•
Last week, the big news in DMCA takedowns was the sweeping removal of Hitler parody videos . Earlier this year, it was Google suddenly wiping out six separate music blogs . Today, it's the removal of a tweet . While this might not seem like a big deal on the surface, it leads to some much bigger questions about free speech, what content should fall under a proper DMCA take-down and whether or not the DMCA is a legal method of applying censorship by any content owner. Sponsor Here's the story as told by TechDirt: The story involves a music blogger named JP, who runs the appropriately named JP's blog . Not surprisingly, JP also has a Twitter account , where he mostly seems to post links to his blog posts. One such post was about the leak of the new album by The National. That post includes a link to Amazon where people can purchase the new album... and also a link to a download of one song (in MP3 format) from the album. According to JP's blog post on the subject, Twitter sent him a message last Thursday "in response to a DMCA take-down notice". The email, he writes, read as follows: jp917, Apr 22 03:10 pm (PDT): Hello, The following material has been removed from your account in response to a DMCA take-down notice: Tweet: http://twitter.com/jp917/statuses/12499491144 - New Post: Leaked: The National - High Violet http://jpsblog.net/2010/04/20/leaked-the-national-high-violet/ JP denies posting any link to the leaked album in his tweeted blog post, saying that he will not bother filing a counterclaim to the take-down. He also links to an article in Plagiarism Today from a year ago that alleges that Twitter's handling of DMCA take-downs and counterclaims is problematic and that "there is clearly an organization issue here and that's leading to confusion." While last weeks' take-downs of parody videos may have been "overbroad take-downs of legal content" , as the Electronic Frontier Foundation asserted, this sort take-down may go an extra step, beyond constitutionally protected First Amendment speech. With the YouTube take-downs, at least there was copyrighted content present, although it may have been used according to the law in the end. In this case, according to JP, there was neither pirated content nor a link to any DMCA-violating content. While TechDirt argues that "specifically, nothing in the tweet itself is infringing -- which means that the DMCA take-down for the tweet is bogus, and a violation of the DMCA itself", we spoke with David Sohn, senior policy council with the Center for Democracy & Technology , who said that the question might not be so cut and dry. Section 5.12D of the DMCA relates to cases involving "information location tools" and "links". "One possibility here is that Twitter has gotten a take-down notice that might not stand up as a totally valid take-down notice," said Sohn. On Sohn's advice, we asked Wendy Seltzer, founder of ChillingEffects.org , what this all meant and she explained that the burden of proof lies with the person creating the content and not the platform. All the platform, in this case Twitter, needs to know is that the complaint me be valid and that, by removing the offending content, they cover themselves legally in the eyes of the DMCA. Whether or not section 5.12 D of the DMCA actually applies doesn't really matter. The introduction to her recent paper, "Free Speech Unmoored in Copyright's Safe Harbor: Chilling Effects of the DMCA on the First Amendment" (.pdf), speaks clearly to the problem we saw when first reading this story: Each week, more blog posts are redacted, more videos deleted, and more web pages removed from Internet search results based on private claims of copyright infringement. Under the "safe harbors" of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Internet service providers are encouraged to respond to copyright complaints with content takedowns, assuring their immunity from liability while diminishing the rights of their subscribers and users. Paradoxically, the law's shield for service providers becomes a sword against the public who depend upon these providers as platforms for speech. The problem with the current format of the DMCA, especially in the case of something like a communication platform such as Twitter, is that a DMCA take-down notice becomes an extremely effective means of silencing information for a legally mandated period of 10 days. In essence, it provides those who wish to silence a voice a quick and legal means of enacting what is called a " prior restraint ", something clearly prohibited in First Amendment law. "When non-infringing speech is taken down, not only does its poster lose an opportunity to reach an audience, the public loses the benefit of hearing that lawful speech in the marketplace of ideas," writes Seltzer in the paper. Twitter offered this response: "Twitter regularly receives DMCA takedown notices. We strive to balance the interests of our users and copyright holders by reviewing each notice. After determining whether the notice is compliant with the law, we also consider other factors such as whether the notice is abusive to our users, or fails to take fair use into consideration. You can read more about our DMCA process here: http://help.twitter.com/entries/15795-copyright-and-dmca-policy "We are always working to improve our transparency. Users are notified immediately when content has been removed from their account. In this situation, we responded to a request to remove a Tweet containing a link to download content from an unreleased album. After reexamining our decision, we believe this was the correct first step. If the affected user believes we have made a mistake or that the notice is in error, the appropriate thing for the user to do is file a counter-claim. "We believe that the reasoning of the DMCA claim and its origin should be transparent to both the affected user and other interested parties. We are working on further steps to improve access to this information." So, our next logical question here is: Since this post includes the email from Twitter, which includes that original link to a blog post that supposedly linked to infringing content, can it too be removed according to the guidelines of the DMCA? Discuss
The rest is here:
Twitter, DMCA Take-downs & the Prior Restraint of First Amendment Speech
Tags:
amazon,
copyright,
digital,
first-amendment,
internet,
Legal,
news,
notice,
rights,
speech,
tweet,
Twitter,
user,
YouTube
•
YouTube said in a blog post today that it is "committed to supporting new forms of original creativity, protecting fair use, and providing a seamless user experience", offering what seems like a response to the drama over the past few days involving a number of parody videos on the site. Sponsor In what the Electronic Frontier Foundation called "overbroad takedowns of legal content", a number of video parody remixes of Hitler ranting, dubbed over from the movie The Downfall: Hitler and the End of the Third Reich (aka Der Untergang) , have been removed from YouTube as part of its " Content ID " copyright protection service. YouTube notes that Content ID isn't perfect, writing in its blog that "Content ID can't identify context (like 'educational use' or 'parody')" and that "rights holders are the only ones in a position to know what is and is not an authorized use of their content, and we require them to enforce their policies in a manner that complies with the law." The blog then details how users can "dispute inappropriate claims", noting that every claim notification includes a dispute form, which immediately puts the content back online and gives the claimant another chance to review the content according to DMCA policy. In essence, YouTube seems to be stepping in and saying that its automatic system works, but isn't perfect, and that any disputes should be handled by the parties involved. In short - children, behave and follow the rules. Discuss
Read more:
YouTube Weighs In on Hitler, Parodies, Mashups & Fair Use
Tags:
claim notification,
content,
days-involving,
downfall hitler,
electronic frontier foundation,
from-the-movie,
over-the-past,
parties,
policies,
protecting-fair,
Read,
rights-holders,
supporting-new,
use,
YouTube
•
YouTube has launched a new feature that allows channel owners to send text messages and links to videos to the front page of their subscribers' YouTube accounts. It's a cool, if logical, feature to offer and one that could make visiting YouTube a lot more fun. Called Channel Bulletins, the feature is pretty simple. But am I looking forward to seeing little updates sent out between videos from the people I'm subscribed to? Yes, I am. Sponsor It would be nice if YouTube allowed channel owners to pipe in RSS feeds, maybe Twitter messages. The personal touch should be nice too, though. If you aren't subscribed to any channels on YouTube, you're missing out on one of the best ways to experience the site. I'm subscribed to Steve Gillmor , Breaking the News , Social Data Revolution and Brown Man Thinking Hard , among others. (Would love to get your suggestions for video channels to subscribe to, RWW readers.) Blippy co-founder Phil Kaplan brought this feature to our attention and framed it as YouTube's version of Twitter. It may play out that way for hard-core YouTube users, but I hope more casual publishers will regularly send out bulletins as well. I wouldn't mind getting them as emails, even. It would be nice for subscribers to be able to reply easily to Channel Bulletins, too. There are lots of ways this could go, but getting it started, offering messaging other than videos and comments, is a good move. Channels have long been a part of YouTube, Paris Hilton got the first branded one in 2006 , and it's pretty far-out to think that text message communication between channel owners and subscribers has taken this long to arrive. Perhaps when you're coming from a video-centric perspective, these things don't always come to mind. There are many other social features that could be added to make YouTube a more compelling site. Could I please be shown the YouTube channels and favorites of my friends on Twitter, Facebook and Google Accounts, for example? That would be great. Discuss
See more here:
YouTube Launches Twitter-Like Channel Bulletins
Tags:
attention,
facebook,
feature,
friends,
from-the-people,
google-accounts,
news,
nice-if-youtube,
Paris,
paris-hilton,
people,
social,
Steve Gillmor,
suggestions,
YouTube
•
When we first looked at the conviction of three Google employees by an Italian judge in late February, we agreed with Google's stance that the conviction attacked the very ideals of the Internet as we know it. The comments in reaction to this article were many and varied, often speculating on the reasoning behind the conviciton. Today, a CNet article identifies profit as the judge's reasoning behind the decision. Sponsor As Google stated when the convictions were first handed down, the case was concerned with a video of "students at a school in Turin, Italy [who] filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate. The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police." According to the Associated Press translation of the court document (pdf), the judge said Google's profiting off of the video was the reason behind the conviction. "In simple words, it is not the writing on the wall that constitutes a crime for the owner of the wall, but its commercial exploitation can," wrote Judge Oscar Magi, continuing to say that the Internet was no longer an "unlimited prairie where everything is permitted and nothing can be prohibited". Profit, especially that profit which is made from completely automated advertising systems, seems like an odd reasoning to hold a content provider responsible for the content uploaded by its users. The oft-quoted statistic to keep in mind here is that YouTube has more than 20 hours of video uploaded every minute to the service. Judge Magi, however, argues that "the overwhelming speed of technical progress will allow, sooner or later, ever more stringent controls on uploaded data on the part of Web site managers". Google gave CNET the following statement in response to the news: "We are reading the full 111-page document from the judge. But as we said when the verdict was announced, this conviction attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. If these principles are swept aside, then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear. These are important points of principle, which is why we and our employees will vigorously appeal this decision." We have to say, we still agree with Google on this one, as far as the spirit of the conviction goes. Holding the content host, YouTube in this case, liable for the content of its users attacks the very foundation of the Web. If, as some claim, Google knowingly allowed the content to stay on the site, then its a different story. But if the company immediately responded to official requests to remove the video, it should not be held responsible for its users' content. Discuss
See the article here:
Italian Judge Says "Profit" Behind Google Convictions
Tags:
article,
case,
content,
conviction,
convictions,
Google,
italian,
Italy,
judge,
Judge Magi,
Judge Oscar Magi,
Judge Says,
news,
overwhelming,
overwhelming speed,
press,
the-conviction,
Turin,
turin italy,
video,
writing,
YouTube
•
On the one hand, when we hear about Facebook making Facebook Connect an opt-out experience , we feel a little chill run through our bones and we want to commit Facebook suicide. And then again, every time we hear about another big player on the web implementing Facebook Connect, we smile, because for us and so many others, our Facebook friend list is our de facto representation of our real-life friends on the Web. YouTube this weekend announced that it would be stepping up its Facebook integration, allowing you to see what YouTube videos all of your friends are sharing on Facebook. Sponsor It's only been since last December that the video-sharing site has had Facebook Connect capabilities, but now, as YouTube says in its blog, "when you log in to your YouTube account, you'll get a prominent invitation in the Recent Activity module (see below) to connect to Facebook, which we highly recommend that you do. In fact, we hope to integrate more social networks with YouTube going forward". The blog also highlights "real-time sharing", saying that now, when you share YouTube videos on other social networks, it happens immediately and not 10 minutes later. We have to imagine that this has lowered the number of exasperated support requests from impatient users, as we've all come to expect things to happen instantaneously and not when the server feels like getting around to it. As for sharing, users can automatically share videos they post on YouTube to Facebook, Twitter and Google Reader. This new feature twists around the usual, making it possible for users to see what their friends are sharing on Facebook. In this case, it does not mean that they have to create the video for you to see it - if they share it, you can see that. Discuss
See the rest here:
YouTube Steps Up Facebook Integration, Shows Shared Videos
Tags:
facebook,
facebook-connect,
friends,
integrate-more,
post-on-youtube,
recent-activity,
social,
social-networks,
video,
YouTube