Slashdot Mirror
Nielsen Sends Wikipedia DMCA Takedown For Station Descriptions
RockMFR writes "A DMCA takedown notice sent by Nielsen Media Research to the Wikimedia Foundation has resulted in the deletion of over 300 pages on the English Wikipedia. The pages were 'templates' and categories that listed television stations within various geographical markets in the United States. Discussion of the deletions has focused on whether this type of information can actually be copyrighted, though the content of the takedown notice have not been made public."
I believe that in some cases, however, compilations can. In that case - though I could be wrong - specific arrangement of facts could be considered copyrighted if it were copied verbatim, like OCR'ing a phonebook or something of the sort.
If memory serves cases have gone for and against this though, so it's not that clear-cut.
As noted on the admin page, "The entire categorization schema that was in place was copyrighted by Nielsen and could not be used under our GFDL license," so it wasn't just that the information was used, but that it was copied pretty much directly.
I believe DMCA takedown notices will eventually be determined to be a classic case of unbridled "prior restraint"
Of course, I think they should be done away with, because they are far too easily abusable - but I don't think the courts will ever consider them as "prior restraint" - because the content has to already be somewhere for a DMCA notice to be issued.
Say, hypothetically, that I took a paper you wrote and posted it on my blog. You issue a DMCA takedown notice - but I've already posted it, otherwise you wouldn't have even known I had it.
If you could send me a DMCA to prevent me from putting anything up in the first place, that would be prior restraint. As I understand it, though, that's not how they work.
Code or be coded.
The Google Cache is different, at least for now. The key difference: The words "Nielson DMA#."
The Internet Archive also has older versions.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
OK, having actually READ TFA and some other postings about this topic, here's what this appears to be about.
Wikipedia wanted to list all the TV stations for each major television market.
But how do you define what stations are in a given "market"? For example, does the "New York City" market area include Newark, NJ? What about Trenton, NJ? Does it extend into Connecticut? If so, how far?
Ultimately, the way you group a set of locations into regions is somewhat arbitrary, and there are a lot of ways to do it. For example, the US Census Bureau has one set of metropolitan areas they use to report major statistics. Nielsen has their own grouping of cities (and therefore stations located in those cities) into markets.
Nielsen's grouping is not identical to other public groupings like the US Census bureau's. It's what they feel are the appropriate groupings for television advertising marketing, since that's who their customers are. And they put work into developing and refining their classification scheme.
What appears to have happened is that Wikipedia wanted to list television station, and wanted to organize that list of stations by Nielsen market area. Heck, take a look at the delete log in the original post--they were even calling their organization "Nielsen markets."
Nielsen's position, as I understand it, is that Nielsen's mapping of cities (and therefore stations) into markets is their own unique work, which is not public domain, and it's not OK for Wikipedia to use Nielsen's mappings without their permission. If Wikipedia had used a different organizational scheme for the same data (e.g. US Census metro areas), Nielsen likely wouldn't have had an issue with it.
Please note I'm not trying to play apologist for Nielsen or the DCMA here--I'm not a huge fan of the DCMA or US definitions on what's "copyrightable." However, I do prefer looking at a case on it's individual merits to knee jerk "anyone using the DCMA must be evil!" arguments.
It is a federal perjury charge, which is rarely prosecuted by the DoJ. The maximum penalty is five years in prison. Perjury is usually added to existing charges or used as a stick to elicit testimony. The DoJ does not have enough resources to investigate and prosecute cases. The exception is perjruy in grand jury or court proceedings, where the rate of prosecution is high unless the person is already serving a term in prison or has cooperated with the government.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
lets add a fifth category. failure to differentiate between copywrite and copyright. I suggest reading this article.
You can't fit the company in prison
Only a person can commit perjury. Either an agent or employee makes the sworn statement against perjury.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
> Wikipedia and most other website owners will comply with a DMCA notice
> regardless of whether or not it is valid because they don't care
> and is the simplest thing to do.
No, they will comply because doing so gives them, via other provisions of the DMCA, a modicum of immunity to monetary liability for copyright infringement.