language: Deutsch   Français   italiano   Español   Português   日本語   russian   arabic   norwegian   swedish   danish   Nederlands   finland   ireland   English  

Digital Millennium Copyright Act us digital millennium copyright act google


Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter Main article: Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter

In the case of Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter the court denied the defendant safe harbour protection under DMCA 17 U.S.C.   §   512 . The district court found that the defendant had knowledge of its users' infringing activity and also failed to prevent future infringing activity. As such the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction was granted. [54] On appeal, however, the Seventh Circuit vacated the injunction, citing the standard set in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , which states that courts should not rely on categorical rules as a standard for injunction. [55]

Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. Main article: Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.

In this case of Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc., the court denied plaintiff's attempt to find liability for YouTube and Myspace's takedowns of the plaintiff's homemade videos. Despite potential fair use claims, the court found it impossible to use the DMCA takedown provisions as a foundation for liability. The court found that the safe harbor provision serves "to limit the liability of internet service providers, not to create liability that could not otherwise be imposed under existing law independent of the DMCA." [56]

Sony v. George Hotz Main article: Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz

In January 2011, Sony Computer Entertainment sued George Hotz over violating the Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well as the Federal Fraud and Abuse Act due to facilitating consumers to jailbreak their PlayStation 3 consoles. [57] Hotz argued that because he had purchased the product, he had the right to do with it as he pleased. After three months, Sony and Hotz decided to settle out of court. This also included an injunction against George Hotz, barring him from hacking any more Sony products. [58] [59]

Automattic, Inc. and Oliver Hotham v. Nick Steiner

In 2013, Oliver Hotham wrote an article on WordPress (owned by Automattic, Inc.) critical of Straight Pride UK that included material from a press release sent to him by Straight Pride UK's press officer, Nick Steiner. Steiner sent WordPress a DMCA takedown notice claiming that Hotham's article infringed their copyright. WordPress and Hotham sued in a federal District Court in California, under §512(f) of the DMCA, claiming that the takedown notice was fraudulent, and that the takedown cost the plaintiffs time, lost work and attorneys' fees. In 2015, the court issued a default judgment in favor of WordPress and Hotham in the amount of $25,084. [60]

Criticisms Abuse of takedown notice

Google asserted misuse of the DMCA in a filing concerning New Zealand's copyright act, [61] quoting results from a 2005 study by California academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse. [62] Takedown notices targeting a competing business made up over half (57%) of the notices Google has received, the company said, and more than one-third (37%), "were not valid copyright claims." [63]

Abuse of the anti-circumvention provision

In 2015 Volkswagen abused the DMCA to hide their vehicles emissions cheat. [64] It has been suggested that had the DMCA not prevented access to the software "..a researcher with legal access to Volkswagen's software could have discovered the code that changed how the cars behave in testing.." [65]

Effect on analog video equipment

Analog Copy Protection (ACP) , the encryption technology created by Rovi Corporation (formerly Macrovision), is designed to thwart users' attempts to reproduce content via analog cables. When a DVD is played through an analog video cable and recorded using a VCR , Rovi's ACP technology will distort the copy partially or completely. [66]

The technology works by adding additional lines to the video signal. In the NTSC video standard, blank lines ( vertical blanking intervals ) that the user cannot see are used for functions like closed captioning. Rovi Corporation uses these blank lines to implement its ACP technology. [67]

The implementation of ACP has been ill-regarded by some video enthusiasts. Many claim that the technology has led to signal issues with VCRs and analog video equipment. Some VCRs misread the encryption used to prevent copying, distorting the video image regardless of whether the recording is original or a copy.

The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all producers of analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of Rovi Corporation, a commercial firm. The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support and implement the corporation's proprietary technology. This benefits Rovi Corporation financially, whereas those forced to implement it receive neither profit nor compensation. [68]

Additionally, some criticize the implementation of ACP as a violation of their fair use rights. A recently developed TV-streaming product called the Slingbox uses analog signals to convey video from television to a mobile device. However, the encryption used by ACP blocks analog transmission, rendering the Slingbox unusable. Additionally ACP blocks the use of recording for educational purposes. On one or more accounts, students have not been able to cite and record cable sources properly due to ACP restrictions. [69]

Effect on research Main article: Digital rights management

The DMCA has affected the worldwide cryptography research community, since an argument can be made that any cryptanalytic research violates, or might violate, the DMCA. The arrest of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov in 2001, for alleged infringement of the DMCA, was a highly publicized example of the law's use to prevent or penalize development of anti-DRM measures. [70] While working for ElcomSoft in Russia, he developed The Advanced eBook Processor , a software application allowing users to strip usage restriction information from restricted e-books , an activity legal in both Russia and the United States. [71] Paradoxically, under the DMCA, it is not legal in the United States to provide such a tool. Sklyarov was arrested in the United States after presenting a speech at DEF CON and subsequently spent nearly a month in jail. [72] The DMCA has also been cited as chilling to legitimate users, such as students of cryptanalysis (including, in a well-known instance, Professor Edward Felten and students at Princeton ), [73] and security consultants such as Niels Ferguson , who has declined to publish information about vulnerabilities he discovered in an Intel secure-computing scheme because of his concern about being arrested under the DMCA when he travels to the U.S. [74]

Effect on innovation and competition

In at least one court case, the DMCA has been used by open source software projects to defend against conversion of software (i.e., license violations) that involved removal of copyright notices. [75] This defense can be used even without timely copyright registration , and can generate attorney fee awards, which together make it a useful strategy for open source organizations.

Reform and opposition

There have been several Congressional efforts to modify the Act. The Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 was introduced to attempt to exempt non-infringing uses from the anti-circumvention clause. [76] [77] However, the bill was not passed by Congress. In 2014, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act was passed, granting a specific exemption for unlocking cell phones, without affecting the other provisions of the DMCA.

Bills in 2015 included the Unlocking Technology Act of 2015, [78] and the Breaking Down Barriers to Innovation Act of 2015. [79] Republicans are considering legislation as well, as it becomes clear that Section 1201 is impeding the country's security. Facing escalating numbers of cyberthreats, cybersecurity researchers petitioned to conduct research to keep pace with evolving cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, stating: "Without such an exemption, security risks will lie unaddressed and the public will be substantially less safe." [80] The bills are intended to address the fact that section 1201 prevents circumvention even when doing so is not copyright infringement. In addition, the section requires exemption proponents to bear the burden of proof every time their exemption comes up for triennial review, instead of there being a presumption of renewal for an exemption whose importance was previously proven.

Rick Boucher , a congressman from Virginia, led previous efforts by introducing the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA).

A prominent bill related to the DMCA is the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), known in early drafts as the Security Systems and Standards Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill, if it had passed, would have dealt with the devices used to access digital content and would have been even more restrictive than the DMCA.

On the tenth anniversary of the DMCA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documented harmful consequences of the anti-circumvention provisions. [81] They document that the DMCA:

Stifles free expression, such as in its use against Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov , Princeton Professor Edward Felten , and journalists; Jeopardizes fair use ; Impedes competition, such as blocking aftermarket competition in toner cartridges, garage door openers, and enforcing walled gardens around the iPod ; [82] and Interferes with computer intrusion laws. [83]

On July 2016, the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the US government alleging that Section 1201 violates the First Amendment . [84]

See also Proposed international law Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement DMCA anti-circumvention cases 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc. Chamberlain v. Skylink Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC Dmitry Sklyarov in United States v. ElcomSoft and Sklyarov Universal v. Reimerdes DMCA damages cases Stockwire Research Group, Inc., et al. v. Lebed, et al. DMCA notice-and-takedown issues Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) (more information about the DMCA 512 takedown provisions) Lumen (clearinghouse for DMCA takedowns) Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. Economic concepts Protectionism Related US laws Copyright Term Extension Act (1998) Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (1995) Inducement rule NET Act , the "No Electronic Theft" Proposed US legislation BALANCE Act , Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations Act of 2003 Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (INDUCE) (introduced 2004) Pirate Act (introduced 2004) Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (introduced 2003 & 2005) Digital Transition Content Security Act (introduced 2005) FAIR USE Act (introduced in 2007) Shelved US Legislation PROTECT IP Act (introduced in 2011, shelved indefinitely) Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (introduced in 2011, shelved indefinitely) Related international law Bill C-60 ( Canada – proposed ) Bill C-61 ( Canada – proposed ) Bill C-32 ( Canada – proposed ) DADVSI ( France – Loi sur le Droit d'Auteur et les Droits Voisins dans la Société de l'Information ) Digital Economy Act 2010 ( United Kingdom ) EU Copyright Directive ( European Union ) [85] Protection of Broadcasts and fdvfwzfg. outlet moncler trebaselegheBroadcasting Organizations Treaty ( proposed ) References Litman, Jessica (2000). Digital Copyright . Berlin: Prometheus Books . p.   208. ISBN   1-57392-889-5.  


↑ DMCA p7. ↑ United States Code (2010) Title 17 CHAPTER 5, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES, Sec. 506 – Criminal offenses ↑ Band, Jonathan; Katoh, Masanobu (2011). Interfaces on Trial 2.0 . MIT Press. p.   92 . ISBN   978-0-262-01500-4.   ↑ Cullins, Ashley Music Industry A-Listers Call on Congress to Reform Copyright Act Hollywood Reporter . April 5, 2016 ↑ 17 U.S.C. 101 (defining "Pictorial, graphic and sculptural works" as "Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.") ↑ "Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1997 (H.R. 2696)" , Statement of MaryBeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights, before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, Oct. 23, 1997 ("It is a long-held view of the Office that a gap exists in legal protection for the designs of useful articles. Existing bodies of federal intellectual property law do not provide appropriate and practical coverage for such designs, while state law is largely preempted in this area. Consequently, while considerable investment and creativity may go into the creation of innovative designs, they often can be copied with impunity."). ↑ "Section 1201 Study" . U.S. Copyright Office . 2015.   ↑ "Docket Browser: Request for Public Comments: Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Access to Copyrighted Works" .   ↑ David Oster (March 4, 2016). "Initial Comments - David Oster" .   ↑ Allan R. Adler; Benjamin S. Sheffner (April 1, 2016). "Reply Comments of: Association of American Publishers, Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America" .   ↑ Dennis E. Meissner; Nancy Beaumont (February 18, 2016). "Comments Of The Society Of American Archivists" .   ↑ Kyle Wiens (March 3, 2016). "Comments of iFixit" .   ↑ Harley Geiger (March 3, 2016). "Rapid7, Bugcrowd, & HackerOne Joint Comments to US Copyright Office Section 1201 Study" .   ↑ Andrew F. Sellars (March 3, 2016). "Comment of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School" .   ↑ Steve Noble (February 25, 2016). "Initial Comments - Learning Disabilities Association of America" .   ↑ Stanley Pierre-Louis; Ben Golant; Steven K. Englund (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments - Entertainment Software Association" .   ↑ Stanley Pierre-Louis; Ben Golant; Steven K. Englund (April 1, 2016). "Reply Comments - Entertainment Software Association" .   ↑ Catherine R. Gellis (February 16, 2015). "Initial Comments - R Street Institute" .   ↑ Emily Feltren (February 26, 2016). "Initial Comments - American Association of Law Libraries" .   ↑ Christian Troncoso (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments - BSA The Software Alliance" .   ↑ Jessica L. Simmons; Steven J. Metalitz (March 2, 2016). "Reply Comments - Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers" .   ↑ Jessica L. Simmons; Steven J. Metalitz (March 30, 2016). "Reply Comments - Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers" .   ↑ Jonathan Band; Jessica Sebeok (March 6, 2016). "Comments Of The Association Of American Universities, The American Council On Education, The Association Of Public And Land-Grant Universities, And Educause On Section 1201 Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act" .   ↑ Terry Hart (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments - Copyright Alliance 1201 Study Comments final" .   ↑ Keith Kupferschmid (April 1, 2016). "Reply Comments - Copyright Alliance 1201 Study" .   ↑ Eugene H. Spafford; Paul Hyland (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments - ACM US Public Policy Council" .   ↑ Christopher A. Mohr (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments of the Software and Information Industry Association" .   ↑ Christopher A. Mohr (April 1, 2016). "Reply Comments of the Software and Information Industry Association" .   ↑ Bruce H. Turnbull; David Jonathan Taylor (March 3, 2016). "Joint Comments Of The Dvd Copy Control Association And The Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator, Llc" .   ↑ Dave Green (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments - Microsoft Corporation" .   ↑ Morgan Reed (March 3, 2016). "ACT Comments re USCO Sec 1201 Study v4" .   ↑ Raza Panjwani; Charles Duan; Kerry Sheehan (March 4, 2016). "Section 1201 Comments for Copyright Office" .   ↑ Kerry Maeve Sheehan; Raza Panjwani; John Bergmayer; Charles Duan (April 2, 2016). "Reply Comments of Public Knowledge" .   ↑ Jill Ingrassia (April 1, 2016). "Reply Comments of AAA (American Automobile Association)" .   ↑ See U.S. Copyright Office, Oct. 27, 2000, Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works, at U.S. Copyright Office , October 28, 2003, Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works, at ; U.S. Copyright Office, Nov. 27, 2006, Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works,at ; U.S. Copyright Office, Jul. 26, 2010, Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works at . ↑ "Federal Register | Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" (PDF) . . Retrieved 2016-04-04 .     This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain . ↑ "Federal Register | Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" . . Retrieved 2016-01-26 .   ↑ "Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US" . WebTVWire. 2006-09-12 . Retrieved 2006-10-12 .   ↑ Sandoval, Greg (2009-08-11). "RealNetworks loses critical ruling in RealDVD case" . . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ "Viacom sues Google over YouTube clips" . 2007-03-13 . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ Viacom Int'l Inc., et al., v. YouTube, Inc., et al. , Nos. 07-Civ-2103 (LLS), 07-Civ-3582 (LLS) Opinion and Order (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010). ↑ Sandoval, Greg (June 23, 2010). "Google defeats Viacom in landmark copyright case" . cnet news . U.S . Retrieved June 23, 2010 .   ↑ Davis, Wendy (April 6, 2012). "Appeals Court Gives Viacom Second Shot at YouTube" . U.S . Retrieved April 7, 2012 .   ↑ Delaney, Kevin J. (June 29, 2006). "Veoh Faces Copyright Suit, A Test of Web Video" . The Wall Street Journal .   ↑ Ali, Rafat (2006-06-28). "Test For Web Video? Veoh Faces Copyright Suit" . paidContent . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ August 27th, 2008 (2008-08-27). "Transcoding Is Not A Crime, Says Court In Veoh Porn Case" . TechCrunch . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ "Content sharing company Qlipso buys Veoh" (Apr 9, 2010) Athena Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ↑ "UMG v. Veoh: victory has never been so pyrrhic " (Dec 22, 2011) Engadget, Newstex ↑ Cheng, Jacqui (2007-09-13). "Autodesk sued for $10 million after invoking DMCA to stop eBay resales" . . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ Lee, Timothy B. (2008-05-23). "Court smacks Autodesk, affirms right to sell used software" . . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ Anderson, Nate (2010-09-10). "No, you don't own it: Court upholds EULAs, threatens digital resale" . . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ Egelko, Bob (August 20, 2008). "Woman can sue over YouTube clip de-posting" . San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved 2008-08-25 .   ↑ Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. ↑ Grady, John F. (27 July 2011). "Memorandum opinion" (PDF) . Court rule in favour of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction . Retrieved 21 November 2011 .   ↑ Samuels, Julie P.; Higgins, Parker (6 August 2012). "myVidster: A Victory for Innovation and a Vote for Sensible Copyright Law" . Electronic Frontier Foundation . Retrieved 8 August 2012 .   ↑ Ouellette v. Viacom , Dist. Court, D. Montana (2011) ↑ Sony follows up, officially sues Geohot and fail0verflow over PS3 jailbreak . Nilay Patel, Engadget (2011-01-12). Retrieved on 2011-02-16. ↑ "Sony/Hotz settlement details surface" .   ↑ "Sony and PlayStation 3 jailbreaker George Hotz settle out of court" .   ↑ Van der Sar, Ernesto. "WordPress Wins $25,000 From DMCA Takedown Abuser" ,, March 5, 2015 ↑ Carolyn Dalton; Antoine Aubert (6 March 2009). "Google submission on TCF Draft ISP Copyright Code of Practice" (PDF) . Retrieved 2009-10-14 .   ↑ Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban (2005). "Efficient Process or 「Chilling Effects」? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Summary Report" (PDF) . Retrieved 2009-10-14 .   ↑ "Google submission hammers section 92A" . New Zealand PCWorld. 2009-03-16 . Retrieved 2009-03-19 .   ↑ Researchers Could Have Uncovered Volkswagen's Emissions Cheat If Not Hindered by the DMCA | Electronic Frontier Foundation ↑ Wired ↑ "ACP" .   ↑ "Vertical blanking interval" .   ↑ "Analog Off" . .   ↑ "Analog Hole" . Electronic Frontier Foundation . Retrieved 2013-01-13 .   ↑ "First Indictment Under Digital Millennium Copyright Act Returned Against Russian National" . Archived from the original on October 17, 2011 . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ "Adobe FAQ: ElcomSoft legal background" . . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ Farhad Manjoo (2001-08-07). "Sklyarov: A Huge Sigh of Release" . . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ RIAA challenges SDMI attack 2002-01-07, Retrieved on 2007-02-26 ↑ Ann Harrison (2001-08-13). "Video crypto standard cracked?" . . Retrieved 2011-11-12 .   ↑ "Jacobsen v Katzer: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement and Denying Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgement" (PDF) . Retrieved 2010-05-29 .   ↑ Couts, Andrew (9 May 2013). "Awesome new bill legalizes cell phone unlocking, 'fixes' the DMCA" . Digital Trends Newsletter . Designtechnica Corporation. Archived from the original on 3 July 2013.   ↑ Khanna, Derek (1 November 2013). "Conservatives Demand Free Market After Librarian of Congress Bans Phone Unlocking" . Breitbart. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013.   ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ "Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA | Electronic Frontier Foundation" . 2010-03-03 . Retrieved 2013-06-14 .   ↑ OdioWorks v. Apple ↑ "Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA" . Electronic Frontier Foundation . March 2010.   ↑ EFF sues US government to void 'onerous' copyright rules ↑ Iván Vargas Chaves. Evolución de la Responsabilidad Civil en Internet: Del Common Law al Derecho Comunitario Europeo . In: Reflexiones sobre Derecho Privado Patrimonial - Vol. II, University of Salamanca , Spain 2012. ISBN 978-84-940144-1-3 (Book Chapter), p. 565. External links

Works related to Digital Millennium Copyright Act at Wikisource

H .R . 2281 , DMCA U.S. Copyright Office summary of the DMCA ( PDF format) Title 17 of the U.S. Code , Cornell Law School Cybertelecom's DMCA information and background material A citizen's guide to the DMCA Info on Dealing with Digital Copyrights Infringement including filing DMCA Notices Interview of Marcia Hoffman from the EFF on Lenz v. Universal DMCA lawsuit Seth Finkelstein, How To Win (DMCA) Exemptions And Influence Policy . The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) page on the DMCA Unintended Consequences: Ten Years under the DMCA - EFF Media Copyrights Law In Your Pocket - The DMCA A Decade of the DMCA A web based tool for identifying the owners and operators of websites with infringing content This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/4/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.
us digital millennium copyright act google

moncler eric men's jacket black
indirizzo outlet moncler milano stazione centrale
complaint letter
moncler usa inc Digital Millennium Copyright Act + Removal of a Site + Google ....we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. « 1 2       Imaster Msg#:130918 2:30 pm on Aug 22, 2003 (gmt 0) Senior Member

joined:Feb 3, 2003
votes: 0

I was searching for mad cow disease [] & at the bottom of the page I read this:

In response to a complaint we received under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint for these removed results

This is the first time I saw something like this. It's really good to know that Google takes copyright infringement very seriously.

All hail the mighty Google! claus Msg#:130948 10:51 am on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0) Senior Member

joined:June 15, 2003
votes: 5

Welcome to WebmasterWorld Azrael :)

Great post, i did not know that Google voluntarily opted for this approach in absence of a court decision and that it is their own decision and not a legal requirement - that's not really nice to know either i think.

>> considering the essential freedom to link as the entirety of the basis for search engines at all

>> Complaints are cheap and recourse against blatantly false ones is weak.

>> By accepting the theory that mere linking is a justifiable grounds for complaint, Google has set itself up to receive at least thousands such fraudulent complaints, about any site, and on any whim

That is exactly what i was trying to infer, you only did it in a better and more informed way. With this policy, Google is in fact taking a positive stance towards any person or entity complaining. Google actively supports and promotes the use of complaints by recognizing them and allowing them to take effect before the views of the supposedly offending part have ever been heard.

And then you specified that this is really about linking. I agree.

The essence in my opinion is that linking should not be regulated. I'm glad to hear that it's not, as i do not know the details of the DMCA myself. OTOH, i'm sad to find that a SE (living off links) has voluntarily opted for self-regulation of same links as an interpretation of possible (=unknown) legal implications, that is: not such a self-regulation that serves their business purpose.

Links are, after all, the very essence of the WWW itself. It is similar to mentioning a place, or even to giving driving directions to a place in the physical world. Even if this place is a (suspected) criminal one, it is and should still be legal to provide the instructions for reaching it.

Links are is not caching and linking is not a copyright violation even though the site linked to may or may not be guily of such a violation. Was this not the napster verdict, in essence?

That it is also the bread and butter of Search Engines is really secondary in this respect, as they are nothing but a small fraction of the same internet (measured in number of publishers). Any limitations upon use of such links has therefore negative influences on the whole internet and all internet publishers.

Perhaps Google has (by voluntary - pre-emptive - action) avoided the issue of "linking rights" to even surface in the legal system. For a while. Next publisher that will be hit will now have to decide if she should follow the G example or hold on to her "linking rights" and await legal decision. Then next. And so on.

When the s*** eventually hits the fan, a process for dealing with this just might have been established voluntarily (favoring the complaining party) and it will be quite easy for lawmakers to seek inspiration from this.

Now what's the effect for webmasters? Will we have to do the same then? One thing i know about outbound links is that they point somewhere that you are basically not controlling the contents of. One day a perfectly unique destination, the next day a pr0n page or whatever. These changes can and do happen without the (out-) linking party's consent or even knowledge.

I will not continue, the post is long enough by now. Plainly i felt bad about it when i heard it, and i still do. Even though it is apparently Googles own decision and not the law, it's still not right.

/claus IITian Msg#:130949 12:28 pm on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0) Preferred Member

joined:Apr 18, 2003
votes: 0

It is my understanding that for people claiming copyright violation, the first line of attack generally is the complaint to the web host. One complaint and some web hosting companies will ban/suspend the alleged offending site, while some web hosing cmpanies will not do much unless the complaint was really serious.

My guess is that in this case the lawyers first complained to the web hosting company, which looked at the site and laughed and dismissed the complaint. Then the lawyers found Google. g1smd Msg#:130950 8:55 pm on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0) Senior Member

joined:July 3, 2002
votes: 0

So, Google no longer provide a direct link to the site, but what about Alltheweb, Altavista, Fast, Ink, and all the others? What about the ODP, Go, etc? Did they go after all of those too? Hmmm. Fischerlaender Msg#:130951 10:59 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0) Full Member

joined:Aug 29, 2002
votes: 0

I'm really surprised that - according to Googleguy - it is sufficient to complain to Google about a specific URL to get this URL removed from the index. Is this really the way how Google is reacting to (alleged) copyright infringements? Or did I get something wrong here?

I'm sure Brett gets a lot of complaints about postings in this forum. (At least I _do_ get them about my forum!) And I'm also sure that his standard action is not to remove this postings. So why does Google act this way? We're not in the Dark Ages anymore where the bearer of bad news got killed ... HughMungus Msg#:130952 12:18 am on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0) Senior Member

joined:Jan 17, 2003
votes: 0

Google's cache is opt-out with a meta-tag (you could argue if it should be opt-in but that is OT). OTOH, this 'poor webmaster' refused to remove the content:

Actually, I think the law is that thumbnails are OK as long as the size and quality of the thumbnail doesn't detract from the value of the thumnailed image. Allergic Msg#:130953 2:38 pm on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0) Full Member

joined:Mar 28, 2002
votes: 0

This guy was in position 62 if you look at thoses links :
[ ...] (The DMCA link is there)
[ ...] (The link is not there;-) percentages Msg#:130954 6:20 am on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0) Senior Member

joined:Oct 1, 2002
votes: 0

Now if everyone with a "possible" DMCA violation got dumped by the TV Networks, Yellow Pages, Newspapers and printers/publishers we would be living in a very interesting and junk free world.

I don't think Google can be blamed too much is primarily the fault of the short sighted legislators!

Not so sure Google has to highlight these situations in the way it does though? Powdork Msg#:130955 6:48 am on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0) Senior Member

joined:Sept 13, 2002
votes: 0

Not so sure Google has to highlight these situations in the way it does though?
It a non-removal removal fashioned after the non-denial denial brought about by (I think) someone in the Nixon Admin.
I bet a site removed from the 62 spot gets more business from the name of the site being in the DMCA explanation than they would have just sitting at 62?

<edited very slightly> This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 « 1 2  

DMCA Policy Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy

We respect the intellectual property rights of others just as we expect others to respect our rights. Pursuant to Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512(c), a copyright owner or their agent may submit a takedown notice to us via our DMCA Agent listed below. As an internet service provider, we are entitled to claim immunity from said infringement claims pursuant to the “safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA. To submit a good faith infringement claim to us, you must submit notice to us that sets forth the following information:

Notice of Infringement – Claim

1. A physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner (or someone authorized to act on behalf of the owner); 2. Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed; 3. Identification of the infringing material to be removed, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. [Please submit the URL of the page in question to assist us in identifying the allegedly offending work]; 4. Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party including your name, physical address, email address, phone number and fax number; 5. A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that the use of the material is unauthorized by the copyright agent; and 6. 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 copyright owner.

Title 17 USC §512(f) provides civil damage penalties, including costs and attorney fees, against any person who knowingly and materially misrepresents certain information in a notification of infringement under 17 USC §512(c)(3).

Send all takedown notices through our Contact page. Please send by email for prompt attention.

Please note that we may share the identity and information in any copyright infringement claim we receive with the alleged infringer. In submitting a claim, you understand accept and agree that your identity and claim may be communicated to the alleged infringer.

Counter Notification – Restoration of Material

If you have received a notice of material being takedown because of a copyright infringement claim, you may provide us with a counter notification in an effort to have the material in question restored to the site. Said notification must be given in writing to our DMCA Agent and must contain substantially the following elements pursuant to 17 USC Section 512(g)(3):

1. Your physical or electronic signature. 2. A description of the material that has been taken down and the original location of the material before it was taken down. 3. A statement under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled. 4. Your name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal district court for the judicial district in which the address is located (or if you are outside of the United States, that you consent to jurisdiction of any judicial district in which the service provider may be found), and that the you will accept service of process from the person or company who provided the original infringement notification. 5. Send your counter notice through our Contact page. Email is highly recommended.

Repeat Infringer Policy

We take copyright infringement very seriously. Pursuant to the repeat infringer policy requirements of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we maintain a list of DMCA notices from copyright holders and make a good faith effort to identify any repeat infringers. Those that violate our internal repeat infringer policy will have their accounts terminated.


We reserve the right to modify the contents of this page and its policy for handling DMCA claims at any time for any reason. You are encouraged to check back to review this policy frequently for any changes.