Now, however, the exemption granted by the Copyright Office is set to expire, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation is working to make sure that doesn’t happen. The group has set up a page with information on the situation, and instructions for contacting the U.S. Copyright Office in order to petition that the exemptions be renewed. They also want the exemption expanded to include tablets and video game consoles.

The site does not say when the exemption is set to expire, however the Copyright Office will stop accepting comments on the issue on February 10th at 5 pm Eastern time. So if you have a jailbroken iPhone or iPad, or a rooted Android device, you’ll want to head on over and make your voice heard.

1. Acting on reliable copyright takedown requests within 24 hours
2. Preventing terms that are closely associated with piracy from appearing in autocomplete
3. Improving AdSense anti-piracy review
4. Experimenting to make authorized preview content more readily accessible in search results.

Today, Google discussed some of the strides it has made with these initiatives in a post on its Public Policy blog.

The company says it has built tools for making it easier for rightsholders to submit DMCA takedown requests for Google products, starting with Blogger and Web Search and that they’re being used by over a dozen content industry partners successfully, accounting for over 75% of all URLs submitted in DMCA takedowns for web search. Google also started filtering terms associated with infringement from Autocomplete.

Google SVP and General Counsel Kent Walker writes, “We have always prohibited the use of our AdSense program on web pages that provide infringing materials, and we routinely terminate publishers who violate our policies. In recent months, we have worked hard to improve our internal enforcement procedures. In April, we were among the first companies to certify compliance in the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s (IAB’s) Quality Assurance Certification program, through which participating advertising companies will take steps to enhance buyer control over the placement and context of advertising and build brand safety. In addition, we have invited rightsholder associations to identify their top priority sites for immediate review, and have acted on those tips when we have received them.”

“We have launched Music Rich Snippets, which allow legitimate music sites to highlight content in the snippets that appear in Google’s Web Search results,” he continues. “Rhapsody and MySpace are among the first to implement this feature, which has been developed using open web markup standards, and we are looking forward to more sites and search engines marking up their pages. We hope that authorized music sites will take advantage of Music Rich Snippets to make their preview content stand out in search results.”

More on this feature here.

I have a feeling that whole emphasis on identity might factor into Google’s plans, at least for promoting accountability.

Previously on the Internet, the campaign’s general counsel, Trevor Potter, sent a letter to YouTube asking the video site to speed up the reinstatement process kicked off by counter-notices to the take down notices by carefully scrutinizing campaign ads via legal review and determining whether the videos were protected under fair use.

Simpler, Potter indicated: When we file a counter-notice, find the videos among the hordes that were ours, bump them to the front and mark them as fair use, and repost them faster than 10-14 days, immediately would be great, because elections are important and ours is getting pretty close. (Don’t worry, most of the time counter-notices aren’t counter-counter-noticed.)

YouTube general counsel Zahavah Levine responded rather quickly—in Lawyer-time—and came just short of reminding Potter that McCain was partially responsible for the DMCA, and recently voted to give “abusive” copyright holders even more power. Instead, Levine wrote:

No number of lawyers could possibly determine with a reasonable level of certainty whether all the videos for which we receive disputed takedown notices qualify as fair use. More importantly, YouTube does not possess the requisite information about the content in user-uploaded videos to make a determination as to whether a particular takedown notice includes a valid claim of infringement. . . .Moreover, while we agree with you that the U.S. Presidential election-related content is invaluable and worthy of the highest level of protection, there is a lot of other content on our global site that our users around the world find to be equally important, including, by way of example only, political campaigns from around the globe at all levels of government, human rights movements, and other important voices. We try to be careful not to favor one category of content on our site over others…

Levine then suggested Senator (or President) McCain had the power to strengthen fair use and combat DMCA abuse.
 

A tendency to fight rather than settle its legal tussles will probably see Google keep up a defense against Viacom. The media company sued Google for a billion dollars over alleged copyright infringement in a case that continues to move through the legal process.

Viacom’s venerable patriarch Sumner Redstone isn’t happy about seeing shows like South Park find homes via embedding on sites other than his. He publicly called out YouTube again according to Dow Jones.

“From sites that enable illegal downloading of full length songs and movies…to DVD piracy…to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content on services such as YouTube, it’s harder and harder to make money in the media business both for companies and creative artists,” said Redstone.

If Redstone thinks he can cower Google into rolling over rather than fighting back, the search company wishes to change his mind. A Google representative publicly stated a settlement with Viacom is not in the cards, as BusinessWeek noted.

“We’re going all the way to the Supreme Court,” David Eun, vice president in charge of content partnerships at Google, said in the report. “We’re very clear about it.”

‘It’ is the issue of copyright infringement and the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Under safe harbor, a site must take down infringing content upon receiving notice from the copyright holder.

Safe harbor puts the burden of detecting offending material on the rightsholder, for example, Viacom. Without safe harbor, sites and Internet service providers face the added expense of sifting through material on an ongoing basis.

Google has no desire to be legally liable for user activity covered under the DMCA, setting the stage for what should be a protracted legal battle, judging by the rhetoric coming from both sides. However, things change, and the settlement both sides claim won’t happen could take place at any time.

SeeqPod has yet to address the action by Warner on its blog. Their most recent entry from January 23rd touted plans to create new search verticals besides search.

They likely thought that as a search site, the Safe Harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act would work as written in that law: once advised of a copyright infringement, SeeqPod could takedown the offending link.

Warner Music Group isn’t going to mess around with that process. The EFF said a lawsuit by Warner against SeeqPod reflects attempts by the content owners to change the rules, even as defendants comply with DMCA requests.

“As search engines become more specialized and capable, certain copyright owners have become increasingly dissatisfied with the notice-and-takedown bargain struck in the DMCA,” EFF said.

There is an idea that the notice and takedown method would be cheaper than litigation for many copyright owners, according to the EFF’s notes. But Warner’s riches make it easier for them to attempt to legislate by litigation, resulting in this action as well as one against Imeem last summer; that resulted in Warner partnering with Imeem.

If Edgar Bronfman Jr., wants a partnership deal with SeeqPod, maybe he should have sent them a note. Valentine’s Day is nearly here, so it could have been written like this:

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Do a deal with me
Or the lawyers deal with you.
]]> http://www.webpronews.com/seeqpod-finds-warner-lawsuit-2008-01/feed 1 http://www.webpronews.com/google-zaps-cruise-scientology-video-2008-01 http://www.webpronews.com/google-zaps-cruise-scientology-video-2008-01#comments Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:18:22 +0000 WebProNews Staff http://www.webpronews.com/?p=43452 Tom Cruise's appearance and speech at a Church of Scientology event in 2004 has circulated on the Internet, but the version hosted on Google's YouTube service has been taken offline.

Abuses of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have been chronicled online since the legislation went into effect. Lawyers often send DMCA takedown notices in an attempt to silence critics by spooking them into removing alleged infringing material. Often the "infringing" material is fair use for criticism. 

Bloggers with far fewer resources than the companies or entities seeking to silence them have used their blogs as their principle weapons, and have posted copies of the takedown notices they receive to highlight perceived further abuses of power.

A new practice is emerging whereby lawyers either just claim a takedown letter is protected under copyright (which many have argued it isn’t) or go to the trouble of actually registering a copyright for the takedown letter. If and when the letter is posted, this opens the door for further litigation.

Eric Goldman at the Technology and Marketing Law Blog chronicles a case involving multi-level marketing/health products company Melaleuca, its CEO Frank VanderSloot, and an Idaho political blogger that goes by the pseudonym Tom Paine.

At the 43rdstateblues blog, Paine posted the details of an unconfirmed rumor saying that VanderSloot had paid off controversial Idaho Senator Larry Craig (which is rather hilarious in itself, considering VanderSloot’s full-page anti-gay advertisements).

But it’s understandable that VanderSloot would want to dispel and remove a rumor if untrue, and it was redacted eventually.

Another blogger, "d2", according to Goldman, posted the cease-and-desist letter sent to 43rdstateblues that alleged defamation and demanded the rumor post be taken down. But before the letter was sent, counsel for Melaleuca registered a copyright for the letter.

Melaleuca then subpoenaed the blog operator 43SB.com, LLC, to identify Tom Paine and d2 in order to proceed with a copyright infringement lawsuit. Despite Goldman’s and 43SB’s belief that the copyright claim is "bogus," the court upheld that the letter was copyrightable.

It’s unclear what will happen next, but Goldman calls Melaleuca’s actions "troubling," as the outcome of the case could have large implications for bloggers in general. He writes, "if demand letters are copyrightable, bloggers will keep those letters off the Internet and away from public scrutiny. As a result, this case threatens to curtail an important tool that bloggers had to fight back against abusive takedown demands."
 

They had run videos about the Creation Science Evangelism Ministries, using videos from the CSE’s website (which plainly stated “none of the materials … are copyrighted, so feel free to copy these and distribute them freely”) and their own original taped materials, and all received DMCA claims and were promptly taken down.

Now, we can’t expect YouTube to actually look at all videos before they are taken, since presumably thousands are taken down per day, but they could at least think about looking into all takedown requests that are not specifically related to TV shows and major movie studios.

At the very least, Google should create a DMCA counter-claim form, a page where those who have been wrongfully attacked by a DMCA claim can file the necessary counter-claim. Currently, the process for doing so is burdensome for someone who isn’t being paid hourly lawyer fees to do so, and YouTube could probably cut down on most of these problems by merely providing a mechanism for fixing them.

Real pirates wouldn’t use them, and those wrongfully accused would have a way to correct problems and abuse before they become Wired articles.

Comments

Tag:

Confused? This should help:

1. Chris Knight creates a funny video as part of his campaign Rockingham County Board of Education.
2. Viacom’s VH1 takes the clip from YouTube and uses it in a VH1 segment, without Knight’s permission.
3. Knight’s flattered and uploads the VH1 clip to YouTube.
4. Viacom accuses Knight of copyright infringement and YouTube takes down the video.

Absurd? It doesn’t get any more ridiculous than that!

Knight is obviously feeling victimized by Viacom…

What does this mean for independent producers of content, if material they create can be co-opted by a giant corporation without permission or apology or compensation? When in fact, said corporations can take punitive action against you for using material that you created on your own?

That’s what’s happening to me right now, folks. Viacom is penalizing me for using my own original material, which they used without permission to begin with.

He says he doesn’t have the money to fight Viacom. Maybe Google could chip-in and help or perhaps the EFF might take up the cause.

Want to watch the VH1 clip?

via

Comments

Here’s Your 15 Minutes And Your DMCA Notice

Have a seat. This could take a minute.

A YouTube user submits his video to YouTube and it becomes popular to the tune of millions of views. And the user gets, well, his 15 minutes.

According to YouTube’s terms of use, YouTube gets the rights to sell that video to whomever they like. The user hasn’t forfeited rights to the video, just rights to profit from the upload. YouTube and the user both hold rights to the video as long as the video is on the website.

However, it’s unlikely that the user has a connection to media powerhouses like, say, Viacom, which slapped YouTube’s parent company Google with a billion-dollar copyright infringement lawsuit as soon as the ink was dry on the acquisition papers.

Admittedly, nearly a year later, you can still find virtually any music video you want on YouTube (Viacom owns MTV and VH1) – in fact, YouTube’s pretty much the MTV of the Internet. So Viacom’s concern about their intellectual property is understandable.

What many have taken issue with so far though, is the company’s overzealous pressing of its rights. Viacom sends out DMCA takedown notices like AOL used to send out free CDs. YouTube has blindly complied with the notices, removing content whether or not it was actual infringement in efforts to protect itself.

This led to the MoveOn.org laying some Fair Use bait for Viacom, and a subsequent lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that forced an admission from the media giant that there is, indeed, such a thing as Fair Use. In fact, much of Viacom programming, like Comedy Central’s "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" rely on it.

As does another show: "Web Junk."

"Web Junk" is a show that runs on VH1 featuring the week’s most popular viral video from the Internet. Much, nearly all, of the content on the show comes from you-know-where.

Now, the irony would be much too sublime if Viacom was violating YouTube’s terms of use that prohibit transmitting YouTube videos in a non-streaming format for commercial use without YouTube’s permission. No, we’ll assume Viacom licensed the videos through YouTube like they were supposed to.

Which means, again, YouTube and Google, who are being sued by Viacom, are also making money from Viacom, who is also making money from YouTube content while the uploader gets his 15 minutes.

But wait it gets worse.

Christopher Knight has a word for one of Viacom’s latest actions: "chutzpa." It’s a Yiddish word, if you didn’t know, for "unbelievable gall or audacity." Knight’s video was viewed a few hundred thousand times on YouTube before being featured on "Web Junk."

He didn’t complain, according his blog post about it, and thought Aries Spears’ commentary was funny. He posted a clip from the episode featuring the commentary on his YouTube video back on YouTube.

You can guess what happened next.

Knight writes, "So Viacom took a video that I had made for non-profit purposes and without trying to acquire my permission, used it in a for-profit broadcast. And then when I made a YouTube clip of what they did with my material, they charged me with copyright infringement and had YouTube pull the clip.

"Folks, this is, as we say down here in the south, "bass-ackwards".

Well, that’s one way to put it. Another way might be to suggest that Web 3.0 comes with some user content rights.