Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Hosting Services That Don't Overreact To DMCA Requests?
tobiasly (524456) writes I run a few websites which are occasionally the target of bogus DMCA takedown requests. Even a cursory look at these requests would reveal that the content these requests try to have removed are not even eligible for copyright (for example, someone named "John Smith" decides he wants to have every instance of his name removed from the internet, so he claims he has a copyright on "John Smith", and the comment section of my website has that name somewhere.) I'm guessing most webmasters of sites with significant traffic face this problem, but I'm having difficulty finding information on domain registrars' and hosting providers' DMCA response policies. Most seem to over-react and require an official counter-response. I'm worried I'll miss one of these someday and find that my entire domain was suspended as a result. Both my domain registrar and hosting provider have forwarded these notices in the past. I'm also worried that they're forwarding my response (including personal details) to the original complainant. Which domain registrars and hosting providers have you found who handle these complaints in a reasonable manner, and filter out the ones that are obviously bogus? Which ones have a clearly stated policy regarding these requests, and respect the site owner's privacy? Some of these domains are .us TLD, which unfortunately will limit my choice to U.S.-based companies.
You don't get to pick and choose on a spectrum of "obeying the law." The DMCA is so poorly written that even a little hesitation or restraint causes a business to lose its liability protection under the "red flag" tests.
Pick a nation on the USTR's shitlist and host your stuff there.
In the case of the "John Smith": When someone sends a DMCA takedown notice, they declare under penalty of perjury that they have copyright on the work that they believe you are infringing upon. (If the are mistaken about the work - the one you published is not the one that they have the copyright for, or they are wrong about the infringing - you have a license, that's fine, but they _must_ have the copyright for _some_ work). So you can take them to court and give them an expensive lesson in copyright law and the DMCA law.
The letter of the DMCA law works hard to make sure people who do not react properly to the issuance of a DMCA face rather brutal punishment. This is partly because of the history of infringement on the internet, that major companies like godaddy simply couldnt be reached while other emerging companies barely had offices and just ran local mom-and-pop shops. record labels crafted the DMCA, the incisors of their efforts based on the industries lack of a standard to handle legitimate problems in a timely manner.
the other reason the punishment is pretty brutal, is because record label recording industry protection rackets and even record labels themselves had been brutalized for almost a decade by declining sales in favour of a far more reasonable distribution method: the internet. Locking down everything from unsigned independent artists with DMCA takedowns as well as fair-use snippets meant the industry could keep its fat foot wedged in the door music and talent with relatively little blowback (its their law after all..) the DMCA, one could argue, is also part of the reason the Youtube music awards were basically an advertisement campaign on behalf of the largest record labels in hollywood as it can be used by, and only by, the industry to take out mafia style hits on published independent content through the much maligned 'frivolous DMCA takedown.' Sure, other groups like the church of scientology have tried this in the past, but only the record industry has emerged without punitive retalliation from online services.
What I think i can do is offer a hosting solution that has decent tech support for when these takedowns happen. Try Dreamhost.com, who actively oppose most draconian legislation against the internet like SOPA and PIPA. Vote with your dollars.
full disclosure: i used to work for Dreamhost.
Good people go to bed earlier.
For this (as well as their other policies) I'd recommend NearlyFreeSpeech.net - they have a DMCA policy page which clearly lays out the requirements that must be met to anybody intending to make a takedown claim. They're run as a pay-what-you-use host for people who have at least a small amount of knowledge of what they're doing (no cPanel interfaces here!) and from their blog and general demeanour it's clear that they are a company run by nerds who Do Things Properly.
I have no doubt that they'd follow the law if issued with a full and proper DMCA notice, but I also have no doubt that they would not give the benefit of the doubt to, or go out of their way to assist somebody filing incomplete or incorrect takedown notices.
(Full disclosure: While I've hosted my small website with NFSN for a number of years I've never received a DMCA takedown notice and I have no material which is at all likely to generate any.)
Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
Read this. Yes,the take down notice is under penalty of perjury..
Filing a DMCA Notice to Remove Copyrighted Content-for Copyright Holders
If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please provide us with a written notice containing the following information:
1. Your name, address, telephone number, and email address (if any).
2. A description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed.
3. A description of where on the Vimeo Site the material that you claim is infringing may be found, sufficient for VIMEO to locate the material (e.g., the URL).
4. A statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyrighted work is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
5. A statement by you UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf.
6. Your electronic or physical signature.
(emphasis mine)
Pretty sure these people haven't spent much time in the courts....
I was sued for defamation by a company over content that someone else published on their site. I was included in the lawsuit because I provided the owner/operator/content-creator/everything of the other site a web analytics tool I created (before the days of free Google Analytics). This was enough to confuse the courts and put me in the position where best case scenario, I spend $40K+ and I "win" and worst case scenario, I spend $40K and lose the case and face a ridiculous judgment.
Unless you are an unemployed lawyer with no assets and plenty of free time, the legal system is a big pile of lose-lose.
Evolution: love it or leave it
I used to run the abuse desk at a web hosting company before I moved on to automation control. Our company developed a procedure -- and published it -- to handle takedown notices. First, the notice has to be sent to the contact on record with the copyright office, that's part of the law. That meant it came directly to my desk. Further, the person submitting the notice had to provide some proof of copyright. Finally, the notice author has to demonstrate that the infringement didn't fall under fair use, or some of the other exceptions.
I then investigated the claim, and if I felt there was reasonable cause for the claim I would take down the site and notify the allegedly infringing customer of the notice and our analysis. The customer could then deal with the copyright owner and then the two parties would let us know how it's resolved. Or the customer could remove the infringing material (they still had access to the data even when the site was shut off), let me know, then if I was satisfied that the infringement was removed I'd turn the site back on, and let the complaining party know what had been done.
There was the case of a person whose site sold knock-off watches. The original manufacturer took exception to the pictures on the site, claiming trademark infringement (which was pretty obvious). The customer took the pictures off. Case solved.
Then there was the customer who posted MP3s of music. That was a no-brainer. We terminated him for violation of the acceptable use policy.
There were some trolls, too. One customer had material under copyright, but the customer's use of the material fell under fair use. The troll could not demonstrate how the infringement went beyond fair use. He threatened to sue. Our lawyers took that threat and ran with it -- replied with a threat to counter-sue.
So different companies have DMCA policies and procedures. It helps to look what they have in place.