<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on copyright takedown experiment





Begin forwarded message:

From: Christian Ahlert <christian.ahlert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 20, 2004 11:19:38 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on copyright takedown experiment

Hi dave:

If people on this list would actually care to read the Dutch paper they would see that it was an European experiment, focussing on European ISPs. Hence the DMCA does NOT apply. And under European law the "penalty of perjury" provision does not exist!

We actually did this research earlier at Oxford - we used JS Mill "On Liberty", which is clearly public domain, posted it in the US and EU. In the US we discontinued the experiment after two email exchanges with the ISP.
http://pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/liberty.pdf
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA553.htm

In the US, and that is correct, we would have needed to lie under penalty of perjury, as spelled out in the DMCA; but we could establish that the US ISP only follows the procedure in a standardized format and does not look at the content.

If he would have done it, he would actually have been able to clearly see that there is no problem as JS Mill is clearly public domain.

However, even under US law there is potential for abuse. Diebold (infamous voting maschine maker) just lost a case because they had send C&D letters claiming wrongly copyright infringement to silence critique.
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_10.php#002009

This means in the US there is at least a procedure - notice and put back; some safeguards etc... this does make it a good law, but still better than in the EU. The legal situation in the EU is even worse!

In the EU there is no such thing as a procedure, all the burden is on the ISP. The burden to authenticate the identity of the complainee, but no burden to actually judge if the content is illegal (much wider concept than just copyright).


We could highlight/show that ISPs do not have an incentive to care in the EU at all. However, this does not mean it is the ISPs fault. Its the result of a very bad law. Think about it for a moment: do you want to privatize censorship and place this burden on an ISP, who is running a business?

And this is the point: just because it is difficult to police content on the Internet, this is no excuse to hand the power to censor over to private companies, without any serious safeguards!

best
--Ch


In message <F480DF6A-227D-11D9-AA75-000393D166C6@xxxxxxxxxx> dave@xxxxxxxxxx writes:


Begin forwarded message:

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 19, 2004 9:45:07 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: psaffo@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on copyright takedown experiment

David Farber wrote:
Gosh, I find this heartening as it points the way to an interesting
solution that might perfectly invert ISP response.  If ISPs were
suddenly deluged by bogus claims of infringement and started taking
down

There is of course one little wrinkle to that situation -

http://www.ncsu.edu/copyright/DMCA.html

There are a few criteria specified there on what makes a proper DMCA
takedown notification. [quoted below this email]

Bogus notifications such as the one that was discussed in the original
IP article (it showed up on slashdot a few days back) would be in
violation of at least some of these criteria, especially where
declarations are made under penalty of perjury.

You called for IP monkeywrenchers, where you really should have called
for IP civil disobedience activists.

What you are suggesting is somewhat similar to what Gandhi and Dr.King
suggested, deliberate violation of a bad law, but just as in those
cases, whoever does this lays himself open to all sorts of nasty legal
consequences that result from perjury.

        srs

??(3)ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION.?
??(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed
infringement must be a written communication provided to the
designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the
following:
??(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act
on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed.
??(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been
infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site
are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such
works at that site.
??(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be
infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to
be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information
reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the
material.
??(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service
provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address,
telephone number, and, if avail-able, an electronic mail address at
which the complaining party may be contacted.
??(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief
that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized
by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
??(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is
accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is
authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is
allegedly in-fringed.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as christian.ahlert@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/