[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act This is a summary report of findings from a study of takedown notices under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. [snip] In this study, we traced the use of the Section 512 takedown process and considered how the usage patterns we found were likely to affect expression or other activities on the Internet. The second level of analysis grew out of the fact that we observed a surprisingly high incidence of flawed takedowns: •Thirty percent of notices demanded takedown for claims that presented an obvious question for a court (a clear fair use argument, complaints about uncopyrightable material, and the like); •Notices to traditional ISP’s included a substantial number of demands to remove files from peer-to-peer networks (which are not actually covered under the takedown statute, and which an OSP can only honor by terminating the target’s Internet access entirely); and •One out of 11 included significant statutory flaws that render the notice unusable (for example, failing to adequately identify infringing material). In addition, we found some interesting patterns that do not, by themselves, indicate concern, but which are of concern when combined with the fact that one third of the notices depended on questionable claims: •Over half—57%—of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors; •Over a third—37%—of the notices sent to Google targeted sites apparently outside the United States [snip] Significant statutory flaws plagued one out of every eleven notices. Fig. ES-6, above.By “significant” statutory flaws, we mean one of the four flaws that render a notice invalid according to the terms of the statute: [11] failure to identify the allegedly-infringing work; failure to identify the allegedly-infringed work; failure to provide a way to locate the allegedly-infringing work; or failure to provide contact information for the complainant. Other statutory flaws—the good faith and penalty of perjury statements, and the signature—do not exempt an OSP from responding to the notice, and they are not included in this figure. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||