If you are following the story about Viacom's notices alleging massive infringement of copyrights on YouTube, you may be reading about it from many different angles. John Palfrey from the Berkman Center at Harvard is particularly interested in the issue of the chilling effect that notices have on fair uses and has referenced this and other issues involved in the Viacom action in a recent post, Another Video for the Put-Back-Up List?.
For more information on this subject, visit The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, and read, "Will Fair Use Survive? Free Expression in the Age of Copyright Control," by Marjorie Heins and Tricia Beckles. This is a Brennan Center report detailing the chilling effects of the notice and take-down procedure.
The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is collecting evidence to further document the negative effects of the notice and take-down procedure. Viacom's 100,000 notices are sure to add many stories to the list. Whether it will be enough to prompt changes in the law is another thing, however. That process itself is extremely difficult. When Congress revisits an existing law -- everyone who has any problem with it can take that opportunity to urge amendments. Just as users and ISPs have their concerns with the law, content owners are unhappy about some aspects of the law as well, so opening it up to change could be a risky proposition for all.
Comments (3)
"Just as users and ISPs have their concerns with the law, content owners are unhappy about some aspects of the law as well, so opening it up to change could be a risky proposition for all. "
Do you have specific examples or potential changes content holders would suggest if DMCA is revisited by Congress?
Posted by Mike Flender | February 5, 2007 12:01 PM
Posted on February 5, 2007 12:01
The specific content community concern I'm aware of involves the subpoena provision, Section 512(h). Once the courts determined that the right of copyright owners to demand the names of alleged infringers only applies to violations where the infringing content was on ISP servers (ie, 512(c), for example, but not 512(a)), copyright owners were forced to bring John Doe lawsuits to find out those names in the p2p context (where content is not usually on ISP servers), a considerably more time consuming and expensive proposition than utilizing the 512(h) procedure. I would imagine that if 512 were opened to amendment, there would be some attempt to modify section (h) to make it more broadly applicable.
Moreover, I get the impression that there is generally discontent among content owners with the deal they struck in 1998 because so much has changed in the way content is made available and shared. Of course, ISPs are a very powerful force too. It's not clear that they can be made to play a bigger role in enforcing content owners' copyrights than they already do.
Posted by Georgia Harper | February 5, 2007 12:56 PM
Posted on February 5, 2007 12:56
Thanks for the info. That makes sense.
Posted by Mike Flender | February 6, 2007 2:01 PM
Posted on February 6, 2007 14:01