[liberationtech] Designing Fairness for DMCA
Hello, I'm @RiptideTempora on Twitter. My background is in web development. The other day I postulated a system for handling DMCA takedown notices on an individual website level that would tip the scales in favor of the users (whom are, as far as I can tell, currently shafted by the current iterations of U.S. legislation). The full text can be found here: http://pastebin.com/0uG85vna The process would go something like this: 1. Someone sends a DMCA Takedown Notice 2. A new database entry in `dmca_takedowns` is created with the entire email (with full headers) 3. All infringing material are linked in the database to that takedown notice which adds a message saying A DMCA Takedown notice has been filed for this [article/video/song/whatever]. 4. All authors of the content are notified of the DMCA request by internal message and by email of the DMCA Takedown Notice, which will include the phone numbers and email addresses for ACLU, NLG, et al. should they wish to file a counter-notice (which will also be public if sent to us, by adding an entry to `dmca_counternotice` which is linked to the notice ID) 5. A public index of pending (and resolved) DMCA Takedown Notices will be main- tained which include the full emails and all affected content 6. The maximum amount of time legally permitted (designated $lead) will elapse to allow the original authors ample time to organize a counter-notice 7. If no counter-notice is filed after $lead we will either amend or disable the public availability of the content. The `dmca_takedown` entry will be marked as Taken Down 8. If a counter-notice is filed, we will disable the content after $lead days and mark the `dmca_takedown` entry as Counter-notice filed to comply with [my understanding of the law], then wait 14 days for the filer to respond to file a lawsuit (during which time we will be in contact with the authors who filed counter-notice). 9. If after 14 days no lawsuit was filed, the takedown notice will be marked as 14 days expired without lawsuit and the content will remain visible (but still be indexed on a separate page for failed DMCA Takedowns) 10. If we receive notification that a lawsuit has been filed, we disable access to the material and mark it as Lawsuit Pending In total, I anticipate 3 pages consisting of 2 lists, 2 list, and 1 list respectively: 1. The front page will list: A. New DMCA Takedown Notices B. Counter-notice Filed 2. There will be a taken down page for the sake of transparency A. Successful takedowns B. Content disabled, pending the outcome of a lawsuit 3. There will be a failed page that lists unsuccessful takedown requests for the sake of transparency I'd like to know if such a system would be legally viable or if it would incur additional risks for a website that implemented such a system; and further, what adjustments could be made to make this design more robust under the current legal and political climates around copyright law? Thank you for your time, ~RT -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Designing Fairness for DMCA
We call this The trust and safety departments at most major companies. It already exists. You're getting wrapped up in a technical implementation which would normally be handled by large teams. The level of integration you describe is more than just a simplistic database table. Additionally, your order of operations doesn't match the DMCA workflow that is required by law. Have a look at this helpful infographic and rethink the flow.. http://www.mediabistro.com/appnewser/files/2012/02/infographic-dmca-process1.png -j On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:47 PM, riptidetemp...@tormail.org wrote: Hello, I'm @RiptideTempora on Twitter. My background is in web development. The other day I postulated a system for handling DMCA takedown notices on an individual website level that would tip the scales in favor of the users (whom are, as far as I can tell, currently shafted by the current iterations of U.S. legislation). The full text can be found here: http://pastebin.com/0uG85vna The process would go something like this: 1. Someone sends a DMCA Takedown Notice 2. A new database entry in `dmca_takedowns` is created with the entire email (with full headers) 3. All infringing material are linked in the database to that takedown notice which adds a message saying A DMCA Takedown notice has been filed for this [article/video/song/whatever]. 4. All authors of the content are notified of the DMCA request by internal message and by email of the DMCA Takedown Notice, which will include the phone numbers and email addresses for ACLU, NLG, et al. should they wish to file a counter-notice (which will also be public if sent to us, by adding an entry to `dmca_counternotice` which is linked to the notice ID) 5. A public index of pending (and resolved) DMCA Takedown Notices will be main- tained which include the full emails and all affected content 6. The maximum amount of time legally permitted (designated $lead) will elapse to allow the original authors ample time to organize a counter-notice 7. If no counter-notice is filed after $lead we will either amend or disable the public availability of the content. The `dmca_takedown` entry will be marked as Taken Down 8. If a counter-notice is filed, we will disable the content after $lead days and mark the `dmca_takedown` entry as Counter-notice filed to comply with [my understanding of the law], then wait 14 days for the filer to respond to file a lawsuit (during which time we will be in contact with the authors who filed counter-notice). 9. If after 14 days no lawsuit was filed, the takedown notice will be marked as 14 days expired without lawsuit and the content will remain visible (but still be indexed on a separate page for failed DMCA Takedowns) 10. If we receive notification that a lawsuit has been filed, we disable access to the material and mark it as Lawsuit Pending In total, I anticipate 3 pages consisting of 2 lists, 2 list, and 1 list respectively: 1. The front page will list: A. New DMCA Takedown Notices B. Counter-notice Filed 2. There will be a taken down page for the sake of transparency A. Successful takedowns B. Content disabled, pending the outcome of a lawsuit 3. There will be a failed page that lists unsuccessful takedown requests for the sake of transparency I'd like to know if such a system would be legally viable or if it would incur additional risks for a website that implemented such a system; and further, what adjustments could be made to make this design more robust under the current legal and political climates around copyright law? Thank you for your time, ~RT -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Designing Fairness for DMCA
We call this The trust and safety departments at most major companies. It already exists. You're getting wrapped up in a technical implementation which would normally be handled by large teams. The level of integration you describe is more than just a simplistic database table. Additionally, your order of operations doesn't match the DMCA workflow that is required by law. Have a look at this helpful infographic and rethink the flow.. http://www.mediabistro.com/appnewser/files/2012/02/infographic-dmca-process1.png -j So there's no deviation from that workflow possible? Not even a short time buffer before content is taken down? The idea was two-fold: Give the rest of the world advance notice of a pending takedown and make all communications about DMCA takedowns (requests, counter-notices, etc.) public and transparent so if there are abusive practices (e.g. automated requests), they're out in the open for everyone to see. There are no laws prohibiting the publication of DMCA takedown notice emails and their full headers, are there? Even if the idea as written is flawed, is there any way I can achieve those two goals? -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Designing Fairness for DMCA
On 16.07.2013 21:47, riptidetemp...@tormail.org wrote: Hello, I'm @RiptideTempora on Twitter. My background is in web development. The other day I postulated a system for handling DMCA takedown notices on an individual website level that would tip the scales in favor of the users (whom are, as far as I can tell, currently shafted by the current iterations of U.S. legislation). You might like this project by Wendy Seltzer: https://www.chillingeffects.org/about https://www.chillingeffects.org/input.cgi -- Moritz Bartl https://www.torservers.net/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Designing Fairness for DMCA
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, John Adams j...@retina.net wrote: We call this The trust and safety departments at most major companies. It already exists. You're getting wrapped up in a technical implementation which would normally be handled by large teams. The level of integration you describe is more than just a simplistic database table. I spent much of last year working on a project similar to @RiptideTempora's. What I found is that organizations which get enough takedown requests to need administration tools are pretty big. For them, Zendesk already does a good job. There is an abuse department within the organization, which is part of customer support and which implements policy set by an attorney. For an organization smaller than this, executives typically handle DMCA takedown requests manually. They usually comply with all requests, because that is the essence of the safe harbor. To help users, I believe the best approach is legal assistance. Users need to know what their options are, how to file a counter notice, why the shouldn't file counter notices when they really are infringing, what infringement means, and so on. Additionally, your order of operations doesn't match the DMCA workflow that is required by law. Have a look at this helpful infographic and rethink the flow.. http://www.mediabistro.com/appnewser/files/2012/02/infographic-dmca-process1.png This infographic is to help third parties understand the notice and takedown process. It is not a workflow for online service providers. -Lucas Gonze -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Designing Fairness for DMCA
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, John Adams j...@retina.net wrote: http://www.mediabistro.com/appnewser/files/2012/02/infographic-dmca-process1.png The process here is not correct— or at least it has some unstated assumptions and a confusing presentation. For example, if— as a safe harbor enjoying service provider— the complaint is obviously bogus and as a result you don't care to lose the safe harbor in this particular instance, you can skip the entire process and deposit the DMCA notice into the trash. (This is, for example, why the public can't simply manage to keep the whitehouse website ~permanently disconnected from the internet with a stream of endless bogus complaints anti-dmca activists engaging in civil disobedience) It seems to be intermixing the roles of the safe harbor enjoying service provider and the non-protected posting party. The initial steps are all service provider roles, the but counter-notice is provided end user. The question posted there carries the wrong implication too: a user who has violated copyright is not protected from ending up in court just because they don't counter notice. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] Designing Fairness for DMCA
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, John Adams j...@retina.net wrote: http://www.mediabistro.com/appnewser/files/2012/02/infographic-dmca-process1.png The process here is not correct— or at least it has some unstated assumptions and a confusing presentation. For example, if— as a safe harbor enjoying service provider— the complaint is obviously bogus and as a result you don't care to lose the safe harbor in this particular instance, you can skip the entire process and deposit the DMCA notice into the trash. (This is, for example, why the public can't simply manage to keep the whitehouse website ~permanently disconnected from the internet with a stream of endless bogus complaints anti-dmca activists engaging in civil disobedience) It seems to be intermixing the roles of the safe harbor enjoying service provider and the non-protected posting party. The initial steps are all service provider roles, the but counter-notice is provided end user. The question posted there carries the wrong implication too: a user who has violated copyright is not protected from ending up in court just because they don't counter notice. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
