UFC COO Publicly Pushing 'Notice And Stay Down' Reforms To DMCA, Despite That Being Horrible For Almost Everyone

Copyright

from the fight! dept

In the United States, the DMCA has a “notice and takedown” process. Section 512(c) outlines all of this and provides details on what obligations service providers, such as websites and social media platforms, must meet in order to retain their safe harbor provisions. This summary from Wikipedia is a good primer:

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, passed into law in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides safe harbour protection to “online service providers” for “online storage” in section 512(c). Section 512(c) applies to online service providers that store copyright infringing material. In addition to the two general requirements that online service providers comply with standard technical measures and remove repeat infringers, section 512(c) also requires that the online service providers: 1) do not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) are not aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the allegedly copyright infringing material.

I added the bolded section for emphasis. Why? Well, many in the copyright industries hate the notice and takedown system because it requires them to notify service providers of individual cases for infringement. That requires work, of course. Work that these service providers very much do not want to do. Instead, many propose a notice and stay down system. What that would do would be to allow the copyright holder to essentially notify a service provider of infringing material once, after which it would be up to the service provider to do the policing of that content on their own sites. This was recently exemplified by the UFC’s COO, Lawrence Epstein.

The DMCA is a “very reactive type of protocol,” Epstein notes, since the law places the onus on the copyright holder to act. This presents a timing problem for a live sports broadcast. The highest value for that broadcast—especially one distributed through a PPV arrangement—is when the event happens. A notice and takedown can take several minutes, even a half hour. By the time an illegal stream is removed, it could be too late. The Poirier-McGregor match lasted only about five minutes before McGregor suffered a leg injury and Poirier was credited with a TKO victory.

“It’s not an appropriate remedy,” Epstein charges, adding that the “vast majority” of the piracy is taking place on “big platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.” Epstein also stresses that “we see the same people doing it. There are repeat offenders who aren’t deterred by the process.”

The UFC would like to see the DMCA amended to include a “stay down system” whereby the copyright holder need only notify the service provider of infringing material. It would then become the obligation of the provider to monitor repeat infringers and prevent them from engaging in illegal streaming and other piracy on the provider’s platform. “These big platforms have to take responsibility for what happens on their platforms,” Epstein asserts. “It can’t be reactive.”

For context only, the latest UFC PPV event raked in $125 million. And, to be clear, I can sympathize with Epstein on the concept of how this all works for live-streamed, pay-per-view broadcasts. It’s not the same policing a movie on the internet as it is policing infringing live-streams.

But, and this is the key part, that is a business model issue, not an issue requiring the wholesale retrofit of the DMCA. Put another way, if the notice and takedown system is overall beneficial for most of the public interest, altering it is not an appropriate remedy simply because it isn’t working for the UFC.

And there are very good reasons why a notice and takedown system is better for nearly everyone than a notice and stay down system. For starters, while Epstein invokes the “big players” like Facebook and the like, those big entities are the ones that at least would stand a chance of operating in a notice and stay down system. They have the money, tools, and people to throw at the problems such a system would create. But what about smaller companies and sites? Startups? How in the world are they going to police other people’s content for them? They won’t and the liability such a system would create will keep startups from every… you know… starting up.

Beyond that, it’s not like the “stay down” part works well in practice even when tried. The uploading of content by one person that is infringing does not make the uploading of it by another infringing. Viacom found that out directly by suing Google over a bunch of YouTube videos… that Viacom staff uploaded on purpose. In an effort to stop piracy, Viacom attempted to stop promotion of its own material by its own staff. If the companies responsible for content can’t properly police copyright infringement of that content, what hope do service providers have?

And, as one professor explains to Yahoo! Sports, there is all of that plus issues of fraud and censorship that suddenly are opened up by a stay down system.

Ryan Vacca, a copyright law professor at UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law who has represented clients in the sports and entertainment law industries, agrees that placing the burden on copyright owners to police copyrights creates persistent challenges for owners in a world where streaming has become so omnipresent. “Given the enormous amount of copying and performing that occurs online,” Vacca explains, “it’s understandable that content owners want to shift that burden to other actors in the online ecosystem.”

Yet Vacca also sees “countervailing concerns” that could arise ”if the law is changed to make it too easy to have materials taken down.” He cautions that some copyright owners make infringement claims “not to protect their copyright, but to censor legitimate uses of copyrighted materials, such as critical commentary or parody.” Vacca adds that placing the burden on platforms “has the potential to disadvantage startup competitors by imposing additional costs on them that are more difficult to absorb than for established companies such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube . . . This could have a negative effect on innovation for online platforms.”

So, the open question in summary is: should we really be altering the DMCA that has allowed for so much innovation and flourishing within the online ecosystem just so the UFC can possibly make even more than the $125 million per event it’s making now? That feels like a question with an obvious answer.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 512, lawrence epstein, notice and staydown, notice and takedown
Companies: ufc

Senator Tillis Releases Massive Unconstitutional Plan To Reshape The Internet In Hollywood's Image

Copyright

from the bad-ideas dept

Yesterday, Senator Thom Tillis helped ram through a gift for Hollywood: getting the felony streaming copyright bill that he’d only released a week earlier included in the must-pass omnibus funding bill despite literally no discussion or debate about the problems with the bill.

This morning, he really doubled down. As announced last month, Tillis has now released a draft of his DMCA overhaul, which appears to be exactly what he had hinted at last month — meaning he appears to have ignored the advice and suggestions of many of us who warned Tillis of the dangers of simply buying into Hollywood’s vision of copyright reform. I wonder why he would do such a thing?

Of course, it also makes you wonder why he had to hide the felony streaming bill in yesterday’s must pass omnibus. Since he was going to be working on a big copyright reform bill, why not put it in there in order to have an actual debate and discussion about it?

Anyway, Tillis notes that this current version is just a discussion draft and he’ll release the actual bill next year once the new term begins. He’s asking people for their edits. In fact, he (somewhat hilariously) asks YouTubers to send in their own redlines and, well, careful what you ask for:

Senator Tillis is inviting all interested stakeholders – large and small, individuals and companies, YouTubers, and independent creators – to submit redline edits and comments to this discussion draft by close of business on March 5th. Comments should be submitted to Intellectual_Property@tillis.senate.gov.

There is going to be plenty to discuss about this bill. It’s 53 pages long. Tillis has put out a summary document of what’s in it as well, though I’d argue some of it is misleading. There are certainly a few tiny things in here that would improve the DMCA in very minimal ways. This is so Tillis can say it’s a “compromise” bill that “upsets everyone.” But that’s garbage. Most of this bill is a huge gift to Hollywood.

For this post I’m going to focus in on the most problematic idea in the bill: the notice-and-staydown provision. We’ll discuss other problems at a later date. The notice-and-staydown provision has many, many problems. To be fair, Tillis tried to make the notice-and-staydown slightly less problematic by saying it only applies to “complete or near complete cop[ies] of a copyrighted work already identified in a notification of claimed infringement or list of unauthorized works….” It’s the complete or near complete part that he thinks makes this less bad. He’s wrong. First of all, he undermines this immediately in the next section by also saying that the notice-and-staydown applies to “any portion of a copyrighted work already identified in a notification of claimed infringement… if the service provider derives its commercial value predominantly from short-form media.” So it’s not just complete, or nearly complete works.

It’s difficult to see how a notice-and-staydown regime is even remotely Constitutional. It’s basically prior restraint, telling companies that they cannot host certain speech. That’s quintessential prior restraint — especially since other uses may not be infringing.

The basic problem is this: contrary to what Hollywood would like you to believe, content is not infringing. It’s the specific use that may be infringing. But notice-and-staydown acts as if it’s the content itself that must be infringing. But that’s not how you determine whether or not something is infringing. You have to look at how it’s used. And notice-and-staydown totally ignores that and assumes that there are no uses that are permitted. That’s wrong. And Tillis’ “complete or near complete copy” language doesn’t fix that either, because courts have said multiple times that a full copy can be fair use even when used in a commercial way.

But a notice-and-staydown provision would ignore that.

Also, for many works such as photographs, memes, etc, most fair uses will involve using the entire work. But the notice-and-staydown ignores all of this.

As we saw in the EU context, this is a recipe for censorship filters. And censorship filters have follow-on effects as well. Beyond the 1st Amendment concerns, they would basically destroy small companies that cannot afford to put in place such filters. YouTube has spent over $100 million to build ContentID and it still sucks. Yet under Tillis’ bill, everyone would need to buy or build their own contentID to avoid running afoul of the notice-and-staydown provisions. This would lock in internet giants and destroy the ability for smaller websites to host any 3rd party content at all.

Even the Copyright Office, in its terrible and one-sided review of the DMCA recommended against notice-and-staydown. So what possible reason does Tillis have for putting it in this bill?

Tillis claims that he’s open to hearing concerns on this bill — and I hope that’s true. There are many, many problematic aspects to the bill, and notice-and-staydown is a massively dangerous and unconstitutional idea. The fact that Tillis thought it was worth including even in the discussion draft does not bode well for how this process is going to go.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, censorship filters, copyright, copyright reform, dmca, dmca 512, fair use, filters, notice and staydown, prior restraint, thom tillis

Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking

Copyright

from the pandora's-box? dept

We’ve criticized Senator Thom Tillis for his patent and copyright reform ideas that seemed to take a strong “maximalist” line in its approach. He’s also taken the Hollywood line on things like the Internet Archive that was troubling. He’s been promising a copyright reform bill for a while, and many thought it wasn’t going to matter much, since polls indicated that he was very, very likely to lose his re-election campaign in North Carolina (even after his opponent’s bizarrely chaste sex scandal made the news). However, Tillis pulled out a surprise victory, and that means that his plan to reform copyright is something worth watching.

Earlier this month, he sent around a a letter to “stakeholders” asking for thoughts on a wide variety of issues related to the DMCA — which actually suggests that he might be open to some good changes, and not just the terribly awful ones we’ve been hearing from Hollywood over the last few years. There are still many horrific ideas in the letter, but the fact that so many broad ideas are in there at least (hopefully?) suggests that Tillis’ office is willing to look at the entire DMCA structure, and not just pasting on another favor to Hollywood (which had been Congress’s traditional approach to copyright law for decades). The letter even states this upfront:

Rather, than tinker around the edges of existing provisions, I believe Congress should reform copyright law?s framework to better encourage the creation of copyrightable works and to protect users and consumers making lawful uses of copyrighted goods and software-enabled products, respectively.

The very fact that it states upfront that the law should protect users and consumers is a surprisingly good start. Many of the questions in the letter could lead to good, bad (or neutral) results depending on how the eventual bill answers the question. One good aspect is that it appears that Tillis is skeptical of DMCA 1201, which is the “anti-circumvention” or “digital locks” provision in the DMCA that says circumventing “technological measures” to lock down content is infringement, even if the circumvention is not done to infringe on anyone’s copyright. This has been a mess in practice, and has resulted in fairly widespread abuse of the law to lockdown products and effectively take away ownership rights from buyers. It’s also been hell on security researchers who risk tremendous liability for just doing their jobs.

1201 has this incredibly messy “triennial review” process by which the Copyright Office and Librarian of Congress decide to “exempt” certain applied for use-cases from 1201’s rules for the next three years. But as we’ve seen time and time again this whole process is very sketchy and can even lead to rights being taken away at a later date. Also, frankly, if your law needs a review with new exemptions every 3 years, that seems to suggest the law is the problem. Tillis’ questions seem to recognize some of the problems with 1201 and the triennial review process:

Section 1201 currently allows for temporary exemptions to be granted from the circumvention prohibition, but those exemptions do not extend to third-party assistance. This means that when the Librarian of Congress grants an exemption for circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs) over software for a tractor to allow for repair, the tractor owner must perform the software repair themselves. The Copyright Office has recommended amending the statute to grant the Librarian authority to adopt temporary exemptions permitting third-party assistance ?at the direction of? an intended user, and this may be the right way to address this problem. Do you agree with the Copyright Office? If so, how should this provision be drafted to avoid unintended consequences, and to what extent is the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act a helpful model? If not, please explain why you do not agree and provide specific recommendations as to how you think this problem should be addressed?

The Copyright Office has recommended revising some of the permanent exemptions so that they are better tailored to the types of uses sought today. In particular, the exemptions for security testing and encryption research should be revised to expand the types of activities permitted, ease the requirements to seek authorization from the owner of the relevant system or technology, and eliminate or clarify the multifactor tests for eligibility. What thoughts do you have about revising these existing permanent exemptions, and how would you recommend that be done?

Congress should adopt new permanent exemptions for noninfringing activities that have repeatedly received exemptions in recent triennial rulemakings, or where there is a particularly broad-based need, including to enable blind or visually impaired persons to utilize assistive technologies and to allow diagnosis, repair, or maintenance of a computer program, including to circumvent obsolete access controls. What other temporary exemptions should be made permanent?

There are various ways that the triennial rulemaking process could be streamlined to be more efficient and so that section 1201 better accounts for user concerns. These include establishing presumptive renewal of exemptions adopted in the previous rulemaking cycle, shifting the burden to those who want to oppose an exemption from the previous rulemaking, and authorizing the Librarian, upon recommendation of the Register, to make permanent a temporary exemption that has been renewed twice without opposition and without modification. How ought section 1201 be revised to reflect the stakeholder desire for a less burdensome triennial rulemaking process and consumer interests, and what other means should be adopted to make the rulemaking process more efficient?

It’s good that Tillis recognizes the problems of the triennial review, though I wish that the office was more open to the fact that all of 1201 is outdated and not useful (and open to widespread abuse). Rather than just looking at fixing the triennial review process, it would be even nicer if Tillis was open to just dumping 1201 altogether. He noted in the opening that he’s not interested in tinkering around the edges — but many of these questions indicate that is what’s happening. A real review would question the entire premise of 1201 itself. Is it actually needed? Is it useful? Is it promoting the progress of knowledge? Or is it simply a tool for taking away user rights and harming innovation?

Most of the rest of the questions focus on the more well known parts of the DMCA, Section 512, which is the “notice-and-takedown” part of the DMCA, or the “safe harbor” part. 512 has always been problematic, and there’s a long history of it being abused for massive censorship. I still think there’s a decently strong argument that 512 itself violates the 1st Amendment, in that it uses state pressure to remove 1st Amendment protected content.

Tillis seems to recognize that 512 is outdated, but it’s a very mixed bag in how outdated it is. Some of his suggestions are very much needed, but a few suggest he’s considering making 512 even worse and even more censorial. Again, starting with the positive, the letter recognizes that 512’s classifications of service providers is weird and no longer in-step with reality. Currently it has different rules for conduits, caching services, hosting services, and location tools. But in many 512 cases, it’s not always clear which category sites fit into, and it’s not always clear how the different rules apply to different types of services. Clarification on that would certainly be useful — though, again, what that clarification looks like will matter a lot.

OSPs eligible for the safe harbor under section 512 are divided into four categories (conduits, caching services, hosting services, and web location tools) that can be both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. First, what types of OSPs should be covered to account for technological advances and business practice changes that have occurred during the past twenty-two years? Second, how should the categories be revised to better cover the types of OSPs that need?rather than just appreciate?the safe harbor?s benefit? Among the possibilities would be to either increase the number of statutory categories to more explicitly cover specific types of service providers or to reduce the number of statutory categories, possibly to only one, and delegate authority to the Copyright Office to identify, by regulation, the covered types of service providers. If Congress were to take the latter approach, would this raise concerns about such authority being delegated to a non-presidentially-appointed Register?

Of course, neither suggested approach seems likely to be that useful. Simply increasing the categories is going to lead to the same problem down the road (and could impact future innovations as companies “choose” which category to go into). And having the Copyright Office pick and choose would also be a disaster (and arguably unconstitutional). A better approach would be to go in the other direction, and stop trying to fully distinguish types of services but to focus on types of uses. Indeed, the best fix to the 512 safe harbors is actually to align it with Section 230’s immunities. That is, rather than put in place a series of specific conditions you have to meet to “earn” the protections (which has been a mess in practice), just set up an immunity that makes it clear that service providers are not liable for the actions of their users. Simplify the situation and let innovation bloom.

Another potentially good thing in the questions is that Tillis recognizes the counternotice situation for many users is not good, and is leading to non-infringing works that are being taken down remaining down because users do not wish to poke the bear. A counternotice under existing law is effectively daring the copyright holder to sue. And even if you believe strongly that your use is non-infringing, going through a federal lawsuit to prove that would bankrupt many people. That’s correct, though Tillis’ proposed solution of a “small claims” court creates many other problems that we’ve discussed in the past. There needs to be a better way, but the small claims proposals we’ve seen to date will lead to more trolling.

The questions also recognize problems in automated takedowns, and potential privacy issues with notice-and-counternotice situations (in which abusive individuals file bogus notices in order to try to dox someone by receiving their counternotice, including contact info). Again, it’s good to recognize these problems, even if the suggested solutions leave much to be desired.

It is clear from the record established across my hearings that one major shortcoming of section 512 is that users who have had their content removed may decide to not file a counter-notice because they fear subjecting themselves to federal litigation if the copyright owner objects to the putback. At the same time, the requirement that a copyright owner pursue federal litigation to keep a user from having content put back up following a counter-notice is a heavy burden. Congress might consider improving dispute resolution by directing disputes between notice and counter-notice filers to a small claims court rather than federal court. What is the best way to accomplish this? Would the copyright small claims court as envisioned by the CASE Act be the proper forum? If not, how should such a tribunal be designed? Related, what should be the time period for putbacks? There is broad agreement that the current 10-14 day window works poorly for both copyright owners and users. How would you amend this?

More generally, the notice- and counter-notice sending process have many shortcomings. These could be improved by clarifying when automation is appropriate and that OSPs cannot erect requirements beyond those in section 512(c)(3); by authorizing the Copyright Office to develop standardized web forms for notices and counter-notices and to set regulations for the communications that OSPs must deliver to a user when their content is taken down or had access disabled (including offering information about the fair use doctrine as codified in section 107 and as illustrated in the Copyright Office?s Fair Use Index); and by increasing privacy protections for notice and counter-notice senders by masking certain personally identifiable information, including address and phone number. How could this best be done? Please provide specific provisions for accomplishing these

Tillis also seems to recognize that one of the big problems of copyright law has long been the fact that it was designed in an era when the only real infringement and copying was done for commercial reasons, and that we’ve moved to an era when we all have super powerful copying machines in front of us (and in our pockets) all the time — and that every single person with a computing device likely incidentally infringes thousands of times per day, based on a strict reading of the law. There’s also the fact that copyright law treats a website run by a single user the same as a giant company like Google or Facebook. Tillis’ suggested approach to dealing with this is to classify service providers by different markets or sizes:

The record established in my DMCA reform hearings indicated that an overarching principle of any reform should be making digital copyright less one-size-fits-all. The law needs to account for the fact that small copyright owners and small online services providers (OSPs) may have more in common with each other than they do with big copyright owners and big OSPs, respectively. Accordingly, I think we should consider whether copyright law should be revised to account for such differences among stakeholders. In particular, could copyright law borrow from employment law, or other relevant fields, to establish different thresholds for copyright owners and OSPs of different size, market share, or other relevant metric? If so, what is the best way to accomplish this? Is there a particular area of law, or existing section of the U.S. Code, that provides crucial guidance? As with all questions where it is relevant, please include in your response specific recommended legislative

Similar to the other questions mentioned, he’s actually looking at the right issue, but approaching it with the wrong solution. This approach is almost certain to lead to weird incentives, potential regulatory capture to design specific rules, and a significant amount of gaming, as companies employ copyright lawyers to figure out how to stretch and twist around the rules’ definitions to comply with the law as a technicality, but not in spirit. We’ve seen enough of that, and it leads to wacky scenarios like Aereo, in which a technically insane setup is put in place in the belief that it has to be built that way to comply with copyright law (even if the Supreme Court then stepped in with its weird “looks like a duck” precedent that made a mess of things).

Again, rather than trying to just craft a bunch of specific rules that will be gamed, shouldn’t the focus be on setting an appropriate rules that actually makes sense across the board?

Where the Tillis questions get much more problematic is the suggestion that we should import some very dangerous, censorial and likely unconstitutional ideas like “notice-and-staydown” and full site blocking.

Section 512 places the burden on copyright owners to identify infringing materials and affirmatively ask the OSP to remove the material or disable access to it. This burden appears to strike the correct balance, but the burden that the notice-and-takedown system itself places on copyright owners is too heavy; the system is also woefully inefficient for both copyright owners and service providers. I believe U.S. copyright law should move towards some type of a notice-and-staydown system?in other words, once a copyright owner notifies a service provider that a use of a copyrighted work is infringing, the service provider must, without further prompting, remove subsequent infringing uses absent a statement from the user (whether the copyright owner or not) that they believe the use is licensed or otherwise authorized by law (e.g., fair use). What are your thoughts on such a system, and how could it best be implemented?

The injunctions available under section 512(j) have been narrowly interpreted by courts and thus little-used by copyright owners. Is it worthwhile for Congress to consider revising this provision to make injunctions more readily available for website-blocking in special circumstances (with an eye toward article 8(3) of the Information Society Directive)? Such injunctions could be issued by a special tribunal and appealed to federal district court, or, out of concern for user protections, the law could require that injunction orders come from the district court alone. If warranted, what would be the best way to enact limited website-blocking via such injunctions? Again, please provide suggested legislative text. If you do not think the law should be amended to expand the availability of injunctions, please be specific about any ways you think section 512(j) could be improved.

Yikes on both of these. Notice-and-staydown is a horrifically bad idea. We’re already dealing with a situation in which the notice-and-takedown process is regularly and consistently filed for non-infringing reasons, with an effort to suppress or silence speech. Notice-and-staydown would make that problem much worse.

Furthermore, notice-and-staydown ignores the fact that it’s not the content that is infringing, but the use. That is, the very same content may be infringing in some use cases, but not in others. The very same content could be fair use in certain contexts, but not in others. Notice-and-staydown ignores that.

Site blocking has massive 1st Amendment implications as well. Taking down an entire site because of some infringing material would violate the general principle as set by the Supreme Court that any regulation impacting speech must be narrowly tailored to only impact speech that is not protected by the 1st Amendment. Full site blocking does not do that.

There are other big reform ideas that seem to be missing entirely. A full (non-tinkering on the edges) reform bill should look at issues like false takedowns, copyright terms, digital 1st sale rights, and statutory damages. But those don’t appear to be mentioned. There is one question that touches on the fact that a ton of takedown notices are bogus, but only loosely:

At the same time that Congress should revise section 512 to ensure that infringing material stays down once identified, it should also discourage the over-sending of notices as a counter-balance to the more significant action that an OSP must take after receiving a notice. This could be done, for example, by heightening the requirements for accuracy in notice sending, possibly with stricter requirements and heavier penalties. As noted above, the standard may be more lenient for small entities and individuals. How might the requirements be heightened in a meaningful way while not unduly burdening copyright owners trying to protect their work against infringement?

It seems odd that they don’t even name the totally toothless 512(f) in this section, even though other questions focus on specific parts of the law. The idea that stronger penalties for false notices would “unduly burden copyright holders” is kind of laughable when you look at the current “balance” in copyright law, in which purely incidental infringement of a single thing could bankrupt most Americans.

In the end, while there are a bunch of bad ideas presented in the questions, I’m still somewhat pleasantly surprised that many of the questions raised indicate an awareness of the actual problems in current copyright law. That’s better than we’ve seen in the past. That said, most of the proposed “solutions” will not help and may make things worse.

That is why it’s important for people to weigh in with thoughtful ideas on how to actually fix copyright law. That said, there’s an insanely short time frame for this. The letter asks for any comments to be sent in by December 1st (next week!) and says that Tillis intends to release a draft bill by December 18th. That seems like an astoundingly short time frame (1) for people to organize and submit their ideas and (2) for Tillis’ staff to incorporate them into legislative text.

There’s still a very strong chance that the bill that Tillis proposes will be a dangerous disaster towards free speech and innovation online. Certainly, some of the questions strongly hint at that. However, the very fact that the questions also indicate at least some legitimate recognition of the problems of today’s copyright law is nice to see. Hopefully, Tillis and his staff recognize that the answers to these problems is not to make copyright law even more draconian, but to recognize that there are better solutions.

Filed Under: abusive takedowns, copyright, copyright reform, dmca, dmca 1201, dmca 512, dmca reform, free speech, innovation, notice and staydown, takedown notices, takedowns, thom tillis, triennial review

Senator Thom Tillis Pushed Awful Patent Reform Idea Last Year; Now Looks To Top It With Awful Copyright Reform This Year

Copyright

from the dude,-seriously? dept

Last year, Senator Thom Tillis was pushing a completely ridiculous patent reform bill that would have enabled massive patent trolling, by expanding what would count as patent-eligible subject matter. After his bill was released — and basically everyone who wasn’t a patent troll explained what a disaster it would be for American innovation, Tillis quietly let the matter drop.

Given that experience, you might think that Tillis would think twice before stepping into the even more fraught arena of copyright reform. And yet, Tillis has been champing at the bit to change the DMCA to make Hollywood happier with it. Now, there are lots of complaints to be made about the DMCA. Section 512 enables blatant censorship and puts tremendous pressure on platforms to take down non-infringing content. It also favors larger platforms which can deal with a barrage of takedowns over smaller upstarts. Section 1201 of the DMCA is utter garbage and makes it “infringing” to merely talk about ways to remove DRM — even if the underlying reason for doing so is non-infringing. There are obvious ways to fix both of those.

But, instead, Tillis and his staff seem ultra focused on making Section 512 worse and importing awful ideas like the EU Copyright Directive, which forces platforms into being Hollywood’s personal police, and bringing in dangerous, censorial ideas like “notice and staydown,” which would require expensive and unreliable internet filters. While he’s made some nod towards perhaps making a few cosmetic changes to 1201 as a “trade” for making 512 that much worse, the overall impact of what’s being discussed would be terrible. 1201 would remain in some form, and what few exceptions would be made would be minimal in impact. But bringing in things like “notice and staydown” for 512 would inevitably lead to much more censorship.

It’s unclear why Tillis is rushing headlong into this debate, when it seems that neither he nor his staffers grasp the details of how copyright works. Given how silly and uninformed Tillis came out of last year’s attempt to pass a patent bill, it’s bizarre that his office hasn’t bothered to be more careful on the copyright front before leaping into that arena.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform, dmca, dmca 1201, dmca 512, eu copyright directive, notice and staydown, notice and takedown, patent reform, patents, thom tillis

Latest EU Copyright Proposal: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, But Don't Use Upload Filters

Copyright

from the and-a-pony dept

As we’ve been discussing the “Trilogue” negotiations between the EU Commission, EU Council and EU Parliament over the EU’s Copyright Directive have continued, and a summary has been released on the latest plans for Article 13, which is the provision that will make upload filters mandatory, while (and this is the fun part) insisting that it doesn’t make upload filters mandatory. Then, to make things even more fun, another document on the actual text suggests the way to deal with this is to create a better euphemism for filters.

When we last checked in on this, we noted that the legacy film and television industry associations were freaking out that Article 13 might include some safe harbors for internet platforms, and were asking the negotiators to either drop those protections for platforms, or to leave them out of Article 13 altogether and only have it apply to music.

The latest brief description of the recommendations for Article 13 appear to be an attempt by bureaucrats who have no understanding of the nuances of this issue to appease both the legacy copyright industries and the tech companies. Notably absent: any concern for the public or independent creators. We’ll dig in in a moment, but frankly, given the state of Article 13 demonstrated in this two-page document, it is horrific that these discussions are considered almost concluded. It is obvious that the vast majority of people working on this have no idea what they’re talking about, and are pushing incredibly vague rules without any understanding of their impact. And rather than taking in the criticism and warning from knowledgeable experts, they’re just adding in duct-taped “but this won’t do x” for every complaint where people warn what the actual impact of the rules will be for the internet.

That’s why, throughout this document, they keep insisting that there will be no mandate for filters. But, there’s no way you can actually avoid liability without filters. Indeed, in order to appease the film and TV folks, the proposal now includes a notice-and-staydown provision. We’ve spent years explaining why a notice-and-staydown provision is not only unworkable, but would lead to tremendous amounts of non-infringing content being removed. Copyright is extremely context specific. The exact same content may be infringing in one instance, but protected in another. Yet a notice-and-staydown does not allow the protected versions. It requires they be blocked. That is outright censorship.

On to the document. It starts with seven “guidelines.”

The Commission was requested to follow these guidelines indicated by the Rapporteur:

• Platforms should follow high standards of duty of care;
• Cooperation should not be unidirectional;
• Non infringing content should remain on the platform online;
• Automatic blocking, albeit non forbidden, should be avoided as much as possible
• Existing measures should not be excluded
• Platforms should not always be released from liability by merely applying content identification measures
• Rightholders should not be in a worse position than they are currently. In this context the audiovisual sector was singled out. On this basis, the following ideas, which are based on a logical grouping of the above guidelines, are outlined for the consideration of the co-legislators:

This can be summed up as… all infringing content must disappear, but you don’t have to use filters and you must make sure that non-infringing content remains online. This is the “nerd harder” approach to regulating. It is magic wand regulating: make the bad stuff go away, and magically don’t have any collateral damage.

This is not sound policy making. This is technically illiterate bureaucrats trying to cover their asses. Because the liability requirements in the document will certainly lead to massive overblocking and widespread unintended consequences, these spineless technocrats are trying to avoid that by just tacking on “but let those consequences happen.” They don’t explain how this is possible. They just are going to put these rules out into the world, and tell the tech industry to wave a magic wand and make one type of content disappear without impacting other content (even if they’re impossible to distinguish, and if the penalties for getting it wrong are dire).

From there, the document provides “details” never apparently recognizing just how contradictory the plans are:

High standard of duty of care and bilateral cooperation (1 + 2) Online content sharing service providers, as defined in the directive, are considered to communicate to the public and as such need to obtain licences from the relevant rightholders. Where no licences are granted, online content sharing service providers and rightholders should cooperate in good faith to prevent the availability of protected content online.

Cooperation should take place according to appropriate standards of professional diligence, which ought to take into account the size of the service, the number and type of works or other subject matter uploaded by users, the potential economic harm caused to rightholders, the availability of suitable and effective technologies and their cost for service providers. In practice, this means that the standards of cooperation should be particularly high for high value content. Cooperation should not lead to a general monitoring obligation as defined under the e-Commerce Directive.

Magic wand thinking: Either your entire platform needs to be licensed (i.e., no user-generated content) or you need to “prevent the availability” of any copyright-covered content with “good faith.” But how? Well, the bureaucrats insist that this shouldn’t require “general monitoring” (i.e., an upload filter). But… um… how do you prevent availability of copyright covered content if you’re not monitoring? This is an impossible situation and either the bureaucrats know this and are just ignoring that they’re demanding the impossible, or they don’t understand this and shouldn’t be allowed within 10 miles of any regulation over the internet.

Rightholders should provide content sharing service providers with specific information (e.g. metadata) allowing identification of their content.

The cooperation could include content identification measures (e.g. for high value content) but should not prevent other forms of cooperation if agreed by the parties (e.g. ex post content moderation for low value content, see also letter B).

When unauthorised content becomes available on their websites, content sharing service providers would in general not be liable if they have cooperated in good faith according to the relevant standards of professional diligence. However, within an adequate framework to ensure legal certainty, when despite such cooperation the availability of content online has caused significant economic harm to rightholders the Directive could consider the provider liable in any event, but at a reduced level taking into account the good faith of the provider. Alternatively, the Directive could allow rightholders to claim restitution of the benefits appropriated by the providers (e.g. using unjust enrichment claims under national law) (see point C below).

So, again, we see the general incomprehensibility of what is being pushed here. The first paragraph is an attempt to appease the platforms, basically saying “if copyright holders are going to demand takedowns, they should at least be required to supply the details of what content they actually hold a copyright over.” That’s reasonable given a plan to demand mandatory filters, because the only thing such metadata is actually useful for is… a filter.

The second paragraph is basically saying “okay, yes, we mean filters for loosely defined ‘high value’ content, but maybe loosely defined ‘low value content’ doesn’t require filters.” Again, this appears to be an attempt to split the baby. Who the hell is going to self-describe their own content as “low value content?” The whole concept of “high value” and “low value” is elitist claptrap from the legacy content industries who basically believe that anything that comes from the legacy recording, TV and film studios is “high value” and all that independent, amateur, and user-generated content is “low value.” The paragraph here is supposed to be an attempt to say “well, okay, if your platform is just publishing garbage memes and stuff maybe it doesn’t need a filter, but if you happen to include any of Hollywood’s precious brilliance, you must put in place a filter.”

The third paragraph is, yet again, an attempt to give special extra rights to the legacy recording, TV, and film companies. It basically says that if platforms try to “cooperate in good faith” (i.e., censor at the drop of a hat) then maybe they would be considered not liable… but only if it’s that riff-raff low value content that slips through the filters (though we’re not demanding filters!). If any content slips through the filters that “caused significant economic harm” (i.e., comes from the big copyright industries), well then, it doesn’t fucking matter how much you tried to stop it, you’re still liable.

In other words, if any internet platform makes a single mistake with Hollywood’s content, no matter how hard they tried to stop it, too bad, you’re liable.

And this is where there’s such a massive disconnect between the framers (and supporters) of Article 13 and reality. When you’re told that any mistake will lead to liability, you are put in a position of trying to prevent any mistakes. And the only ways to do that are to (1) stop accepting any user-uploaded content or (2) filter the hell out of all of it, and take down anything that even might possibly be considered infringing, meaning tons of perfectly legitimate content will get shut down.

No matter how many times these technocrats say “don’t take down non-infringing works”, it’s totally meaningless if the only way to avoid liability is to take down tons of non-infringing works. Which brings us to the next part:

Non infringing content should remain online and automatic blocking to be avoided as much as possible (3+4)

Content that does not infringe copyright, for example because it is covered by exceptions, should stay on the services? websites. In addition, the co-legislators could provide that minor uses of content by amateur uploaders should not be automatically blocked (in the context of the cooperation and professional diligence referred to under A) nor trigger the liability of the uploader. This should be without prejudice to the remedies under point C and the rules on liability of the providers and cooperation under A.

The need to allow legitimate content to remain available, should be strengthened through a robust redress mechanism which should ensure that users can contest measures taken against their legitimate uploads. The Commission already provided possible suggestions to the co-legislators which are currently under discussions in the trilogue process.

Again, this is setting up a laughable impossibility. First they say you’re liable if you let anything through, and then they say “but don’t accidentally take down stuff you shouldn’t.” How the hell do you do that? The rules don’t say. Hollywood and Article 13’s supporters don’t care. It’s great if they add a “redress mechanism” for bogus takedowns, but that only will apply to content that first gets up and then is taken down. It says nothing for content that is blocked from being uploaded in the first place due to overaggressive filters, which are only overaggressive due to the earlier parts of Article 13 that say you’re liable if you let anything “high value” through.

This is the ultimate in cowardice from the EU regulators. Rather than address the actual problems that their own regulations will create, these regulators have decided to just append a bit to their regulation that says “and don’t let this create the problems it will obviously create.” That’s fucking useless.

Rightholders should keep benefiting from existing measures; and platforms not released from liability by merely applying content identification technologies. Rightholders, notably audiovisual sector, not worse off (5+6+7)

Rightholders should in any event retain the ability to request removal of infringing content from the websites of the content sharing services. Building on and complementing the current ecommerce rules, rightholders should be allowed to request that unauthorised content is expeditiously removed and that best efforts are made to ensure that it stays down. As indicated in A, the co-legislators may provide for an additional safeguard for rightholders when despite the good faith cooperation the availability of content online causes significant economic harm to them.

There’s something really big hidden in here. A “notice and stay down” requirement. That was not what was being pushed before. Notice and staydown creates all sorts of problems, in that by its very nature it obliterates the points in the previous paragraph. If you have a notice and staydown regime, you cannot allow content that is “covered by exceptions” because you’ve already designated all such content must stay down. And unless these bureaucrats in Brussels have magically invented a filter that can understand context and correctly judge whether or not something is covered by an exception (something that normally takes a years-long adversarial judicial process) it is difficult to see how this is possible.

Then we get to the other document, leaked earlier today by Politico, that attempts to wordsmith the actual language of Article 13. It’s basically the same stuff we discussed above, but with an attempt to put it into actual legalese. Two things stand out in the document. First, they try to rebrand mandatory upload filters, by now discussing “suitable and effective technologies” to “ensure the non-availability on the websites of the service providers of unauthorised works or other subject matter…” How is that not a filter?

This document also includes some language “as an option” that would require “best effort to prevent their future availability.” That’s putting the notice-and-staydown into the law. I will note that there is no real language being discussed that explains how to prevent the blocking of non-infringing works. Just more hand waving and magical thinking about how it shouldn’t block non-infringing works… even though it absolutely will.

This leaves me with two key takeaways:

1. The bureaucrats putting this together are doing the worst kind of regulating. They appear to be utterly ignorant of what it is that they are regulating, how it works, and the inevitable impact of their new rules. And, rather than trying to take the time to actually understand the concerns, they are simply writing “but don’t do that” into the law every time someone explains the impact. But you can’t regulate internet platforms not to overblock when everything else in your law requires them to overblock or face crippling liability. This is like a law that says “you must immediately dump out the bathwater without looking to see what’s in the bath… but don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.” How do you do that? The law doesn’t say because the regulators don’t have the slightest clue. And they don’t have the slightest clue because it’s impossible. And, they don’t seem to care about that because once they pass the law they can celebrate and the mess they create is left for the internet platforms (and the public) to deal with.
2. Given the massive changes and broad and unclear mandates being tossed around, Article 13 is nowhere near a condition which should be put into a binding regulation. What’s being debated now is so unclear, so vague and such a mess, that it would be practically criminal to put such nonsense into law. They are rushing to get this done (perhaps before the next EU Parliamentary elections next spring), and the fact that they’re about to make massive changes to a fundamental part of society (the internet) without clearly comprehending what they’re doing is incredibly frightening. This is like a bad first draft of a bad proposal. This is not just “this is a bad bill that went through a comprehensive process and I disagree with it.” This is an utter mess. It keeps shifting, it has vague and contradictory definitions, it tells companies to wave magic wands, and tells companies not to let the very thing the law compels actually happen. This is not regulating. This is why the public hates regulators.

I’m still hopeful that common sense eventually shows up in the EU, but at this point the only way for common sense to survive is to simply dump Article 13 entirely.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, intermediary liability, liability, notice and staydown, upload filters

YouTube Takes Down Ariana Grande's Manchester Benefit Concert On Copyright Grounds

Copyright

from the because-of-course dept

At a time when Europe is pushing for much greater filtering and takedowns, it’s worth a reminder that these kinds of systems pretty regularly takedown perfectly legitimate content — either content that is fair use or that is licensed. Case in point: this past Sunday, Ariana Grande held a huge benefit concert in Manchester called One Love Manchester. As you no doubt know, a few weeks back there was a bombing at Grande’s concert in Manchester, and her decision to put on a massive benefit concert right back in Manchester just a couple weeks later is impressive.

Except, for at least some period of time, the copyright gods didn’t want you to see it. Grande streamed the whole thing via her YouTube account. And… the concert was then promptly shut down by by Warner Music and Sony Music, saying that the stream violated their copyrights.

Now, chances are these were simply ContentID matches that were automated — rather than direct takedown notices as suggested in the tweet. And the video is now back, so some might argue this is no big deal. However, with the record labels demanding stronger and stronger filters, along with demands that content not just be taken down but then “stay down”, stories like this would only get worse and worse, and more and more perfectly legitimate content would get blocked.

Filed Under: arian grande, contentid, copyright, dmca, filters, notice and staydown, one love manchester, takedown
Companies: sony music, warner music, youtube

EU Parliament Report Recommends Throwing Out Something Even Worse Than The Link Tax: Upload Filtering

Copyright

from the save-the-meme dept

Techdirt has just written about how a report from the European Parliament’s “rapporteur” — basically, the subject lead — on planned reforms to EU copyright law recommends dumping one of the most stupid ideas in the draft proposals, a link or “snippets” tax. Although that’s good news, it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. After all, the idea has already been tried in Germany and Spain, and failed dismally both times. The damage that a link tax would cause to the smooth functioning of the Web is so obvious that the only people refusing to acknowledge that fact are the publishers who have been demanding this new “right” as part of their copyright maximalism. But alongside the ridiculous snippets tax, there’s another extremely dangerous idea that the European Commission has slipped into its copyright reform. Article 13 of the published draft (pdf) reads as follows:

Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate.

That is, those running online sites where users upload large quantities of material would be obliged to filter all those files to check for copyright material by using some unspecified, possibly magical, “content recognition technologies” that can tell when something is illegal or not. The problems with this are many and deep, as a post on the EDRi site explains:

the proposal of the Commission would require private companies to police the internet, in direct contradiction to two separate European Court rulings. The proposal would eliminate our freedoms to remix, to parody and others, in explicit breach of the EU’s obligations contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

The good news is that Therese Comodini Cachia, the rapporteur who wants to drop the link tax, also has some sensible suggestions for how to fix this “censorship machine”:

In the leaked proposed amendments [to the new EU copyright law], Ms Comodini has deleted key aspects of the section of the draft Directive and amended the proposal in a way which would minimise the worst aspects of the censorship machine. Moreover, she has correctly restated the liability rules which exist in current EU legislation (the e-Commerce Directive). She advocates for the licensing agreements that were the ostensible goal of the European Commission in the first place.

However, it would be premature to celebrate this outbreak of good sense. Although it seems quite likely that the European Parliament will agree with the recommendations of its rapporteur here, the European Commission and national governments of the member states may disagree, and still try to keep Article 13 in its current form because of pressure from lobbyists. Ultimately, that would lead to EU negotiations behind closed doors and compromises that could see upload filtering retained with some modifications and perhaps token safeguards.

Fortunately, there is still some time to mobilize public opinion here. Although upload filtering seems an obscure, rather technical issue, it threatens some very fundamental Internet freedoms like remixing and creating parodies. As part of an effort to reach a broader audience, the Dutch Bits of Freedom digital rights group has put together a simple site called “Save the Meme,” which encourages EU citizens to contact their MEPs to make sure as many as possible vote against Article 13, sending a strong signal to the European Commission and national governments that it has to go — just like the link tax.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: copyright, eu, eu commission, eu parliament, mandatory filters, notice and staydown

Notice & Staydown In Action: HBO Didn't Even Need To Send Takedown Over Autistic Teen's Artwork

Copyright

from the bursting-your-bubble dept

Things just got a little more weird in the case of the 13 year old British girl who had some art she created taken down from Redbubble’s site because the artwork included the phrase “winter is coming.” The girl’s father responded to the takedown, questioning why HBO, owners of the trademark rights to the phrase in conjunction with the Game of Thrones franchise, would do this to an autistic teenager that wasn’t even selling the art, only sharing it. As noted in our original post, the letter Redbubble sent the girl is a mess, lacking any firm reference to trademark or copyright and replacing it only with “IP/Publicity Rights.” In addition, the whole letter is written like a forwarded DMCA notice, including offering the ability to counternotice through Redbubble’s DMCA counternotice email address… but this would be a trademark issue, to which the DMCA doesn’t apply. Lots of people, including the girl’s father, assumed this takedown had been carried out at the request of HBO.

It looks like that wasn’t the case. What the girl’s father missed — along with many of those reporting on the issue, including myself — is that Redbubble’s letter states that they did this because of HBO’s history of issuing DMCA notices, not because it had actually done so in this case.

“We have removed the following content from Redbubble in response to past complaints from Home Box Office, Inc., the claimed owner or licensee of related intellectual property and in accordance with Redbubble’s IP/Publicity Rights Policy,” it said.

So this wasn’t “notice and takedown”, it was “notice and staydown”, where Redbubble policed HBO intellectual property on its site based on previous complaints. That’s not required by law, of course, but it certainly is what many in Hollywood want to see as the standard. And this is a perfect case for why it’s a terrible, terrible idea. Legitimate, non-infringing uses get caught up in the blanket takedowns issued by service providers that don’t really have a clue as to what they’re doing.

And in light of what actually happened, Redbubble’s letter, and the way it appears to be disguised as a DMCA notice, is at best horrifically sloppy and at worst an attempt to shift the blame for its voluntary and proactive takedown of a teenage girl’s artwork. For it’s part, HBO doesn’t seem to be happy about this.

“We love when fans are creative in their support of our programmes,” the network said in a statement (via Entertainment Weekly). “These works live online in many incarnations, and in the past we have celebrated them by drawing attention to them.

“Many for-profit websites that sell products, such as Redbubble, take steps to avoid infringements as part of their standard operating procedure. To suggest a particular individual was targeted, or that HBO threatened legal action against her, is simply untrue.”

Now, HBO’s history of how it treats fans of Game of Thrones isn’t universally positive, and it’s worth noting again that the stated reason Redbubble did all of this is because of the network’s heavy-handed history when it comes to matters just like this…but I have to think HBO is also pissed off at the way Redbubble’s communication with the girl’s father allowed him — and the media — to conclude this was all HBO’s fault for issuing a DMCA takedown.

Regardless, good to know that Redbubble wants to be in the business of proactively policing its site in such a way that it results in the non-infringing artwork of a teenager gets taken down. The site is a notice and staydown site, on the record.

Filed Under: censorship, dmca, notice and staydown, notice and takedown, threats, trademark, winter is coming
Companies: hbo, redbubble

Warner Bros. Issuing Takedowns For Its Own Site Is No Laughing Matter

Copyright

from the notice-and-staydown? dept

Lots of people have been talking the past few days about TorrentFreak’s discovery of the fact that Warner Bros., via its hired DMCA agent Vobile, has been issuing DMCA takedowns on its own website. Specifically, in recent notices to Google from Vobile, on behalf of Warner Bros., the infringing domains include WB’s own official websites for movies like “Batman, the Dark Knight” and “The Matrix.”

It’s easy to look at this and laugh. And the story’s been getting lots of attention thanks to places like the BBC picking up on it as well. And thus, jokes like this one are an easy target:

And, yes, this is hardly the first time that companies have been caught targeting themselves. After all, Viacom famously sued YouTube over Viacom’s own promotional clips that it had uploaded to the site. And, the recording industry is famous for taking down the official videos of its artists.

But here’s why this isn’t really a laughing matter: many of the legacy industry players, including Warner Bros. and the MPAA who represent WB, have been pushing very heavily for a revamp of the DMCA that would include a “notice and staydown” provision — such that once a copyright holder representative sent a notice claiming a work was infringing, platforms would basically be required to block that content from ever appearing again. In response, many of us have pointed out just how bad companies like Warner Bros. are at issuing takedowns, and we’re told that such mistakes are rare. But they’re not rare. We see them all the time. And if notice and staydown were in place, it could create all sorts of problems.

Notice, too, that it wasn’t just WB’s own site that was the target of this bogus takedown. Just two slots above it are the official Amazon sales link for the movie. Elsewhere in the list were official IMDB pages as well. Yes, Google is actually better than most at going through these notices and rejecting ridiculous requests like this, but most other companies are not. If you send a notice, it’s treated as accurate, and down go those sites. Some may consider that fair game when it’s something as ridiculous as WB taking down its own sites, but it’s not so funny when it’s someone else’s work — like the time Fox sent DMCA notices taking down Cory Doctorow’s book, Homeland, just because it had the same title as a TV show.

Meanwhile, we keep hearing from companies like Warner Bros. about how Google is really to blame, and that it’s “obvious” when there’s infringing content that should be taken down. If it’s so “obvious” why can’t WB gets its act together and not take down its own sites? Perhaps it isn’t so obvious after all and perhaps we shouldn’t make copyright policy based on the bogus claims of companies so clueless that they’re issuing DMCA takedowns on their own websites or other official channels?

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, notice and staydown, takedowns
Companies: vobile, warner bros.

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

Copyright

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