View source for Copyright, Day 2: Copyright Enforcement and Applications to New Technology

{{ClassCalendar}}

'''April 28'''

To end the substance of the class, we return to a topic we studied a few weeks ago and look to how various efforts have attempted to control the Web in light of the issue. Digital technologies spawned the proliferation of media and music sharing, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies for control and copyright enforcement. “Controversial” may be putting it lightly; the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control. This class focuses on how copyright is enforced online, with particular emphasis on the "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The class will also look at a few other famous attempts to design within and around copyright’s regime, both with legislation and with new technologies.


== Assignment 4 ==

[[Assignments#Assignment_4:_Rough_Draft|Assignment 4]] is due before class today. You can submit your assignment [[Assignment_4_Submissions|here]].

<onlyinclude>

== Readings/Watchings ==

; The DMCA Notice-And-Takedown Process

* Digital Media Law Project, [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-claims-based-user-content Claims Based on User Content] and [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content]

* [https://www.eff.org/takedowns Electronic Frontier Foundation, Takedown Hall of Shame] (peruse)

* Chilling Effects, [https://www.chillingeffects.org/pages/about About].

* [http://paidcontent.org/2013/02/24/how-google-did-the-right-thing-with-the-nascar-crash-video-and-why-it-matters/ Matthew Ingram, Paid Content, How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters]

; Case Studies

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Alicia Solow-Niederman, A Close Look at SOPA]

* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/01/15/mit-media-lab-opposes-sopa-pipa/ Ethan Zuckerman and Joi Ito, MIT Media Lab Opposes SOPA, PIPA]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/98767 Radio Berkman #216: The Internet – A Yearbook] (5:58-15:13 only)

* [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/walter-scott-video-footage-pr-firm-copyright Jon Swaine, Walter Scott: PR firm demands $10,000 from media outlets using shooting video]

; The big picture

* [http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-traffic-drops-in-america-grows-in-europe-131111/ Ernesto Van Der Sar, BitTorrent Traffic Drops in America, Grows in Europe]

* [https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120405/11221818390/perspective-complexities-copyright-creativity-victim-infringement.shtml Erin McKeown, A Perspective On the Complexities of Copyright and Creativity from a Victim of Infringement]

== Optional Readings ==

; Case Study - ISP "Six Strikes"

* [http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/feb/01/copyright-alert-system-and-six-strikes/ Brooke Gladstone, Interview with Jill Lesser of Center for Copyright Information (''On The Media'')]

* [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/02/25/the-6-likely-impact-of-six-strikes/ Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, The 6 Likely Impact of Six Strikes]

; Case Study - Operation In Our Sites

* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1835604 Andy Sellars, Seized Sites: The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names]

* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Wendy Seltzer, Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]

</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

----

As said in the introduction of this week’s wiki page is ”the ongoing fight between copyright owners and Internet evangelists is one of the most popularly debated fights surrounding Internet control.”. What the literature show us, is that it is very tricky to find a solution and an ending to the fight. One reason is that there are different interests and players when it comes to this issue. There is always going to be groups that aren´t happy with the legislation. Another reason is that it simply is hard to create effective laws (especially since the Internet is a global phenomena), which you can see several examples of in the literature.

The blackout in 2012, that was a protest and a way of forming an opinion against SOPA among especially American citizens, is fascinating. It is a way of using Internet for activism. But it isn´t really created from a grass root level (which is what I usually think about when I hear the word ’activism’), but from Internet giants like Twitter and Wikipedia. It raises the question ”who has power in today’s society?” I would say that the people behind the largest Internet websites are in a very powerful position. 

[[User:JosefinS|JosefinS]] ([[User talk:JosefinS|talk]]) 16:58, 26 April 2015 (EDT)

----

It was interesting reading about the DMCA – or, as Matthew Ingram writes in Gigaom, how the DMCA “fosters bad behavior” – because I had rarely thought about the prominent role of the hosting platform in copyright takedowns before.  The article about NASCAR, as well as the Takedown Hall of Shame, showed how problematic the system is when sites like YouTube immediately bow to commercial powers making takedown requests.  I thought Ingram’s description was very compelling when he wrote that the NASCAR incident was “another case of a commercial entity taking advantage of copyright law to smother free speech.”  (On a related note, I was very sad to discover that Prince, one of my favorite artists, was awarded the Raspberry Beret Lifetime Aggrievement Award for “extraordinary abuses of the takedown process in the name of silencing speech.”)

However, as much as the readings enlightened me about the role of the hosting platform, and the way copyright laws often smother the free speech of those using them, I also found myself wondering what it felt like to be on the other side, that is, to have your work be copied unfairly.  After all, these laws were put into place for a reason, even if they have serious flaws, and as much as I care about free speech, I also care about fair compensation for artists.  This is why Erin McKeown’s article was my favorite reading for the week.  I love that she talks with sincere emotion and compassion about these issues – she cares about compensation of her own work, but she also has empathy for those that seemingly copies it.  I love that she speaks about her ensuing advocacy as wanting to talk about scale, as well as “relationships and power structures.”  She shows that there are valid points on both sides and that while there will always be issues on both sides, an open dialogue could help diffuse a lot of otherwise contentious copyright issues.

[[User:Beccalew|Beccalew]] ([[User talk:Beccalew|talk]]) 08:19, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

----


The copyright infringement and DMCA article is of particular interest to me.  In the fitness community there are always conversations about rightful uses of images.  I have an associate is a photographer that contracted the one use of an image for a magazine. As what has happened with many other photographers, this image is now being used on the person’s website and used for promotional materials. Looking into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, what is interesting is that person or website in question must not “... have no actual or effective knowledge that the material in question is infringing.”  I researched quite a few large company websites and actually read through their terms and conditions to find their copyright policies. 

In this day and age of selfies, many people take photos and post them online without thinking about their use. I know of one athlete who has had three Facebook profiles created in her image and many of her photos posted on highly suggestive website. Although her images were not sexually suggestive, them being placed on said websites has created havoc on her professional career as she finishes her PhD. Involuntary posting of pictures has the person’s name with it. If your name is Jennifer, it is not as much as a problem as someone with the name Chipo. I wondered how this act would apply to someone’s images being used on a controversial website against their wishes and I came across this great article on how Reddit approaches similar copyright material: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/09/08/how-copyright-became-the-best-defense-against-revenge-porn/. If there is question over copyright and since there is not a direct method to litigate this issue, it easy to see how Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act would protect the ‘free speech’ of the users of the internet community; additionally, images can be copied and reproduced. DMCA’s last point about embedded videos clearly demonstrates how this can be a difficult for victims as sites can potentially continue without recourse. 

[[User:Tasha|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha|talk]]) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (EDT)


---------


After today’s class reading I can only say that no matter  how  deep you  go  in copyright online subject,  there are always going to be so many  unexplored  aspects left! I had not heard about the Walter Scott shooting video and  after  reading the  article, I realized  that an ordinary, everyday situation of making a video with a cell phone, could grow into a real copyright legal case. However I think the popularity of the case in question  is  coming  not from the  complexity of the IP legal issue but  from the shocking content of the video.  

Although the legal aspects of the copyright  online are an important economical issue, the regulations put in place in order to solve the problems (regulations like SOPA) give the impression they  use the copyright just as an “excuse” and try to regulate “something  more”.  

The NASCAR video case was  really  interesting  because it could be regarded as  a good  example how a copyright case  should be examined from all perspectives and measures  should be  taken  regarding the concrete  situation without prejudices. It should  not  be taken for granted  that  the copyright owners  are  always the “good guys”.
Regarding the  Bit torrent  websites , I  know  some  of them  are  applying the  “safe –harbor” provisions, stipulated  in the DMCA  by applying "notice-and-takedown" procedures. They remove  content once they are  signalized  by  the copyright owner but not otherwise. Beyond their business model  is  the idea that  big  Hollywood companies  would  not  spend time  and  efforts  chasing  torrent websites all over the net. Claiming they  do  not  know that  User123 is not the  copyright owner of the “Star Wars”, for  example they  would remove the movie from the  torrent website if  they are duly notified. I consider this is  too obvious violation but on the other  hand there is no exception in the  DMCA saying the “safe-harbor” provisions  can not  apply  to torrent websites. 

([[User:Gia|Gia]] ([[User talk:Gia|talk]]))


-----


The courts have, in the past, been fairly reluctant about taking sides about defining a “journalist” or what constitutes a “news outlet”—there have been instances where a journalist has been defined strictly as an individual who is paid by a news outlet for a significant portion of their yearly income; but then, the problem arises with the existence of fairly reliable or credible and totally freelance news writers who do not qualify as “journalists” under the salary definition attempts to operate under the protective laws that are granted to these more traditional journalists – granted, fair use is not exclusive to journalists, if it were a journalist who recorded the Nascar crash, Nascar would not have dared to take the video down (at least we should hope). 
Google’s refusal to do so was a sound one, and hopefully,  the types of corporate control mentality as expressed in the Nascar “owns everything produced by the ticket holder to its events” is a mentality that will get a future track record of uselessness. In this day and age, we are indeed all witnesses – and sometimes journalists. It is the content and not the source that matters and I was glad to read learn about Google’s actions on the matter. 

As for controlling what publicity it has online, the best option for Nascar is not to “own everything ticket holders produce” but to either accept that everyone, at a moment’s notice can become the holder of fair use content, OR Nascar will have to just have all event goers hand over their digital and recording devices at the door. An unpopular track, surely and one they won’t be strange enough to take. 


[[User:Chanel Rion|Chanel Rion]] ([[User talk:Chanel Rion|talk]]) 14:55, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

---- 
Re: Fair use in Inbedded video. I think the measure of whether or not a cell phone video is fair use is if it was intended for commercial use or not. It's that simple. The video of Walter Scott was taken spontaneously without any profit motive, any one can prove that in court. The same with the NASCAR video, or for that matter the recent video of Freddy Gray in Baltimore. No one goes out with a cell phone in hand to document horrific events to document and sell to news outlets. Only news professionals do and they have a profit or news reporting motive.

The case of the man who took the Walter Scott murder looks crass and opportunistic to try to get any money out of this unfortunate situation, specially the lawyers and the P.R firm they hired. They're not gonna get a dime from those videos and stills. Also, there comes a point when a video or a still photo become public domain. Once an image that resonates or illustrates a problem perfectly goes viral on the internet, no one can stop its replication or dissemination. What is the definition of public domain? Does it apply to viral videos, whether they are of kittens or gun violence? [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:42, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

----

I really like what Electronic Frontier Foundation is doing. As we had read in previous articles, the big corps and powerful figures know that they would win in copyright lawsuits simply because they have deep pockets and the time to keep going at it. EFF clearly shows us that it is possible to defend the little guy against the bigger corporations with the lawyers and the financial power to back up those bullets. With the enforcement of copyright laws in the digital world (Ref 3), it also makes it consist of huge gray areas that are left for exploitation. EFF does it’s job to maintain individuals’ liberties. 

	As stated in eff.org (Ref 4), it tells us of what it views of today’s issues. They are, as I personally also believe, is that the manipulation of copyright laws by big corps and take “away from the right to think and speak freely”. This becomes a huge infringement, not upon copyright and intellectual property, but the fundamental Constitutional right of Freedom of Speech. Where do we draw the line? It is hard to have an equilibrium when only one side has an army. EFF balances this equation to allow the laws on copyright to be closer to equilibrium. 

	I have therefore picked one example. I looked at Former Navy Chaplain and Colorado Assembly candidate Gordon Klingenschmitt’s attempt to shut down a YouTube account. (Ref 2) They knew the rules of Youtube, that if there were 3 takedown notices, then YouTube would shut down that channel. It was strategic, and it undermines Freedom of Speech. Equilibrium was only reached when EFF had assisted the case with a threat to take Klingenschmitt to court. 

	Despite all the classes and lectures, I still feel that there will be a constant struggle between Freedom of Speech, and the censorship of the internet, and the way big corporations would exploit intellectual property laws to their advantage. This still takes time, but I surely hope we get to some sort of maturity in law making on copyright and Freedom of Speech issues in the digital world. 

References:

Ref 1 - https://www.eff.org/about

Ref 2 - https://www.eff.org/takedowns/attempt-silence-political-speech-right-wing-watch

Ref 3 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

Ref 4 - https://www.eff.org/about/history


[[User:Caelum|Caelum]] ([[User talk:Caelum|talk]]) 15:43, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
---- 
Re: Fair use in Inbedded video. I think the measure of whether or not a cell phone video is fair use is if it was intended for commercial use or not. It's that simple. The video of Walter Scott was taken spontaneously without any profit motive, any one can prove that in court. The same with the NASCAR video, or for that matter the recent video of Freddy Gray in Baltimore. No one goes out with a cell phone in hand to document horrific events to document and sell to news outlets. Only news professionals do and they have a profit or news reporting motive.

The case of the man who took the Walter Scott murder looks crass and opportunistic to try to get any money out of this unfortunate situation, specially the lawyers and the P.R firm they hired. They're not gonna get a dime from those videos and stills. Also, there comes a point when a video or a still photo become public domain. Once an image that resonates or illustrates a problem perfectly goes viral on the internet, no one can stop its replication or dissemination. What is the definition of public domain? Does it apply to viral videos, whether they are of kittens or gun violence? Hromero (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2015 (EDT) [[User:Hromero|Hromero]] ([[User talk:Hromero|talk]]) 15:46, 28 April 2015 (EDT) 
----

The Google Nascar article shared a phenomena that we have already explored in which eyewitness photos of an incident may go viral but they still do not infringe on copyrights, even of major news networks which hold the sole right to film that event.

This is further explained in our reading about Walter Scott shooting video (Which I had never seen – oh my dear). According to the Copyright Act of 1976, “fair use” of copyrighted material includes “criticism, comment, and new reporting.” These videos cannot be protected by copyright because they still are, and will be for years to come, relevant to criticism, comment, and news reporting.

Though I am personally uncomfortable with the fact that it is not a violation of my privacy to film people on the street, I understand now how important it is to protect the right to film and distribute what happens in public. It must be a difficult right to protect, as well, given the rapidly evolving technologies (means of capturing and methods for sharing). 

The Baltimore riots are going on very close to my home in Maryland. Last night Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake made a statement explaining that initially the police force was made aware of plans for violent riots and their locations by monitoring social media. She also explained that the random eyewitness images that were collected and streaming would be used in assistant for the capturing and punishment of those involved with violent demonstrations and other crimes this week. 

The reading for today’s class also mentions an eyewitness video of Freddie Gray as part of formal investigation. Boston recently saw viral videos and images assist in the conviction of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the bombing. While all of these situations mentioned are very controversial, is our right as citizens of the United States to see these videos, so that we can see for ourselves if justice is being done. We are very lucky to have this right, and should work to protect it, as other countries regulate and censor this sort of information from the public. The worst example that comes to mind is China's censorship of Tiananmen Square protest that occurred in 1989. Hundreds of protestors were murdered by China's government in the streets on this day, and the Chinese public still does not have accurate information about events that occurred. Non peaceful rioting did occur but its impossible now to know if justice was served or not. The fact that we have the right to share what the police are doing right now in Baltimore through viral videos and images, means that they will be held responsible for inappropriate actions, as will any violent "thugs" tearing up the city.
[[User:Batjarks|Batjarks]] ([[User talk:Batjarks|talk]]) 17:12, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
----