Chilling Effects Clearinghouse Weather Reports

Chilling Effects Clearinghouse Weather Reports http://www.chillingeffects.org Monitoring the legal climate for Internet activity (database of annotated cease and desist letters) en-us 2002-02-25T12:00+00:00 Wendy Seltzer, wseltzer@chillingeffects.org Chilling Effects Clearinghouse Your rights online 2002-02-25T12:00+00:00 1 hourly Chilling Effects Clearinghouse http://images.chillingeffects.org/chilling_effects.gif http://www.chillingeffects.org/ How to Fight Revenge Porn https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=747 <img src="//images.chillingeffects.org/stormy.gif" alt="stormy" width="80" height="80"align=left> <h2>How to Fight Revenge Porn</h2>Woodrow Hartzog, The Atlantic, May 10, 2013 Abstract: Chilling Effects regularly receives notices wherein people are seeking the removal, either from search engines or from hosting sites, of pornographic images of themselves that have "escaped" to the larger Internet. From time to time the images are even being disseminated by others on purpose, with malicious intent. Given the ease with which digital technology and the Internet allow material to be copied, shared and stored, this is a challenging problem, to say the least. This article from The Atlantic takes a look at one way in which to do it. http://www.withoutmyconsent.org/ takes another approach.<hr size=1> Possibly The First Serious 512(f) Ruling in D. Mass https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=744 <img src="//images.chillingeffects.org/rainy.gif" alt="rainy" width="80" height="80"align=left> <h2>Possibly The First Serious 512(f) Ruling in D. Mass</h2>Adam Holland, May 13, 2013 Abstract: A Massachusetts court is hearing a case triggered by a DMCA takedown notice in which the sender admitted that they new the recipient had a fair use claim.<hr size=1> <hr size=1 width="75%">Chilling Effects fans and those who follow takedown notice stories will recall the relatively recent brouhaha in which a NASCAR fan filmed a crash with his cellphone and posted it to YouTube, whereupon NASCAR asserted claim in the cellphone video and filed a DMCA takedown notice to get the video removed. you can see the fan video in question <a href = "https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wVW65Tyji_s"> >here</a>, and a more revealing video of the accident, probably from the venue cameras, <a href = "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDgg_hTWE4c"> here</a>.Google <a href = "http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/">pushed back</a> and left the video up, and in short order NASCAR was backing down from its claims of copyright infringement, going to far as to say that the issue for them had in fact <a href = "http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/fans-nascar-accident-video-returns-youtube-after-takedown-1C8537538"> never been about copyright</a>.This prompted much criticism of what seemed like a knowing and blatant abuse of the DMCA process. Media guru Dan Gilmor, criticizing NASCAR's behavior, <a href = "https://twitter.com/dangillmor/status/306537081142931456">suggested</a> (correctly, as it turns out) that nothing at all would come of it. We here wondered, if this open admission that a DMCA notice had been sent when the sender knew, and later acknowledged, that it had nothing to do with copyright couldn't trigger <a href = "http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512">512(f)</a>, if there could be any 512(f) situation so egregious that the notice sender would suffer the (admittedly weak) associated penalties.Well, it's looking as though just such a situation has arisen in Massachusetts, where a Boston OB/GYN, Dr. Amy Tuteur, has been in a rather acrimonious back-and-forth with an Illinois doula, Gina Crosley-Corcoran. ["C-C"]TechDirt has <a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130509/01272923016/key-legal-fight-shaping-up-over-legality-dmca-abuses.shtml"picked up the story</a> and our colleagues at the <a href = "http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/dmlp-joins-eff-amicus-brief-addressing-dmca-misrepresentations-and-critical-speech">Digital Media Law Project</a>, together with the EFF, have not only <a href = "http://www.dmlp.org/threats/tuteur-v-crosley-corcoran">taken an interest</a>, but have sought to file an <a href = "http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/2013-05-01-EFF%20and%20DMLP%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">amicus brief.</a> Intriguingly, the defendants are opposing the brief on the grounds that their opponent's lawyers are too good. Go, DMLP!You can dive into all the details at your leisure, but we here at Chilling Effects are keenly interested in this case because of what it portends for the DMCA notice and takedown process. Here's the DMLP on the key elements from our perspective. [emphasis added]"The dispute lead to Crosley-Corcoran posting a photograph of herself on her blog extending her middle finger, with the accompanying comment, "I don't want to leave you without something you can take back to your blog and obsess over, so here's a picture of me, sitting at my dining room table[.]" Tuteur responded on her blog by posting the photo, arguing that it was an "outstanding example of table pounding" and accusing Crosley-Corcoran of being afraid to answer questions posed by Tuteur.At this point, Crosley-Corcoran began threatening Tuteur with a copyright infringement lawsuit, and sent two DMCA takedown notices to the services hosting Tuteur's blog. According to the complaint, the second notice was sent after an alleged conversation between parties wherein Crosley-Corcoran's attorney acknowledged that she did not have a valid copyright claim." [because the reposting was a fair use]So, this seems like an ironclad 512(f) claim, in that this is a clear abuse of the DMCA process, in that C-C sent the notice knowing that Tuteur's use of the photo was not an infringing one.Recall that a fair use is not a defense to an infringement, but in fact not an infringement at all. <a href = "http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107">"the fair use...is not an infringement...."</a>However, the court, sua sponte, raised the idea that a notice sender might not have to consider a recipient's fair uses when sending a notice. [Arguably, no one does this anyway, but the idea of a precedent being set such that there's no need to do so is disturbing.]It's so easy to remove content that the possibility of notice recipients' uses being fair ones being reason to leave content up is an already thin reed. Fair use is already complex, and many users don't attempt to rely on it because its determination, ultimately by a court, if challenged, is too expensive. Narrowing its use and scope is not the direction in which we want to go.As the DMLP points out: "the notice requirements of the DMCA do not require a copyright owner to merely claim use without permission; they require a copyright owner to state that the use "is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." [emphasis added] (17 U.S.C. &sect; 512(c)(3)(A)(v).) Similarly, Section 512(f) allows recovery against anyone who knowingly misrepresents "that material or activity is infringing," and as the Copyright Act and courts repeatedly note, "a fair use is not an infringement of copyright." If the court ends up where it appears to be looking, 512(f) will be rendered meaningless, and there will be nothing at all holding back willful misuse of the DMCA's takedown process.Keep an eye on this case! What We're Reading https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=737 <h2>What We're Reading</h2>Chilling Effects, May 06, 2013 Abstract: Here at Chilling Effects, we try to stay abreast of what&#146;s going on in the world of takedown notices, copyright law, and related technology. So much is changing, and so rapidly, that it can sometimes be a real challenge. We&#146;ll link to news stories we found especially interesting in our &#147;News Feed&#148; which you can find to the right of the home page.That being said, there have been so many recently, on so m any important issues, that we wanted to call your attention to them en masse. Please consider this the cream off the top of what we&#146;re reading on the web recently.<hr size=1> <hr size=1 width="75%">A Round-up of Some Great Recent Stories in the World of Copyright and Technology. <a href = "http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-and-antigua-explore-launch-of-authorized-pirate-site-130503/"> Pirate Bay and Antigua Explore Launch of Authorized &#147;Pirate Site&#148; </a> The Government of Antigua will soon start accepting bids for their WTO authorized pirate site, to punish the United States for refusing to lift a trade blockade. The new service will offer the public access to pirated movies, music and software without paying U.S. copyright holders. A source close to the Antigua Government has suggested The Pirate Bay as an excellent partner, and the world&#146;s largest file-sharing site says it would love to get involved. . . .&#147;The U.S. refuses to lift a trade &#147;blockade&#148; preventing the Caribbean island from offering Internet gambling services, despite several WTO decisions in Antigua&#146;s favor.&#148;<a href = "http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/05/aereo-sues-cbs-to-preempt-deluge-of-copyright-suits/"> Aereo sues CBS to preempt deluge of copyright suits </a> "Aereo, the startup that uses tens of thousands of tiny antennas to provide TV-over-Internet service, is getting tired of being threatened with constant legal attacks.The company was sued by broadcasters who said Aereo was essentially stealing their signal, refusing to pay the retransmission fees that cable companies pay. But Aereo's argument that it was just bringing legal "over-the-air" broadcasts to consumers via tiny antennas won in district court, and it won again at a key appeals court hearing. Since then, networks have made wild claims that they'll stop broadcasting, and they are now aiming to topple the key legal decision underpinning Aereo's business." <a href= "http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/05/tor-books-says-cutting-drm-out-of-its-e-books-hasnt-hurt-business/"> "Tor Books says cutting DRM out of its e-books hasn&#146;t hurt business</a> "Early this week, Tor Books, a subsidiary of Tom Doherty Associates and the world's leading publisher of science fiction, gave an update on how its decision to do away with Digital Rights Management (DRM) schemes has impacted the company. Long story short: it hasn't, really."<a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/12444222950/broad-coalition-public-private-interests-call-objective-data-research-concerning-copyright-reform.shtml"> Broad Coalition Of Public And Private Interests Call For Objective Data & Research Concerning Copyright Reform</a> [A] new report from the US National Research Council that has begun the process of calling for more objective data to inform the upcoming copyright reform debate. You can get the full PDF via the National Academies Press for free. . . . The effort was funded by a broad coalition of organizations with a variety of different views on the issue, so it's not limited to just one particular view. For example, you've got copyright maximalist organizations like the MPAA and the BSA, but also Google and Pam Samuelson, who tend to take a different view on the appropriate level of copyright protection. There is also support from a number of different government and private foundations, including the National Science Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Ford Foundation.<a href = "http://www.businessinsider.com/hyundai-trying-to-make-its-suicide-video-disappear-2013-4">Desperate Hyundai Is Trying To Make Its Suicide Video Disappear &#151; And Failing </a> &#147;Yesterday we told you about a new ad for the Hyundai ix35 which depicts a man trying and failing to kill himself in his garage (the exhaust pipe of the fuel cell car emits only water vapor). For obvious reasons, people were upset about the ad and Hyundai apologized, promising never to run it in paid media again. . . . Hyundai is apparently bringing multiple copyright challenges to YouTube citing anyone who tries to show the video, which was created by ad agency Innocean.&#148;<a href = "http://torrentfreak.com/netflix-says-its-killing-bittorrent-traffic-130504/"> Netflix Says It&#146;s &#145;Killing&#146; BitTorrent Traffic</a> "Video streaming giant Netflix believes that making content available is the best way to beat online piracy, and the company has data to back this up. Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos reveals that ISPs are noticing a drop in BitTorrent traffic every time they launch in a new territory. &#147;The best way to combat piracy isn&#146;t legislatively or criminally but by giving good options,&#148; Sarandos says."<a href = "http://torrentfreak.com/busting-worlds-biggest-movie-pirates-made-piracy-worse-130506/"> Busting World&#146;s Biggest Movie Pirates Made Piracy Worse</a> "Just under two years ago authorities in the United States busted one of the most important movie piracy release groups on the planet. In recent months its members have been handed some of the harshest copyright-related sentences on record but immediately after the raids something interesting happened. Instead of running for cover, pirates regrouped and the piracy situation actually got worse." <a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130506/12314322964/author-to-kill-mockingbird-sues-agent-swiping-her-copyright.shtml"> Author Of To Kill A Mockingbird Sues Agent For Swiping Her Copyright</a> "[I]f the story presented by Harper Lee, the 87-year-old author of To Kill A Mockingbird, in a new lawsuit is accurate, it appears that she's one of the few actual victims of copyright theft. She's now sued her former literary agent Samuel Pinkus, claiming that he effectively tricked her into signing away her copyright on the work to Pinkus' company, Keystone Literary." When the Government comes Knocking, Who Has Your Back? https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=735 <img src="//images.chillingeffects.org/partly_cloudy.gif" alt="partly cloudy" width="80" height="63"align=left> <h2>When the Government comes Knocking, Who Has Your Back?</h2>EFF.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation, May 01, 2013 Abstract: [Chilling Effects is especially interested in Criteria #2] The Electronic Frontier Foundation&#146;s Second Annual Report on Online Service Providers&#146; Privacy and Transparency Practices Regarding Government Access to User Data"When you use the Internet, you entrust your online conversations, thoughts, experiences,locations, photos, and more to companies like Google, AT&T and Facebook. But what happens when the government demands that these companies to hand over your private information? Will the company stand with you? Will it tell you that the government is looking for your data so that you can take steps to protect yourself? The Electronic Frontier Foundation examined the policies of 18 major Internet companies"<hr size=1> Is The DMCA Broken? https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=733 <img src="//images.chillingeffects.org/partly_cloudy.gif" alt="partly cloudy" width="80" height="63"align=left> <h2>Is The DMCA Broken?</h2>Adam Holland, April 25, 2013 Abstract: Or is it at least wearing out? We think so. We look at some recent events that suggest copyright law is so far behind reality that it's time for a new one. Some fairly highly placed people agree.<hr size=1> <hr size=1 width="75%">Some recent developments have us here at Chilling Effects, and in other places as well, wondering if the DMCA, which is shockingly celebrating its <a href = "http://benton.org/node/129111">16th anniversary</a> this year. Given the rate at which technology changes, it&#146;s probably not surprising that the law might be having trouble keeping pace. &#147;Slowly but exceedingly fine&#148; and all that. However, some recent cases moving through the courts, as well as some other developments on both the technology and general business practice fronts are really bringing the inadequacies of the DMCA into sharp relief.First off is this week's <a href = "https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/691437/umg-recordings-inc-v-escape-media-group-inc.pdf">stunning ruling</a> from a New York state court re: UMG Recordings lawsuit against Grooveshark. Grooveshark&#146;s parent company is Escape Media. [ Disclosure: I love Grooveshark and have an account]The gist of the suit was / is that Grooveshark, despite its licenses, was violating UMG&#146;s copyrights in various sound recordings. Critically, these were recordings made, or &#147;fixed&#148;, pre-1972.Grooveshark relied on its DMCA-granted immunity from Section 512. UMG said that didn&#146;t help, because Section 301 of the DMCA explicitly stated that it did not apply to any sound recording fixed prior to 1972. Sure enough, that appears to be exactly <a "href=http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html">what 301 says.</a> To wit:&#147;With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15, 2067. The preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any such rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from undertakings commenced on and after February 15, 2067.&#148; [NB the original version of this section had 2047 as the date, but the 1998 DMCA revisions changed it to 2067]That the DMCA nevertheless should apply is a difficult textual argument to make, which may be why the NY court made the ruling that it did. &#147;Initially, it is clear to us that the DMCA, if interpreted in the manner favored by defendant, would directly violate section 301(c) of the Copyright Act.&#148;However, as Grooveshark accurately points out, this would &#147;eviscerate&#148; the DMCA and render it useless for its intended purpose, streamlining the ability of service providers to offer content without investing massive resources in vetting it beforehand. Imagine if Grooveshark had to investigate whether every song uploaded to it was pre- or post-1972 (not as easy as it sounds). In fact, the effect that this interpretation of Section 301 has on the DMCA is so powerful that when the issue has come up in the past, including in courts at both the state level (in this very case) and at the <a href = "http://www.scribd.com/doc/70290136/MP3tunes-Revised-Order-Regarding-Motion-for-Reconsideration">federal level, inCapitol Records v. MP3 Tunes</a> and in Perfect 10 Inc. v. CCBill LLC. the opinions have gone the other way, and ruled that there is no Section 301 conflict, largely because of Congressional intent. I.e. &#147;This Court concludes that there is no conflict between section 301 and the DMCA's safe harbors for infringement of pre-1972 recordings.&#148; In general, see pp 14-17 of that opinion, or this write-up, <a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/14283519650/judge-rejects-key-universal-music-argument-legal-fight-with-grooveshark.shtml">here</a>.In Perfect 10, the court was concerned not only with Section 512 of the DMCA, but also Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The judge there took the expansive (but logical) view that Section 230 preempted all state IP law. A lengthier quote is worth it.&#147;[P]ermitting the reach of any particular state's definition of intellectual property to dictate the contours of this federal immunity would be contrary to Congress's expressed goal of insulating the development of the Internet from the various state-law regimes. See 47 U.S.C. &sect;&sect; 230(a) and (b); see also Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1027 (noting that &#147;courts construing &sect; 230 have recognized as critical in applying the statute the concern that lawsuits*1119 could threaten the &#145;freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium&#146; &#148; (quoting Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330)). In the absence of a definition from Congress, we construe the term &#147;intellectual property&#148; to mean &#147;federal intellectual property.&#148; However, that last sentence, &#147;federal intellectual property&#148; might be a lever with which to distinguish this case. As Eric Goldman <a href = "http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/04/24/more-evidence-that-congress-misaligned-its-online-copyright-safe-harbors-umg-v-grooveshark">points out in a piece for Forbes </a>, with three different interpretations of the situation now extant, it&#146;s going to be quite a hairball to resolve. On a different front, we see the recurrence of an older, no less problematic idea, that of using private contracts to go around or supersede the tenets of copyright law. Put the DMCA aside. Forget about fair use. Regardless of the legality of a user&#146;s use of a song from Universal Music, if it comes down from YouTube because UMG complains, that&#146;s the end of the process. No notice/counter-notice, no newly user-friendly YouTube internal procedure. Nothing. Why? Because YouTube has a <a href = "https://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=3045545">contractual arrangement</a> with UMG that <a href ="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/01191322589/youtube-wont-put-your-video-back-up-even-if-its-fair-use-if-it-contains-content-universal-music.shtml"> says so</a>. While of course there&#146;s no &#147;right&#148; to post things to YouTube, and as the explanation points out, a poster can always take it up with UMG directly, this is deeply concerning. If major players in the online content space (which is to say, the people who control to what information the public has <a href = "http://www.ala.org/tools/libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet06"> easy or most typical access</a>) can simply side-step copyright law with contracts, who is to gainsay them? As TechDirt says, it looks like &#147;YouTube has made at least some deals that effectively wipe out fair use for some users.&#148; We&#146;ve seen this identical behavior at different scales with the Google Book settlement and with various international <a href = "https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp"> trade agreements</a> whose tenets <a href = "http://openmedia.org/blog/lets-come-plan-stop-international-agreements-restricting-internet-freedom"> ignore</a> or <a href= "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130323/01570922426/free-trade-agreements-with-hidden-easter-eggs-content-industry-are-making-it-difficult-congress-to-fix-phone-unlocking.shtml"> supersede</a> federal law. Will it take a high-profile test case to strike the right balance between freedom to contract and copyright law?-- which, it bears repeating, is meant to &#147;promote the progress of science and the useful arts&#148; not to guarantee a profit to particular businesses or business models.With all of these developments, it seems pretty clear to us here that the DMCA is up for some substantial revision in order to settle this once and for all. Fortunately, the right people seem to be starting to realize that things need to change as well. Recently, the Register of Copyright called for<a href= "http://www.copyright.gov/regstat/2013/regstat03202013.html"> updates to copyright law.</a> including shorter terms of copyright. There was some change <a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/14513122401/copyright-office-boss-copyright-law-is-broken-everything-should-be-table-we-love-copyright.shtml">pushback to her speech</a>, which lacked detail, but reactions were <a href = "http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/20/4126936/copyright-register-today-will-embark-on-mission-to-overhaul-us"> mostly positive.</a>, and at least people are open to the idea of change.Further, just this week, &#147;House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) announced in a speech at the World Intellectual Property Day celebrations that the Judiciary Committee will <a href = "http://judiciary.house.gov/news/2013/04242013_2.html">conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. copyright law</a> It&#146;s about time! One can only hope that all of the right people will be at the table and listened to for advice, concerns and general context, so that whatever results from the review isn&#146;t completely one-sided, as some have said of the 1970&#146;s CONTU and 1990&#146;s CONFU recommendations, and the public&#146;s side of the copyright bargain gets a fair shake. Will they ask <a href = "http://keionline.org/node/1592"> Derek Khanna to comment</a>? ;)It&#146;s going to be key to remember, as discussions commence, that simply being willing to think about changing copyright law <a href = "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft"> doesn&#146;t necessarily mean that change will be for the better.</a> Remember the ratchet. In The Long History Of Specious DMCA Claims, This Is Definitely One Of Them https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=730 <img src="//images.chillingeffects.org/partly_cloudy.gif" alt="partly cloudy" width="80" height="63"align=left> <h2>In The Long History Of Specious DMCA Claims, This Is Definitely One Of Them</h2>Tim Cushing, TechDirt, April 18, 2013 Abstract: We'd like to call your attention to a great article by Tim Cushing at TechDirt that both illustrates the importance and usefulness of Chilling Effects and also demonstrates the consequences of the increasingly automated and streamlined DMCA takedown process. When it's easy, it's also easy to abuse. Please click through and read, and consider what research you might be able to do with our database.<hr size=1> <hr size=1 width="75%">"Now, this certainly isn't a case of blatant DMCA abuse. What it is though, is a byproduct of the system we have in place. Various platforms have incorporated DMCA reporting into their service, turning it into something anyone can use. And, as we see here, anyone does." Obsessed With Google, Copyright Holders Ignore The Actual Pirated Content https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=728 <img src="//images.chillingeffects.org/partly_cloudy.gif" alt="partly cloudy" width="80" height="63"align=left> <h2>Obsessed With Google, Copyright Holders Ignore The Actual Pirated Content</h2>Ernesto, TorrentFreak, April 16, 2013 Abstract: A fascinating article from TorrentFreak, examining why content rightsholders spend all their efforts going after Google, rather than the actual host of allegedly infringing content. "Over the past month Google removed more than 125,000 kat.ph URLs from its search index. KickassTorrents on the other hand received only 2,536 DMCA requests in the same period. In total Google received 1,344,885 takedown requests for KickassTorrents URLs while the site itself was asked to take down &#147;only&#148; 278,864."<hr size=1> <hr size=1 width="75%">Although this is a <a href = "http://torrentfreak.com/obsessed-with-google-copyright-holders-130415/">TorrentFreak article</a>, we wanted to mention it on our front page because of this."Update: An employee of one of the content detection companies who want to remain anonymous says that Google is targeted because they publish their stats in public.'Copyright holders are interested in Google only for its &#147;visual effect.&#148; They can &#147;see&#148; how many links are removed so it&#146;s easier for removal companies to show the ROI. (it makes them look like they are achieving something).'"all we can say is, if you want the "visual effect" , copyright holders, please encourage hosts to send their takedown notices to Chilling Effects. We're all about making the requests visible. One Of These Things Is not Like The Other... https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=727 <img src="//images.chillingeffects.org/partly_cloudy.gif" alt="partly cloudy" width="80" height="63"align=left> <h2>One Of These Things Is not Like The Other...</h2>Adam Holland, April 15, 2013 Abstract: Conflicting reports on the current state and activities of the copyright-dependent industry call certain assumptions in to question.<hr size=1> <hr size=1 width="75%">Here at Chilling Effects, we wanted to call your attention to a few interestign pieces of news that have recently emerged in the DMCA-related world.We've written before about how the big players in the content industry have been upset with Google for not allowing them to send as many DMCA takedown requests as they like. Apparently <a href = "http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-groups-want-google-to-lift-dmca-takedown-cap-130219">10,000</a> a day, or a <a href = "http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/bpi-hits-new-google-milestone-1m-illegal-link-takedowns-in-one-week/054218"> a million a week</a> just doesn't cut it any more. I mean, who cares about false positives resulting from massive overreach? Also, BPI's wish for Google to downrank some sites is frankly bizarre. Maybe they'd like google to identify up-and-coming successful artists, too? that would certainly make it easier for BPI to make money.Well, for whatever reason, it looks like <a href = "http://torrentfreak.com/google-relaxes-dmca-takedown-restrictions-eyes-abuse-130411/">Google is listening</a> to the complaints, or maybe they're just getting better at dealing with the numbers. We have to wonder, though, about a change that both Google and the RIAA (normally a huge <a href = "https://www.riaa.com/blog.php?content_selector=riaa-news-blog&blog_selector=Clear-Facts-&blog_type=&news_month_filter=5&news_year_filter=2012">Google critic</a>) think is a positive change. Makes us wonder about the effect on John Q. Public.But regardless, all right, it looks like the content industry, or at least the entities who are at the top of it's food chain, are really committing big-time to getting the most out of the DMCA.Why? Is it just rational utility-maximizing behavior? Are they worried about revenues? Whatever they might say, it apparently isn't because the industry is withering in the Internet era. Far from it, in fact. The number of jobs in the motion picture and sound recording industries is <a href = "http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CES5051200001">accelerating upward.</a> So were the movie and recording industries simply uninformed, or obfuscating, when they vehemently <a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/11012620639/riaas-bogus-math-strikes-again-claimed-41-decline-musicians-not-even-close-to-true.shtml">claimed otherwise?</a> Note that Matthew Lasar, over at Ars Technica, actually predicted the increase that the labor statistics show.Of course, maybe all the new jobs are people sending DMCA notices... Huge Volume Increases and Updates to Google Transparency Report https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=692 <img src="//images.chillingeffects.org/partly_cloudy.gif" alt="partly cloudy" width="80" height="63"align=left> <h2>Huge Volume Increases and Updates to Google Transparency Report</h2>Adam Holland, December 13, 2012 Abstract: Google updates their Transparency Report, and reveals that the volume of notices they receive has increased exponentially. Not only is there a lot more data, there is new granular information about it, and it's now possible to download it.<hr size=1> <hr size=1 width="75%">As everyone probably realizes, Chilling Effects has a lot of takedown notices from Google in its database. That's because Google gets a lot of takedown requests. But what you may not realize is that the number of notices they have received, and have been sending to us has <a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121211/16152021352/dmca-copyright-takedowns-to-google-increased-10x-just-past-six-months.shtml">skyrocketed recently</a>, reaching 2.5 million per week <a href = "http://policybythenumbers.blogspot.com/2012/12/more-data-about-copyright-removals-in.html">as of mid December</a>. What's more, Google anticipates that this number will continue to grow at similar rates, perhaps reaching perhaps as many as 30 million per month within a year. This is interesting on several levels. One could argue that the DMCA process is working as intended, in that there are these millions of infringements, and links on Google to them, and now the owners of the rights to the content have a quick and easy way to handle the problem.Of course, we know that can't be completely true, and that in fact, a lot of <a href = "https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=658">serious mistakes</a> are made, even by <a href = "https://torrentfreak.com/movie-studios-ask-google-to-censor-their-own-films-facebook-and-wikipedia-121203/">seasoned industry giants</a> when it comes to issuing takedown notices.Another way to look at might be to conclude that something is wrong, maybe even very wrong, with the state of the law and of society's behavior within its constraints, if <a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121211/16152021352/dmca-copyright-takedowns-to-google-increased-10x-just-past-six-months.shtml">Google alone receives 10 million reports of alleged copyright infringement per month.</a> Does that make sense? Is there any other area of law where there are even close to that many violations? One for every thirty American citizens per month? I'm skeptical.The accuracy or sensibleness of these numbers aside, there's also their timing. Readers who follow tech policy will recall the late 2011-early 2012 debate surrounding the <a href = "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act">SOPA treaty</a>. Some readers will recall, or may even have participated in, the January 18, 2012 service blackout. From the perspective of SOPA's opponents, the internet-- or at least significant portions of it--mobilized itself to defeat what would have been a staggering overreach on the part of government, all in the name of international harmonization. Further SOPA debate was postponed on January 20, 2012, and most see it as effectively dead, although alternatives have sprung up.As <a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/22445321369/funny-how-copyright-holders-only-ramped-up-google-dmca-takedowns-after-sopa-failed.shtml">TechDirt</a> and <a href = "https://twitter.com/normative/statuses/278974688066150400">others</a> point out, one of the central pillars of the rightsholders' argument in favor of SOPA was that they needed better enforcement tools against piracy, since the existing ones weren't working. An example of this, of course, was links on Google to infringing content. But here's the thing. <a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/22445321369/funny-how-copyright-holders-only-ramped-up-google-dmca-takedowns-after-sopa-failed.shtml">This steep increase</a> in notices to Google looks to have <a href= "https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/">started around mid-spring, 2012</a>, after SOPA was defeated.</a> Unless alleged copyright infringement went through the roof at the same time, the situation on the ground didn't change, so why the increase? Further, even if infringement did grow commensurately, it seems clear that the rightsholders have a tool they are willing to use to deal with it, the DMCA and its notice and takedown regime. So it's hard to see the complaints about "lack of enforcement tools" as anything other than fear-mongering in order to be granted even more power and control.Something perhaps to keep in mind the next time we see industry Chicken Littles in front of Congress. [TorrentFreak implies in <a href = "https://torrentfreak.com/google-starts-reporting-false-dmca-takedown-requests-121213">this article</a> that the reason for the increase in notices may be the publication of the Transparency Report itself.] In related news, Google has recently taken two important steps with respect to their Transparency Report.First, you can see <a href = "https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/17520119054/google-lifts-veil-copyright-takedowns-reveals-detailed-data-who-requests-link-removals.shtml"> who made requests</a> with more granular takedown data , showing actions taken on notices. For example, <a href = "https://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=479210">this takedown request</a> from Microsoft resulted in <a href = "https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/266534">this page</a> on the Transparency Report. You can see by scrolling down that some requested links were not removed.Second, the data is <a href = "https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/data/">available for download.</a>NB: Much of what is on offer in the Transparency Report is currently available at Chilling Effects, and we intend of have all of it, and more, available once our database modernization is complete. We welcome inquiries about research initiatives using the Chilling Effects database. It's DMCA Notices All The Way Down https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=726 <img src="//images.chillingeffects.org/stormy.gif" alt="stormy" width="80" height="80"align=left> <h2>It's DMCA Notices All The Way Down</h2>Adam holland, April 11, 2013 Abstract: In which requests to Google to remove links include a link to a takedown notice already sent, possibly triggering an infinitely recursive series.<hr size=1> <hr size=1 width="75%">Let's hope this doesn't give the web, or at least the content industry, a stack overflow!The team here at Chilling Effects felt like we had to call your attention to <a href = "http://torrentfreak.com/fox-wants-google-to-take-down-its-own-takedown-request-130404/">this</a>, it's just too perfectly ironic. The Fox Legal Group (20th Century Fox, the Fox Network, etc.] sent what would otherwise be a <a href = "https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/488704/">routine set of takedown notices</a> to Google. It says a lot that these days, "routine" means a single request asking for the removal of almost 3000 URLs. Of course, excess in this realm is <a href = "http://torrentfreak.com/a-million-dmcas-in-a-week-but-bpi-still-wants-google-to-do-more-130408/">the new normal. </a>You'll notice that #23 on the list of links to be removed lists one here at chillingeffects.org as the domain in question. What link at Chilling Effects do they want down?<a href = "https://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=753950"> This.</a>Yes, you are reading that correctly. They want Google's link to their own earlier takedown notice removed.This has happened to us here before, but not usually in so oblivious a fashion. As TorrentFreak points out, this is a classic example of the dangers inherent in fully automating copyright proceedings. The bots know no discretion.We'll have to see if this begins to happen more often, or if the largest notice senders are able to come up with a fix for this. Of course, that brings us to the question of whether they even want to. Quick Search Quick search Chilling Effects search http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi