Kickstarter rejected over half of DMCA claims filed against it in 2014

28 06 2015

For years now, tech companies have been filing “transparency reports” in an attempt to let the public know how they deal with various types of legal requests. Previously, these reports had been limited to companies that have a lot of personal information about their customers: Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, and even reddit.

But now, Kickstarter is getting in on the game with a report of its own, released on Wednesday. Kickstarter projects aren’t frequently subjected to law enforcement inquiries, but rather some projects face claims made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The new report says that the company “received and evaluated” 282 DMCA claims last year and rejected 159 (56 percent) of them. In the remaining 123 cases, Kickstarter took some action, including removing images or videos and possibly hiding the project’s page.

more

The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/kickstarter-rejected-over-half-of-dmca-claims-filed-against-it-in-2014/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Department of Commerce DMCA Multistakeholder Forum

28 06 2015

U.S. Dept. of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force released a guidance  list of best practices (and notable “bad” practices) to improve the DMCA’s notice and takedown system for both senders and recipients of notices

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/dmca_good_bad_and_situational_practices_document.pdf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Emergence of Live Streaming Apps Brings Up Copyright, Privacy, Legal Concerns

25 06 2015

The big fight may be over, but the implications of Mayweather vs. Pacquiao with respect to real-time, one-to-many streaming of video through apps like Meerkat and Periscope are still rippling through the media industry. In short, livestreaming apps allow anyone with a smartphone to effortlessly broadcast live video to social media followers and the wider internet – everything from ordinary life activities (e.g., an individual walking down the street), to live action (e.g., events, protests), to the redistribution of content (e.g., streaming a popular cable show).

This past week, the media reported widespread streaming of the pay-per-view broadcast of the fight by individuals who had paid to view the fight at home. While Periscope’s streams expire after 24 hours and Meerkat does not archive streams, new platforms are being rolled out to support the users of these types of apps, thus suggesting that this may be a growing phenomenon. Expect the delicate push and pull involving DMCA takedown notices to continue between content owners and these new streaming apps.

more


The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2015/05/04/emergence-of-live-streaming-apps-brings-up-copyright-privacy-legal-concerns/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewMediaAndTechnologyLaw+%28New+Media+and+Technology+Law%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Who Exactly Is a ‘User’ under the DMCA Safe Harbor?

25 06 2015

The DMCA was enacted in 1998 to preserve “strong incentives for service providers and copyright owners to cooperate to detect and deal with copyright infringements that take place in a digital networked environment.”  As part of this implicit bargain, Title II of the DMCA offers safe harbors for qualifying service providers to limit their liability for claims of copyright infringement.  The Section 512(c) safe harbor protects storage providers (and has been the subject of the much litigation over the past decade).

Specifically, Section 512(c) applies to infringements that occur “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material” on a service provider’s system or network.  The statute does not define “user” and it seems, until recently, no court had interpreted the term.  Is a “user” simply anyone who uses an online storage platform, or should the definition exclude those persons who may have an independent contractor or similar relationship with the service provider?  In the typical situation, a website or app might offer to host content and facilitate online sharing and viewing of uploaded photos and videos.  But what if the online site only allows selected applicants to post content on the site on specific topics and offers financial incentives based upon the number of clicks?

more
The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2015/05/11/who-exactly-is-a-user-under-the-dmca-safe-harbor/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewMediaAndTechnologyLaw+%28New+Media+and+Technology+Law%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Section 230(c)(2) Gets No Luv From the Courts–Song Fi v. Google

15 06 2015

This is one of several pending cases where a video poster sues YouTube for allegedly wrongful takedown of the video. I find these cases fascinating because I always wonder how there’s enough money at issue to justify litigation. Unfortunately, I have received first-hand legal threats for my public remarks about this case, so welcome to my self-censored/sanitized coverage of the case.
The video at issue is called “Luv Ya,” which the court describes as “a music video by the Rasta Rock Opera featuring the dramatized tale of a five-year-old boy (played by Plaintiff N.G.B.) and five-year-old girl who dress up and go to a restaurant for lunch on Valentine’s Day. As the children eat their lunch, a guitarist and a trumpet player (played by Plaintiff Joseph Brotherton, N.G.B.’s father and the president of both Song fi and Rasta Rock Opera) serenade them.” The court links to the video in the opinion [http://songfi.com/beta/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Luv-ya-Luv-yaLuv-ya.mp4] but that link goes to a page (screenshotted above) that, on the morning of June 12, 2015, says “Site opens May 1st, 2015.” The video allegedly garnered 23,000 views on YouTube.

YouTube removed the video and relocated it to a private URL because, YouTube claimed, “it determined the view count for ‘Luv ya’ was inflated through automated means, and thus violated its Terms of Service.” On the video page, YouTube told the public that “[t]his video has been removed because its content violated YouTube’s Terms of Service.” The plaintiffs sued for “(1) libel, (2) breach of express contract, (3) breach of implied contract, (4) tortious interference, and (5) violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”), D.C. Code Section 28-3904.” YouTube won a venue transfer to California based on its user agreement. See our prior blog coverage of that ruling.

Section 230(c)(2) Fails

YouTube wins anyway

more

Case citation: Song Fi, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 3:14-cv-05080-SC (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2015).

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/atom.xml and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.