Victims Fight Back Against DMCA Abuse

Cadence writes "The DMCA is being used a lot recently to demand takedowns of all sorts of content on the Internet. But how many of those DMCA-fueled demands are abusive? Lately, some victims of takedown demands have begun to fight back with the help of the EFF, including some against Viacom: 'Finally, a Viacom executive admitted last month that less than 60 of his company's 100,000 takedown requests to YouTube were invalid. John Palfrey of Harvard's Berkman Center wonders what rights those 60 people have? We may find out. The EFF called for people who had videos pulled inappropriately to contact the group, though the EFF tells The National Law Journal that it cannot comment on its future legal plans. One of the reasons companies misuse the DMCA and cease-and-desist copyright letters is that the tools can quickly accomplish what they want to have happen; stuff they don't like goes bye-bye in a hurry. When the alternative is moving slowly through the court system, letters look like an excellent alternative.'"

Comments

Here's one improperly pulled video

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's One video that was improperly pulled (it was a parody, not a copy, and most definitely not someone rebroadcasting a Viacom segment without permission).

And, yes, I do think Viacom has a right to defend their copyrights, but pulling parodys is clearing going too far.

Re:60 out of 100,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

He says they made fewer than 60 mistakes out of 100,000 notices?

Yes, according to an unsourced slashdot story, an unnamed viacom executive made this claim in some context, at an unspecified time.

That's good enough for me! The system works!

Re:Round and round the mullberry bush?

[91degrees]

If all it takes is a 'counter-notification' to get the content back up, why doesn't everyone just throw back a counter-notification, pending a counter-counter-notification, ad infinitum?

It doesn't quite work like that:)

After a counter notification, the submitter has taken full responsibility for the legality of the work, and authorises YouTube to give contact details to the complainant. And further takedowns must be ignored by YouTube. The dispute is now between the poster and the complainant.

Re:Round and round the mullberry bush?

[The Empiricist]

If all it takes is a 'counter-notification' to get the content back up, why doesn't everyone just throw back a counter-notification, pending a counter-counter-notification, ad infinitum?

17 USC Sec. 512 is not worded recursively. User uploads content to system or network controlled or operated by Service Provider. Copyright Owner sends take-down notification to Service Provider alleging that content uploaded by User infringes valid copyright. At that point User can send counter-notification to Service Provider stating that material was taken down as a result of mistake (perhaps of law) or misidentification of material. Service Provider forwards a copy of the counter-notification to Copyright Owner. At this point, Copyright Owner can do nothing, in which case the material must be posted back within 10-14 business days of receipt of the counter-notification. The only way to prevent re-posting of the material is for Copyright Owner to file suit against User and to then notify Service Provider. There is no counter-counter-notification---just a lawsuit.

Still, contrast this with the European Union's takedown procedures, laid out in Directive 2000/31/EC, Article 14(b), which limits the liability of a provider who "upon obtaining... knowledge or awareness [of illegal activity or information], acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information." As one blogger put it, "the main difference between the U.S. and the EU on matters of notice and takedown is that the EU removes all of the formalities that exist under U.S. law and, with them, all of the protections."