DMCA “safe harbor” up in the air for online sites that use moderators

28 05 2017
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s so-called “safe harbor” defense to infringement is under fire from a paparazzi photo agency. A new court ruling says the defense may not always be available to websites that host content submitted by third parties.

The safe harbor provision is what has given rise to sites like YouTube and various social media platforms. In essence, safe harbor was baked into the DMCA to allow websites to be free from legal liability for infringing content posted by their users—so long as the website timely removes that content at the request of the rights holder.

But a San Francisco-based federal appeals court is ruling that, if a website uses moderators to review content posted by third parties, the safe harbor privilege may not apply. That’s according to a Friday decision in a dispute brought by Mavrix Photographs against LiveJournal, which hosts the popular celebrity fan forum “Oh No they Didn’t.” The site hosted Mavrix-owned photos of Beyonce Knowles, Katy Perry, and other stars without authorization.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/dmca-safe-harbor-up-in-the-air-for-online-sites-that-use-moderators/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Forget DMCA takedowns—RIAA wants ISPs to filter for pirated content

28 02 2017
The Recording Industry Association of America and other rights holders are urging US copyright regulators to update the “antiquated” DMCA takedown process. They want Internet Service Providers to filter out pirated content.

What the RIAA and 14 other groups are telling the US Copyright Office is simple: The 19-year-old Digital Millennium Copyright Act isn’t working. They say the process of granting legal immunity—or “safe harbor”—to ISPs who “expeditiously” remove copyrighted content upon notice of the rights holder needs to be supplanted with fresh piracy controls. That’s because, they say, the process creates a so-called “endless game of whack-a-mole” in which an ISP will remove pirated content only to see it instantaneously reappear at the push of a button by a copyright scofflaw. This requires the rights holder to send a new takedown notice—often again and again.

The groups say (PDF):

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/forget-dmca-takedowns-riaa-wants-isps-to-filter-for-pirated-content/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Copyright Office Gratuitously Kills the DMCA Safe Harbor For Thousands of Websites

7 02 2017

This story has been like watching a train wreck in slow motion. In 2011 (yes, over 5 years ago), the Copyright Office announced that it was going to transition the designation of DMCA safe harbor agents from paper to electronic. The current paper-based system has been archaic since the beginning, so creating an electronic database is long overdue.

However, the transition raised the question of what would happen to the legacy registrations. Obviously the Copyright Office could scan them and feed them into the new electronic database, but that would cost some money (the Final Rule complains about the cost but doesn’t provide a number). Plus, the Copyright Office said that its initial interim rules indicated that reregistration would be required. So the Copyright Office proposed requiring all existing registrants to reregister or THEY WILL LOSE THE DMCA SAFE HARBOR.

If that isn’t troubling enough, the Copyright Office also proposed to require all registrants to re-register every 2 years–again at the peril of losing the DMCA Safe Harbor if the sites fail to do so.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/10/copyright-office-gratuitously-kills-the-dmca-safe-harbor-for-thousands-of-websites.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Reddit tells label it won’t cough up IP address of prerelease music pirate

4 02 2017
Reddit says it won’t give Atlantic Records the IP address of a Reddit user who posted a link on the site of a single by Twenty One Pilots a week before the song’s planned release.

The song, “Heathens,” was originally uploaded on June 15 to the file-sharing site Dropfile. That same day, the file landed on Reddit. According to a lawsuit (PDF) in New York State Supreme Court, the file was posted to the Twenty One Pilots subreddit with the title “[Leak] New Song – ‘Heathens’  The Poster submitted the link under the username “twentyoneheathens,” according to Atlantic.

Atlantic and its subsidiary label, Fueled by Ramen, want the IP address of the Reddit leaker. The company said the file fell victim to “widespread distribution” on the Internet, so the company released the single June 16, a week ahead of schedule; the label also said the early release hindered a planned rollout on Spotify, iTunes, and other platforms. Atlantic says the leaker must be an Atlantic employee who was contractually obligated not to leak the track, which is featured in the movie Suicide Squad that debuted earlier this month.

more

The content in this post was found at hhttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/reddit-tells-label-it-wont-cough-up-ip-address-of-prerelease-music-pirate/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Search Engine Snippets Protected By Section 230–O’Kroley v. Fastcase

27 01 2017

The plaintiff’s vanity Google search results included the following snippet: “indecency with a child in Trial Court Cause N . . . Colin O’Kroley v Pringle.” The linked result (to Google Book’s indexing of Texas Advance Sheet–see image) contained a summary of the child indecency case preceding the listing for O’Kroley’s totally unrelated lawsuit. O’Kroley asserted that this search result snippet harmed him, so he demanded $19.2 trillion in damages (GOBOGH!). The trial court said no, citing Section 230. The appeals court, in a short but surprisingly published opinion, affirmed.

 

more

Case citation: O’Kroley v. Fastcase, Inc., No. 15-6336 (6th Cir. July 22, 2016)

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/07/search-engine-snippets-protected-by-section-230-okroley-v-fastcase.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.