fact that the report appears to write the public out of its stakeholder analysis (even ignoring the Constitutional underpinnings and the stated basis for the law) suggests that the entire analysis is very, very skewed.

People within the Copyright Office keep telling me that I'm being unfair to the hardworking team there. And, to be clear, I do think that they really do mean well and actually do want to do the right thing. But if they want to be taken seriously, to put out a report that is so off the rails from the very start, it becomes more and more difficult to take their analysis seriously.

Filed Under: 512, balance, copyright office, dmca, dmca 512, public, stakeholders

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

NYU Sues YouTube For Reposting Video After Video Poster Sent DMCA Counternotice

from the not-how-the-law-works dept

You would think that a large university like New York University -- better known as NYU -- would have decently competent lawyers. Especially since NYU has its very own law school that is frequently one of the top ranked law schools in the country. So it's a bit surprising to see NYU file a copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube that seems to, pretty clearly, go against the DMCA's rules (found via Eric Goldman).

The lawsuit is mainly focused on someone named Jesse Flores, who apparently runs a YouTube account called Atheists Exposed. I think it would be fair to say that Flores does not like atheists, and the summary of that YouTube account my be subtitled "videos of atheists behaving badly." I'm not sure which video in particular upset NYU, but the university submitted a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, claiming that some of his footage infringed upon its copyright. As I type this, the video in question remains down. Having suffered through watching at least some of the other videos Flores has on the account, I'm assuming it's a clip of an atheist somehow associated with NYU, but (you guessed it) behaving badly. This might be embarrassing for NYU, but given the commentary around the videos, there's at least an argument of fair use here (though, without knowing more, perhaps the fair use claim isn't strong). Still... it does seem that basically all of the videos on the account are for the purpose of comment and criticism. NYU insists that the video is not fair use, stating that Flores had no license to the work "nor does the Defendant’s use of the Work fall into fair use or any other limitations on exclusive rights of copyright."

Flores, appears to have filed a counternotice on May 3rd -- in which he doesn't even claim fair use. Rather, he says that he received permission to post the video from the Veritas Forum at NYU, saying that it had the rights to the video in question.

NYU then reached out to Flores directly asking him to withdraw the counternotice. Flores, perhaps not too surprisingly, has refused to withdraw it. YouTube has made it clear that it will follow the rules in the DMCA -- specifically Section 512(g)(2)(B) and (C) -- which say that upon receipt of a valid counternotice (and the lack of a lawsuit filed against the uploader) the site is to replace the removed material in 10 to 14 business days after the counternotice. There are a few conditions around this, but none are that important in this case. There also is some question as to whether or not the site has to replace the content. The statute can be read that way, though some have argued that that's a weird result, since sites should have free control to refuse to repost any video if they so choose.

Either way, NYU noticed, YouTube took it down, Flores counternoticed, and YouTube has said it's putting the video back up. Under the very, very, very, very clear language of the DMCA, this means that YouTube is protected from liability if there is any infringement in the video. That's the whole basis of the safe harbors. They say "if you take down upon notice and follow these other rules, such as reposting it after 10 business days upon counternotice," then you're protected from a copyright lawsuit.

So, what did NYU do? It sued YouTube (and Flores). The suit against Flores, obviously, will turn on whether (1) he actually received a license, as he implies, or (2) if not, if the use was actually fair (and again, we don't know enough to say at this point). But including claims against YouTube? That's not just a non-starter, it's ridiculous, and makes you wonder if NYU's lawyers spoke to any of the copyright experts at NYU's own law school to explain that this is not how the DMCA notice-and-takedown process works. The most generous interpretation of this is that NYU's lawyers completely misinterpreted the DMCA (and YouTube's notification to NYU about the counternotice) and read the requirement of a lawsuit to include YouTube, so that the site knew not to put the video back up. What YouTube and the law actually require is merely evidence that a lawsuit was filed against the uploader. Including YouTube in the suit is an interesting way to provide "evidence," but it also goes completely against the DMCA's safe harbors.

I'm guessing that NYU will file an amended complaint fairly soon that drops YouTube from the complaint. But, still...

Filed Under: 512, athiests exposed, copyright, counternotice, dmca, jesse flores, safe harbors
Companies: nyu, youtube

Lawsuit Finally Explores What Counts As A 'User' Under The DMCA

from the this-just-came-up-now? dept

You would think, with the DMCA rapidly approaching its 20th anniversary of becoming law, that nearly every idea, word, phrase and concept of the law would have been tested in some court case or another. You'd be wrong. In a new ruling from earlier this week, a district court in Colorado noted that there are no cases that actually examine what is truly meant by the word "user" in the DMCA's safe harbor related to the posting of infringing content. If you're playing along with the home game, we're talking about 512(c), the part of the DMCA that provides safe harbors for service providers that host content. This is the key part of the DMCA safe harbor, and the one that has made it possible for basically all user-generated content platforms to operate. And yet, no one has actually challenged the definition of "user" in the law. The specific part of the law reads as follows:

(1) In general.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—

(A)

(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

Seems straightforward enough, right? A service provider is not liable for things done by a user if they meet certain criteria. And nearly all of the lawsuits to date have been about whether or not those criteria apply (or whether a site qualifies as a "service provider"). But what is a "user"?

The case in question involves the content-farm like news site Examiner.com, which famously lets almost anyone pretend to be a reporter and publish articles that look like semi-legit news articles, even if there's basically no vetting at all beyond an initial screening by which the company tries to determine if you can put words together in coherent sentences. Over the years, Examiner.com has been often mocked as a source of absolutely ridiculous articles. But what if an Examiner.com writer infringes on someone's copyright by posting unauthorized photos? That's at the heart of BWP Media v. Clarity Digital Group (owners of Examiner.com).

Examiner argues that it should not be held liable, as the infringing content was posted by a user. BWP Media, which operates as Pacific Coast News, and the National Photo Group argued that because Examiner does at least some vetting of people who can post, provides them some instruction about the types of articles they can post and because it compensates them based on traffic to the articles, the people who post on Examiner.com are not "users" under the DMCA, but are really more like employees of the company, which would make the company itself liable. Thankfully, the court disagrees, and notes that there is nothing in the law that supports that interpretation:

Plaintiffs argue that the term “user” cannot be interpreted in this way because “[o]wners, employees and agents are typically users of their business’ website” and “courts have already found that owners, employees, agents (and even implied agents) are not ‘users’ within the meaning of the DMCA safe harbor provisions.”.... Therefore, plaintiffs claim that “case law dictates that the word ‘user’ is a legal term of art for purposes of applying the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.” ... There are several problems with this argument. First, plaintiffs assume that the word “user” cannot be given its plain meaning because there is a need to distinguish between storage at the direction of the service provider and storage at the direction of third parties and that such distinction should be made through the interpretation of “user.” However, as other provisions of § 512 demonstrate, Congress knew how to make such a distinction without mentioning “user.” Both §§ 512(a)(1) and 512(b)(1)(A) utilize the phrase “a person other than the service provider” to differentiate between the service provider and other persons. More specifically, § 512(a)(1) uses the phrase “at the direction of a person other than the service provider,” which is analogous to the distinction that plaintiffs urge be made through the definition of “user” in § 512(c)(1). The fact that Congress elsewhere in the statute made the distinction between service providers and third parties with different words cautions against plaintiff’s interpretation.

In other words, if Congress meant that no one who gets money or works closely with an organization could be deemed a "user," it could have and would have said so. Thus, someone that closely tied to a company can still be deemed a user under the DMCA. The court looks deeper at the law and notes that the concerns that the copyright holders raise about what would happen if "user" was defined this way don't really make sense, because actions that deeply involve the company itself are already clearly written out of the DMCA's safe harbors in other sections.

Overall, this is a good ruling. A ruling in the other direction would have raised serious questions about a number of platforms -- especially those that may provide some form of compensation to users. But just because a site provides compensation shouldn't automatically mean that the site loses safe harbor protections. Doing so would create serious concerns about how these platforms could develop, and would greatly limit the ability to allow user generated content platforms to also help people make money or become "professional" content creators. That would be a ridiculous result that would clearly go against the intention of copyright law.

Filed Under: 512, 512c, copyright, dmca, examiner.com, infringement, liability, platforms, safe harbors, user
Companies: bwp media, clarity digital group, examiner.com, national photo group, pacific coast news

The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'

from the catchy-and-stupid dept

On Thursday morning, the House Judiciary Committee held its latest in a long series of hearings concerning potential copyright reform -- sometimes referred to as "the Next Great Copyright Act" after the Copyright Office kicked off the process with a talk on that topic (I'd quibble with the word "great" in there given how things are going so far). The latest hearing focused on Section 512 of the DMCA, better known as the "notice and takedown" provisions, or, more broadly, as the "safe harbor" provisions, which (mostly) protect service providers from being held liable for infringement done by their users. You've heard all of the arguments concerning this on both sides before -- and we had a post describing 5 myths likely to come up during the hearings (which did not disappoint). If you missed it, you can live through the torture below: Or, if reading is your thing, Professor Rebecca Tushnet did her usual amazing job of taking insanely detailed notes of both the speechifying section and the Q&A section. There's a lot to cover, so we're going to break it down into a few different posts. This one is going to focus on the catchy phrase that came up repeatedly throughout the hearings: the idea that rather than the "notice and takedown" provision we have today, there should be a "notice and staydown." While mentioned repeatedly during the hearing, the concept was also outlined by two of the more maximalist (and clueless) defenders of extreme copyright law, Reps. Judy Chu and Tom Marino, in an opinion piece pushing for such a "notice and staydown" concept.

The idea is, more or less, that if a site receives a takedown notice concerning a particular copy of a work, it should then automatically delete all copies of that work and, more importantly, block that work from ever being uploaded again. This may sound good if you're not very knowledgeable about (a) technology and (b) copyright law. But if you understand either, or both, you quickly realize this is a really, really stupid solution that won't work and will have all sorts of dangerous unintended consequences that harm both creativity and the wider internet itself.

First, as was pointed out in the 5 myths piece, content itself is not illegal. It's actions concerning a piece of content. So, by doing a notice and staydown, you're guaranteeing that perfectly legitimate uses -- including both licensed uses and fair uses -- get blocked as well. That's because to determine if something is infringing, you have to view it in the full context. No matter how much some copyright maximalists want to believe that copyright is a strict liability law, it is not. The very same content may be infringing in some cases and not infringing in others. Not checking the context of each use would clearly block forms of perfectly legitimate expression. That's a big problem.

Second, and perhaps even bigger, is the fact that such a law would more or less lock in a few big players, like YouTube, and effectively kill the chance of any startup or entrepreneur to innovate and offer a better solution. Throughout the hearing, you hear people refer to Google's ContentID system -- which takes fingerprints of audio and video works and matches new uploads against it -- as an example of a proactive system "done right." Except, that system cost Google somewhere around $50 or $60 million to build. No startup can replicate that. And, even then, if you ask plenty of regular YouTube users, ContentID is really, really bad. It kills off fair use work all the time, it creates tremendous problems for legitimate and licensed users of content who suddenly find their content pulled and strikes on their account. It more or less proves that even if you have all the money in the world, no one can yet build a fingerprinting system that is particularly accurate.

If such a rule did get put in place, however, it would basically just guarantee that the few big players who could afford both the technology and the legal liability/insurance over the inevitable lawsuits, would be able to continue hosting user generated content. That's more or less ceding much of the internet to Google and Facebook. Considering how often copyright maximalists like to attack big companies like Google for not "sharing the wealth" or "doing their part," it's absolutely ridiculous that their biggest suggestion is one that would effectively give the big internet players more power and control.

The reality of the situation is that "notice and staydown" is really just SOPA 2.0 in disguise. The whole goal of SOPA was to basically to shift the issue of copyright infringement to the tech industry from the MPAA/RIAA. The idea was that if you add liability to the tech players, then it would magically force the tech companies to figure out a way to "clean up" infringement (leaving aside all the collateral damage). That's the same thing with "notice and staydown." The real issue is trying to shift the liability burden to tech companies.

It's the same story over and over again. The business model that the legacy players used to rely on has melted away in the age of the internet. Rather than truly adapt and change, they just get jealous of successful tech companies, and think that those companies somehow "owe" them money. And the best way to legally do that is to get politicians to magically place legal liability on those companies, so they have to pay up. Notice and staydown has nothing to do with actually stopping copyright infringement. It's about taking the burden off of the legacy players, easing the need for them to adapt and change, while trying to force big tech companies to pay up. The irony, of course, is that in the process it would harm much needed innovation from startups and entrepreneurs (the companies that the content creators really need the most) and lock in bigger, more powerful internet players.

Filed Under: 512, content id, dmca, judy chu, notice and staydown, notice and takedown, safe harbors, sopa, tom marino