The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act is obsolete, and everybody knows it. The DMCA was the topic in the House Judiciary Committee hearings on copyright review about two weeks ago, and much has been written about its flaws both from pro and anti-copyright perspectives. A recent editorial in The Los Angeles Times leads with a headline “Congress should bring copyright law into the 21st century.” Unfortunately, for far too long, this particular theme has been distorted by technology interests to convey the message that copyright law as a principle is obsolete in a market that has been transformed by the capacity of the internet to enable mass, cheap distribution of media. In reality, though, the story that is finally being told is that certain aspects of copyright law, like the DMCA, are inadequate protections for rights holders in the digital age. Quite simply, the technologies of 2014 enable and reward piracy on a scale that no entity of any size can combat with a 1998 mechanism.
The Times article does a good job of summarizing the flaws with the DMCA, both for rights holders and legitimate internet companies; and it makes the radical suggestion that companies like Google might want to collaborate with media interests to simultaneously strengthen protections for creators and craft a legal framework that would be more efficient for entities like YouTube, which receives a tremendous volume of takedown requests under the DMCA. It was just a couple months ago that YouTube passed the milestone of receiving its 100 millionth takedown request from the recording industry alone.
See the full LA Times editorial here.
For some perspective on just how useless DMCA is for an independent content owner, watch this video from Fast Girl Films and VoxIndie:
You are damn right DMCA needs to be reformed. It’s a quite unbelievable short circuiting of due process. The fact that a copyright holder can take down any content on the Internet without any evidence of wrongdoing is tyrannical. Takedown requests should only be allowed by a judicial process where copyright infringement must be proven and weighed against possible fair uses. Also the repeal of the troubling “anti-circumvention” sections which legitimately stifle free speech and muzzle academic research.
If you can put it online without any process, it can be taken down without any process.
The ratio of fair-use cases to outright copyright violations are miniscule. In the list of TD in the video above please point out which ones are fair-use?
No, M has a point on that one. Justice does not and cannot operate on a ratio basis. The idea that you can sacrifice the rights of the innocent to collar the guilty is the clarion call of authoritarians throughout history. (3% is not a negligible amount when you’re talking about false legal claims anyway).
On the other hand, M’s proposed solution would make DMCA reports largely unworkable. (That may be the point). Fixing this issue is simple. Make false takedown requests a criminal offense, but only in cases where there is evidence of malice or serious negligence.
Do the same with copyright infringement. Deliberately ignoring widescale copyright violation on your site should not protect someone from claims.
Simple and with the advantage of parity.
Its not 3%, and is nowhere near 3%. The majority of supposed bad TDs are issuing a TD for the same URL multiple times. There are also a few where someone has put their holiday video on some torrent site and called it “current-blockbuster-film-free-download”, and I say if you swagger about pretending to be thief you can’t really complain about misidentification.
But yeah if someone is issuing DMCA takedowns against rivals, or for politically motivated reasons then I’m all for them being taken to court.
Intentionally unfair takedowns are actionable, but they’re actionable in civil court. Do we really want to elevate those kinds of disputes to the criminal level? When an enterprise like Pirate Bay is purposely organized to profit on mass infringement, that’s a criminal case. When a single entity like a gaming company misuses takedown to squelch a bad review on YouTube, I think that should remain a civil matter, and such cases do tend to get worked out, usually with the bad actor backing down. When automatic takedowns accidentally remove something that might be fair use, as is the case in Lenz, that’s an error with no malicious intent, despite the tedious refrain that wants to insist Hollywood is salivating at the chance to nail every infringement and chill free speech. The verifiable fact is that DMCA as is favors infringers and is functionally meaningless for nearly all content owners. If we’re going to come anywhere near writing a new law that will benefit the majority of interests, this whole narrative that content owners want to destroy rights has to be relegated to the peanut gallery where it belongs, and the hyperbole has to stop. Mrs. Lenz suffering a brief period when her video of her dancing grandchild was not on YouTube is not a pivotal free speech case in my opinion. In contrast to say Lawrence Ferlinghetti publishing Howl, it just sounds whiny.
“When a single entity like a gaming company misuses takedown to squelch a bad review on YouTube”
Part of the motivation for that is because they have a relatively small window of opportunity to sell the thing before it gets pirated.
That may be, but it ain’t kosher to use copyright to try to silence a bad review. I cite the example because there was a story a few months ago where a gaming company misused DMCA to remove a popular and well-known reviewer’s video, who gave a new game a negative review. The company thought better of it, backed down, and reversed its takedown request; but these things do happen. People misuse copyright, and it gives ammunition to the anti-copyright crowd, who then blow these stories out of proportion. I doubt there’s a law on the books that some schuyster isn’t scamming somewhere, but we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Well yeah, shouldn’t be done but one can see why they may do that. Several years ago I had a website taken down by some travel site. They were pulling images from flickr to illustrate their pages, and claimed that the P10 vs Google case gave them a right to do so. So I framed their site with a banner describing their lack of ethics etc. They then complained about the framing ROTFL. My web page was back up in short order, the travel site is no more.
Does every free speech concern have to be “pivotal,” to be valid?
How does allowing content owners to “back down,” after they’ve achieved their goal of suppressing dissent, reduce incentives to engage in this kind of behavior?
How do we “come anywhere near writing a new law that will benefit the majority of interests,” when we demand that any concerns, other than those of the content owners, be “relegated to the peanut gallery?”
Hey, Daryl. Good questions, but allow me to challenge a few assumptions and answer your first question generally with a “yes.” If we’re talking about free speech as civil right that is either in good form or under attack, I think cases of infringement need a bit of gravitas to be significant. I think it’s fair to say that free speech is in pretty good shape right now and that many of the perceived “threats” to its health are concocted by an industry that wants to convince people its interests are synonymous with public interests. I mention the case of Lenz v UMG because, although the EFF has decided it’s an important case, it doesn’t even compare to any actual cases of DMCA abuse. But it has UMG and Prince involved, which makes for better headlines that get people riled up. The reality is, in a case like that, the error that caused the temporary takedown is a pain in the neck for YouTube and for UMG, which is why there’s mutual interest in crafting a better system — either voluntary or statutory.
That brings me to your second question which is predicated on a widely held but false belief that content owners are rationally, financially, or ideologically disposed to suppressing dissent. As mentioned with the example of the game company, individual actors will occasionally misuse copyright to silence a bad review or something, and it almost always backfires. More problematic are bad-actor lawyers (copyright trolls), who are the ambulance chasers of IP and extract fees from people via scary letters and threats of legal action over dubious infringements. But all of that is dwarfed by the literally millions of content creators out there who a) mostly want to produce their work and not spend resources they don’t have trying to protect it; and b) fully believe in the principle that free speech must be applied universally in order for them to retain their own rights to produce that work in the first place. Content creators have always been at the forefront of free speech protections, hence my reference to Howl.
So, it’s not that free speech concerns should be relegated to the peanut gallery — and I can guarantee there are no serious copyright proponents who don’t put the First Amendment first — only that the narrative that content owners have the upper hand and are just trying to suppress speech should be relegated to the peanut gallery. Ultimately, there will be compromise; the two industries that are at odds aren’t going anywhere.
BTW, I do (mostly) respect copyright. I own no “pirated” digital content. I do engage in file-sharing, i.e., I share physical books, music, and movies with friends.
A couple of years ago, I returned for refund a couple of copies of a DVD I’d purchased (one as a Christmas gift) when I learned the YouTube snippet by which I’d discovered the DVD had been DMCA’d between the time I placed my order and the time it arrived. I was trying to show the video to another friend, who I thought would be interested in purchasing the DVD. I figured since my discovery offended the content owner, the most complete restitution I could make was a return, as nearly as possible, to the state of ignorance that existed prior to my stumbling on the offending snippet.
I understand your example, Daryl, and there’s no question that sometimes this stuff gets silly. Without details, it’s hard to say anything about that one particular takedown. The one thing I think people forget in this equation, though, is that while YouTube is ubiquitous and a great tool for a lot of things, it is also a money-printing machine for Google. When a content owner takes something down, it’s not the viewing audience he/she is necessarily objecting to so much as the ad revenue Google gets to generate without permission or compensation. Naturally, every case is a little different, mistakes are made, etc. I think we also forget that good quality video streaming is just about five years old, so everybody is still working this stuff out.
Daryl,
Technically, you did commit copyright infringement by virtue of viewing the video your computer necessarily produced a copy. A copy that was clearly unauthorized by the copyright holder. Copyright infringement.
Of course, this is completely fucking absurd and I don’t think even the biggest copyright troll would actually sue people for not verifying the legality of every packet incoming to their computer systems. But the fact that they even wield this power theoretically is scary as hell.
Sam,
Copyright is already one of the easiest laws to enforce. Proponents of copyright call copyright infringement “theft” (apparently “piracy” is out of vogue). But they don’t you know, want to prosecute copyright infringement like real theft. That would be better inconvenient. Because you’d actually need to involve a judge. It’s more convenient to call copyright infringement theft for propaganda purposes, but not for legal purposes, because the law gives more tools to protect imaginary works that and those tools are far stronger then it does for physical property. IANAL, but I don’t know many laws that allow accusers to unilaterally take action without any judicial review. Copyright is the only one I can think of. And yet, they want more power, more, more more! It’s ridiculous. Of course, it’s a evil Google conspiracy when they don’t get what they want. No, it can’t be that they are literally acting like fascists in the hopeless goal of protecting their business models.
You didn’t mention this, but I want to mention that the anti-circumvention stuff in the DMCA (chapter 12) is completely revolting. It makes criminal offense to merely publish knowledge of vulnerabilities – that is – if those vulnerabilities effect a copyright protection system. Literally, it’s a attempt to establish “security by obscurity” as a legal framework by muzzling things like academic research on the weaknesses of DRM systems.
Fortunately in practice, it’s enforced rarely. Actually any time chapter was is in any way enforced, or if there is a mere hint that someone will try to enforce it, there has literally been small revolts on the Internet of wide civil disobedience in these cases. I remember browsing Digg back when it was actually a big deal and seeing every single article of every single page in every single section be a post about the newly found HD-DVD key. This is because the content cartel was attempting to censor all discourse about this new vulnerability in their DRM system on the website. Obviously, that backfired quite hard.
There just seems to be this powerful disgust in the general public when a legal regime attempts to censor such things that it just explodes – the Streisand effect. Happens often. So the law is totally ineffective really, but it’s still a disgusting law in a supposedly free country, because of what it even attempts to do.
“Copyright is already one of the easiest laws to enforce”
“the law is totally ineffective …”
Strange conclusion to your opening line…
Are you Schizophrenic? Or does your blind hatred, well… blind you?
The DMCA was written in the 1990’s, i agree it needs an update. It does need strengthening because, as your conclusion says “the law is totally ineffective..”.
thanks for agreeing.
Right, that was probably unclear. Copyright is the easiest to enforce int he sense that it has the most enforcement options. Like compared to someone stealing a physical thing from you, you can’t just take it back from them with a simple accusation. Copyright is the only law I know of where a accuser can take action without no judicial oversight or even evidence. You can not see anything wrong with that?
It’s hard to enforce because almost nobody respects it. I’ve seen copyright proponents violate copyright. This guy who posts here, FarePlay, has a blog where he copy and pastes snippets and images from across the Internet sometimes he doesn’t even bother attributing it. It’s only once I called him out on it that he seems to have changed his behavior (a little). The proposer of SOPA was caught doing similar things. If the strongest proponents of copyright are bone-fide thieves by their own definition, how can you convince the general public that they should be respecting copyright.
The thing is, when a law isn’t respected by most of the population, it shouldn’t be a law. This is how democracy works. On music even, it’s barely been a hundred years that the concept of copyright even existed. It worked for a time, but it doesn’t really work very well anymore. Yeah it sucks that you can’t figure out how to make money without strong copy controls. But you know, your right to make money isn’t a right. Get a different job.
Ultimately though I don’t give a shit either way. I’ll continue to fight the movements of the copyright cartel because of all the random abuse they cause. But that’s been kind of boring lately. They were a big deal, unstoppable politically even, but now they are guppies. After they’ve been trashed by Blackout Day, the copyright cartel is now former shadow of themselves politically, and seemingly incapable any real action that I can see. So they now participate in these abstract discussions about copyright that are *gasp* balanced with people who don’t hold their views and they get the opportunity to whine about their opposition every now and then. Great.
None of that even matters though, the game has stacked against the copyright cartel ever since the invention of the computer and the computer network. Technology has stuck a fatal blow to copyright and no law will change that. You’ll never get working copy control. That went away when everyone effectively got a post-scarce printing press on their desks. You might as well legislate laws of nature while you are at it. Good luck with that. Or you could, you know, Get. A. Different. Job.
Hell I forgot to mention that even David admitted to “copyright theft”. Why did David do that? Because he had a fucking printing press on his desk that made it easy to do so. It is really, really telling that even literally, the biggest proponents of copyright on the Internet who have blogs dedicated to defending it commit copyright infringement. And the only we found about this case is because he admitted it. It’s notoriously hard to detect copyright infringement without a flat out admission, obviously.
It always makes wonder how many copyright proponents have little warez and music folders stashed away on their hard drives? I mean, surely all the “broke musicians” who complain about not having enough money for rent somehow have enough money around to buy all their music legitimately. 🙂
As usual, M, you expend no shortage of energy missing the point and then conjuring images out of your imagination to support your position. You may not be surprised to know that quite a number of copyright proponents read this blog, and you might have noticed that none of them jumped on me for that post in which I admitted to making one copy of a CD for my assistant. I wrote the post to illustrate the fact — and it is fact — that neither the industry level producers nor the individual artists are remotely concerned with pre-Internet scale infringements, despite the frequency with which copyright opponents like to compare mass piracy with making mix tapes in the 1970s and 80s. Because you’re wrong about the technology motivating the copy I made for my assistant. Had it been 1986, I would have made her a cassette tape, which would technically be a violation of copyright and would still be at a scale that nobody has ever really been very fussed about. To compare this with a for-profit pirate site is simply absurd, but it is that scale of infringement with which content creators are concerned. And do not kid yourself for one moment that this is about big studios alone. The small, independent producer is exponentially more vulnerable than the big corporations.
The fact that you wonder if those of us who support copyright are secret copyright infringers on some mass scale is of less than no consequence and is a very weak debating strategy just this side of “I know you are, but what am I.” That you continue to use terms like “copyright cartel” is just silly. You might as well say “neighborhood cartel” or “community cartel.” Draw a circle on a map around your home describing a 30 mile radius, and there are probably more copyright-supported jobs inside that circle than you realize. If you don’t see how their economic health is related to your economic health, that’s a flaw in your own thinking.
David,
That argument is silly. Sure, you know, it’s a tiny infringement to rip a CD for a coworker, but multiply by it by millions of instances and it suddenly becomes huge.
The RIAA themselves have claimed that so called offline piracy is the most common avenue illicit music gets shared. Which is not surprising, this “harmless”, casual piracy is more convenient and more personal, and legally much safer (unless they start hiring friends and family informants like in the book 1984).
It’s also faster, transferring data equivalent to tens of thousands of songs from local media takes minutes at most, there aren’t many residential internet connections that can match local transfer speeds. Especially in places where youth congregate, such as colleges, the accumulation of illicit works through offline piracy can rival anything a hardcore “Internet” pirate is capable of acquiring.
For you David 🙂
What a pointless editorial and video.
The editorial, to its credit, does recognize that the burden of identifying infringing material must lie on the copyright holder, since they are in the best position to know and to care about their own interests. And it recognizes the problem of unjustified takedown notices.
But it mainly seems to complain about pirate servers located outside of the US. Well, US copyright law doesn’t apply outside of our own borders. Never has, and there’s no real mechanism for it to do so. The LA Times’ complaints should be addressed to the governments of the rest of the world, who are perfectly entitled to not care if piracy of US works serves their interests more than increased copyright enforcement. (Much as the US was happy to be a pirate nation for the 18th and most of the 19th centuries)
The video is even worse. Sending form emails using URLs in a text file (or just scraped directly out of a web browser) is a trivial programming task. If there isn’t a product on the market that can do this, well, it might be a good business opportunity for some copyright maximalist to sit down and write it or commission it, and to then sell it to authors. Or it could be run as a service where for an affordable fee, someone will do the work for you. In any event, the DMCA is hardly ‘broken’ because it takes a long time to scroll through a long text file or to send a bunch of emails by hand. We have computers precisely to automate this sort of thing. Looks to me like they tried nothing to deal with it and then gave up. Disgusting.
Of course I do agree that there needs to be some human involvement in making sure that the work in question actually is arguably infringing. It can’t be totally automated. Or at least there should be material penalties for sending out erroneous notices, as there’s no real reason that such a thing has to occur.
No, if I were asked to say why the DMCA is broken I’d say that we need to repeal all of chapter 12. Section 512 isn’t perfect but only needs a little touching up. Without it (and a few other things like section 230 of the CDA), the Internet as we know it would practically not exist.
The volumes of available evidence to refute what you’re saying are easy to find and not worth repeating on this thread yet again, but thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Is there not a difference in your mind between going around your mates house with a couple of LPs and taping them in an evening, compared to going around with a 1TB portable drive with 1000s of LPs?
The 1000 LPs are unlikely to have been bought by the person with the portable drive. Its not a personal “Hey listen to this LP I got its really great”. Its more “Here have a copy of the 1000 LPs I’ve got from someone else”.
It’s copyright infringement either way. Nobody is like “hey Matt, I know we are friends and stuff, but you hit the arbitrary 10 song share limit where this random blogger claims sharing turns into piracy. Now I can’t share any more with you.”
It’s actually a lot less effort to simply copy and paste Matt’s whole damn music collection then to pick out individual tracks! This is how casual collectors (ie. famous NPR girl) can acquire tens of thousands dollars of music without really much effort.
The difference is technology has made data transfer and capacities much better, not that people were magically more honest in the 80s. It’s not unrealistic to say you can fit an entire record store worth of music in your pocket. Copyright is breaking down because of technological advancements. Actually, this is also why music is hurting a lot more then movies, nothing to do with music industry being better or worse then anti-piracy, but everything to do with the fact that music files are just much, much, smaller.
Here’s just one very simple example of what happens in the real world: and independent producer of a project, like a doc film, has invested her own money and/or that of very few limited partners, and she’s about to sign a licensing deal to distribute or run it on a network. But the licensing deal will fall through because the film has been pirated and made freely available to the entire viewing population. The independent producer and/or her limited partners face the real possibility that they will not recoup their investment in this film and may well not be making the next film. This scenario, which is potentially devastating to the independent producers of content, has never resulted from casual, pre-internet type infringements like making mix tapes for girlfriends and such.
The only thing you’re saying, M, that is true is essentially the moral point that “wrong is wrong.” Shoplifting a candy bar is wrong and so is house burglary, although there’s a reason the penalties are going to be quite different for those two crimes. You are wrong, however, to suggest that the line is so arbitrary today regarding copyright infringement. As I have repeated here many times, even you sharing your entire collection with five friends is, at this point, of little consequence to anyone in the content creation business. Large-scale, for-profit, pirate sites is the topic; it’s the only topic when it comes to the subject of “file sharing.” If these multi-million-dollar, illegal enterprises were wiped out or reduced to having a marginal impact, the broad copyright community would be very happy and would still give less than no shit about what you do with your CD collection.
Much as you like to think so, copyright is not inherently breaking down because of technology. What’s being “broken down” is value placed on commodities that people actually still want, and that’s a contradiction that needs to be reconciled. If copyright disappears, much of the best content will disappear with it. You’re also only half right about your contrast of the music and movie industries. The file size is primarily relevant with regard to how long each industry has been dealing with the problem. Music files have been sharable in a quality people will listen to (crap that it is) for about fifteen years. Filmed entertainment has only really functioned over the internet for about five years. We have yet to see where film will be, although the industries are such different animals at both the studio and indie levels that the comparisons are almost not worth making. Even the way people consume filmed entertainment is different from music, which plays a significant role in the financial health (or not) of the industry, and consumption habits may continue to change with demographic shifts. There are many factors to consider in trying to predict what the next decade will look like for filmed entertainment; but as a technologist, surely you know that today’s TB is yesterday’s mb, so file size probably isn’t a relevant point of inquiry. What I can say for sure about film right now is that the independent producer who raises just enough money to sweat out a first feature that gets some notoriety is completely vulnerable to large-scale piracy and nearly defenseless.
Yes, you can carry a record store around in your pocket but so what. Listening to music is actually a time-based activity. It takes time to really know, to become personally invested, with music. What I see now in this time is a lot of people acquiring these huge music collections but actually not listening to much music. If you really know 15 albums, albums that have meaning to you, that maybe have impacted how you walk in this world, then you have participated in the musical loop between an artist/performer and audience.
It’s like the name of David’s blog, the “illusion” of more. People carry around terra-bytes of low-fidelity (another whole topic) versions of complete genres of music but aren’t getting the intent of or benefit from those recordings. It’s not about acquiring volume it’s about sitting down, slowing down, and listening to the music. Find the 20 albums that will change your life.
No David, even if you magically got rid of Internet piracy (which you really can’t, short of somehow monitoring everything everyone does on the Internet), the music industry specifically will still be fucked because of offline piracy.
Again, it’s no longer like the mix tapes of the 80s, which I will remind you, were also killing music according to the record industry of the time.
Thanks to computer technology NOT EVEN RELATED TO NETWORKING, you can literally make perfect replicas of more music then even the most avid music collector would have collected in their lifetimes. And you can do it in minutes.
I’m sorry, but how exactly can you have working copyright in a world like that? That’s why the recorded music industry is fucked. You are relying on people basically vowing poverty and and acting like digital monks for the abstract good of the industry. I believe that film is not harmed as much at this point, but as I mentioned, mostly because a HD video that is even compressed is something like three orders of magnitude more data then a music track. Nothing to do with people valuing film as a field over music. In the other end of the spectrum, the only reason people aren’t copying cars and shit like that is because the technology to copy large complex objects like a car doesn’t really exist. Once it does, ever it ever does, you better believe car piracy would be rampant and BMW and Toyota will cry fowl.
The difference is between taking an extra pen from the works store cupboard and using it to write personal letters, and taking the entire contents of the store cupboard and distributing the pens, pencils, paper, and envelops to the people at the bus stop.
Your boss is unlikely to complain about the former, but call the police about the later,
David–
No, no; I seem to have missed them, and I’d appreciate the volumes.
The editorial does say that copyright holders should shoulder the burden of identifying infringing copies. Here’s the quote: “It’s appropriate that content owners bear the responsibility for enforcing their copyrights; after all, they’re the only ones who know for sure whether an upload was authorized.” And it recognizes the problem of unjustified takedown notices: “The challenge is to ramp up the takedowns without overwhelming sites with notices or removing links that aren’t infringing. Some copyright holders have generated blizzards of takedown notices with bots that can’t distinguish between fair uses and illegal copies.” And its chief complaint does seem to be with foreign sites which aren’t subject to the DMCA anyway: “But the notice-and-takedown system isn’t much help against foreign sites that ignore takedown notices or neuter them by rapidly re-posting pirated files.”
I don’t plan on wasting my time with the video again, but it mainly consisted of scrolling through long lists of URLs and such, and that’s the sort of thing best automated (although with some level of human oversight). Indeed, we know that automated DMCA notice systems exist, as they’ve been used abusively for a while.
What I said about section 12 is indeed my opinion of it. And I think the need for protecting Internet services from massive civil liability caused by third parties is hardly up for debate.
So by all means David, please provide an actual refutation, instead of just saying that one exists.
The grounds for your criticism of the editorial, unless I misread you, amount to a variation on the theme that unjustified takedown notices are a chronic problem, even that willful and malicious takedowns are rampant, which is neither true nor rational. Automated takedown systems are flawed because they’re automated and because domestic sites like YouTube are run by people who aren’t particularly inclined to want to help address infringement unless they’re forced to. Moreover, even automation mistakes are transformed into “big” cases like Lenz whereby the EFF attempts to prove willful, unwarranted takedown. Because it’s a really good case of civil rights infringement? No. Because it involves UMG and Prince, which makes it a good story. The fact remains that wrongful DMCA takedowns, whether accidental or abusive, are the exception to the rule while mass-scale piracy is actually the rule. If DMCA abuse were occurring on the same scale as piracy, there probably wouldn’t be anything on YouTube except a bunch of cat videos.
The fact that you bother referencing the editorial’s “problem with foreign sites” makes me wonder what story you’ve been following. All of the sites whose business models are based on mass infringement are located outside the U.S. If any such site were located inside the U.S., the FBI could walk in the door, shut it down, and haul everyone off in handcuffs. It isn’t just that editorial, but really the entire content-owning universe that has a problem with foreign-based sites dedicated to the business of infringement. That is the piracy landscape, so I fail to see your point other than to play games when you say content owners should take their issues up with foreign countries. They do through trade negotiations, and that is also criticized by web activists and the anti-copyright crowd. Regardless, I have no idea what that has to do with the point being made by the editorial.
The video is merely illustrating scale for those who don’t know. An independent content owner, who does not have automated systems, has no remedy for removing unlicensed content from these foreign sites and may even have a fairly difficult time using DMCA domestically. The truth is that most independents simply give up trying to protect their works in these cases, which is why it is particularly offensive to encounter the drumbeat that rampant abuse of this impotent mechanism is a threat to civil liberty and the very existence of the internet.
If you want to say DMCA isn’t working for anybody, I’m inclined to agree; but the implication that content owners want a new mechanism to chill speech doesn’t belong in a serious conversation.
“Indeed, we know that automated DMCA notice systems exist, as they’ve been used abusively for a while.”
Really? One copyright holder recently sent their 100 millionth DMCA to YouTube. If there is such abusive mechanisms we should have a huge long list of such abuses and a large number of abusers up before the courts. We aren’t seeing that.
It was actually the recording industry as a whole that had sent the 100 millionth takedown notice, not a singe rights holder, but your point is correct. Abuses and mistakes occur, but not commensurate with the scale of piracy.
I don’t like this whole ratio of acceptability argument. I see this number like 3%, and well it is okay because only 3% of the time the DMCA is used incorrectly. The 97% justifiable it. So when is it no longer okay? 4%? 5%? You know that, well, at least it’s not abused all that much is a totally bullshit argument. The whole idea that the law, part of the same legal system that apparently protects freedom of speech, allows for basically anyone to unilaterally takedown speech online, where no evidence of wrongdoing is actually necessary, no court of law is involved, no due process, nothing. The fact that this even exists is contrary to the basic idea of what civil liberties are. Even if it was never abused in practice.
justifies*
Are you a scarecrow? Your straw[men] is showing.
No one ever once said that false dmca notices were “ok”.. Just that it is a much smaller problem than mass scale piracy. There is a very simple mechanism built into the law for incorrect takedowns… it is called the counter-notice.. No such mechanism exists for mass scale global piracy.
You miss my point. The power of the DMCA gives anyone the ability to unilaterally expurgate speech with no judicial process. This is irreconcilable with the very concept of a free society.
It really doesn’t give people that power. One need look no further than the EFF’s own communications and caseload in this regard to see that the “problem” does not threaten speech. DMCA is too impotent a system to threaten speech. People who think it does have forgotten what real threats to free expression look like.
Free speech is rarely contingent on the reproduction of the speech of someone else. In the vanishingly small cases where it is, then when can invoke provisions of the DMCA back and get ones day in court.
The 3% number is Google bullshit. Incorporated into that 3% are the duplicate notices. Some one files a DMCA with list of 100 infringing items and 4 are duplicates then Google reports 3% weren’t acted upon, even though the removed 100% of the links reported.
@ David
How can you possibly suggest that Automattic Inc. and Oliver Hotham v. Nick Steiner or Automattic Inc. and Retraction Watch LLC v. Narendra Chatwal aren’t direct attacks on free speech? They’re textbook examples.
@ John Warr
What’s your source on that? Or, if you have one (I don’t know if one’s available?), a source on legitimate vs illegitimate takedown notices?
Preferably an independent study. I agree that Google shouldn’t be taken at face value on this but, in an ideal world, we don’t just want to swap them out with another party that has a direct commercial interest in the matter.
Sam, I don’t argue at all that individual cases of abuse are not attacks on speech, and I’m actually glad the EFF et al take on some of these cases. It’s an important component of the big picture. What I balk at is the politicizing of these individual cases into a false narrative that they represent a universal desire among content owners to pursue their interests to the detriment of speech or that speech itself in in jeopardy or that the majority of content owners are actually hostile to speech as a civil right.
If some oversized bully threatens another person because of a slogan on his tee shirt or something, the bully has just infringed that person’s right of free expression (and committed assault). This kind of infringement happens in physical space every day. Does it mean free speech itself is in danger of withering as a right? I guess it would depend on how many bullies there are.
As I’ve said before I take and post photos of various things. From time to time they have appeared on travel sites, real estate sites, commercial blogs, or other places selling crap. For me, as I don’t want the photos associated with blatant commercial activity, the DMCA works. Mostly at the direct “Oh you stop doing that” level, but on the occasion when told to fuck off, then their hosting site.
That ain’t a free speech issue, but a find a way to sell your shit some other way issue.
Right. Now, imagine your photos are on literally thousands of sites outside the reach of U.S. law. Those sites will universally tell you to fuck off because they can. As for the domestic, commercial use, I would go ahead and extract fees. You’re entitled to them, and those uses are purely exploitative.
Check the Google Transparency Report. Click on the entries where they say they didn’t take any action, mostly it is because the DMCA wasn’t filled out correctly or because the link not acted upon was a duplicate of another.
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/1108583/
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/1107226/
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/1108832/
I think the 3% is simply the # of DMCA requests Google rejects. That’s not equivalent to saying that the other 97% is appropriate, only that 3% were are so obviously wrong that Google is willing to risk copyright liability to deny them.
The content industry makes millions of such requests per month. Forgot a judge, there isn’t even a human involved in this rapid-fire injunction process. It’s copyright robocops spidering the Internet and making what can only be simplified judgement calls on ultimately what human speech is allowed online (or bird speech, whatever).
OK petal. There were close to 27 million search takedowns last month if there are anywhere near 3% of abusive ones then we’ll be seeing about 800,000 instances of ‘bird song’ like takedowns. So given that the abusive ones are so frequent, unless of course what we are seeing here is a rare mishap, you’ll be able to easily provide at least 0.1% of those.
That’s the thing. For instance, I run into random videos on YouTube all the time that are taken down. I couldn’t tell you if they were legitimate or not because they are taken down. I don’t know why they were taken down, only that they were taken down. The DMCA itself makes it difficult to gain visibility into its mechanics. One of the most important aspects of the judicial process is gone.
I’d be interested in learning how these apparently artificially intelligent robocops you claim have near perfect copyright infringement judgement ability actually work. Is that documented anywhere?
And what has it got to do with you? Check on chillingeffects if you are that nosy.
Given that the vast majority of YouTube uploads are infringing chances are good that it was taken down because of some infringement. Invariably the music is ripped off and the label/artist may or may agree to running ads against, almost always the images in the slideshow are ripped off too.The music gets paid, google gets paid, the other half of the video equation gets sweet fuck all. So why shouldn’t the photogs be aggrieved about that?
Google et al have made a business by providing a platform where others can upload copyright material that doesn’t belong to them and Google profits by the action of billions of violations.
Personally I don’t give a crap about someone making a slideshow video using my photos and uploading it to the web. If it was ad free and uploaders were changed a small amount for accounts it would be fair enough. I do have a problem with commercial companies extracting micro pennies from that activity though. Its a bit like banks rounding down interest payments to the nearest penny and pocketing the difference.
Just stumbled on this shortly after reading your post. Talk about timing.
And? They send a counternotice – problem sorted. One off examples, tedious as they may be to those receiving them, are of no consequence amongst the millions of DMCAs issued each month. You need show 2,700,000 other examples before you approach the level of “stop and frisk” of innocent people in NYC.
http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data
Nope, it’s still down.
Interesting though, when stuff these false DMCA takedowns happen though, when it’s something high profile like this it can make the news. And looking at comments sections I find that there is an almost collective disgust that a corporation can take down someone’s video without any judicial oversight. That’s what you don’t seem to get. You are obsessed with ratios (but X number to X number), but it’s the simply ACT that anyone can just around and take down anyone’s video (aka. shoot-and-ask-questions later), that goes contrary to our idea of what justice is.
At the end of the day, the DMCA is a totally fucked up law because it puts the consequences before facts. And I challenge you to find anything that is similar in our legal system. I can even challenge a parking ticket without having to pay it first. But you are playing games with people’s freedom of speech. And that’s just fucked up. Sorry.
Most of the errors are due to automation, and automation is a response to hosting sites like YouTube being unwilling partners in finding solutions to mass infringement, and this is because YouTube attained its market value by getting away with mass infringement first and sorting it out after the fact. So, you might hear the familiar refrain in this historical perspective as to how we got here. The solution to wrongful takedowns is not free-wheeling infringement for profit. Also, a wrongful use of a creator’s work can be an infringement on speech as well, so your unilateral view that somehow the copyright holder is not also a speaker doesn’t make a lot of sense. It’s all about trying to balance everyone’s right, and I’m not surprised that bots don’t do a particularly good job of that.
” Also, a wrongful use of a creator’s work can be an infringement on speech as well, so your unilateral view that somehow the copyright holder is not also a speaker doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
That’s fine David. Surely a violation of a author’s copyright, is one if it is determined to be so by the justice system. The DMCA skips all the “nonsense” of having to actual prove injury. That is what makes it fucked up. I feel keep having to repeat myself, but the fucked up thing has NOTHING to do with the idea of copyright itself in this case, but rather, that via the DMCA specifically, anyone can enforce injunctions on anyone else with no judicial process, no evidence, no due process at all. I wish it even stopped there. No it’s even human initiating these injunctions, but the word of a robot with secret circuitry. Literally, you yourself just admitted that. This is enough enough effort to take people’s speech offline, a right to be heard that is ensured in our fucking Constitution.
And my friends:
THAT.
IS.
FUCKED.
UP.
You caught us, M. Copyright proponents hate free speech and the “fucking Constitution.” This dialogue would go better if everyone would just calm down. People call artists and other rights holders whiners, but never the yahoos with their remixes and cat videos and shit. It’s all speech, and everybody’s entitled to it, and there are probably more restrictions in day-to-day real life to your speech than you’re likely to experience via the DMCA. So, if we can look at both sides of the issue in plain terms rather than getting all hyped up as though the Bill of Rights is in peril, I think it might help.
I think that before they start bitchin’ about the inconvenience of a YouTube video temporary takedown – especially when the video is available else where – they ought to be bitchin’ about 10000s of innocent people being stopped by the man and frisked in NYC without judicial oversight. Seems to me that y’all have your sense of justice arse backwards.
David–
“The grounds for your criticism of the editorial, unless I misread you, amount to a variation on the theme that unjustified takedown notices are a chronic problem, even that willful and malicious takedowns are rampant, which is neither true nor rational.”
Then indeed, you have misunderstood me. While there is enough of a problem with erroneous takedown notices that there should be some form of penalty for sending them out, which would likely solve the problem of unattended automated notices, I don’t think it’s a big problem, and I have no clue where you’re getting what you thought I said given that I only spent two sentences on erroneous takedown notices out of six paragraphs.
“domestic sites like YouTube are run by people who aren’t particularly inclined to want to help address infringement unless they’re forced to”
Is that surprising or concerning? It’s not their job to stop infringement and it does nothing to aid their bottom line. If you want them to do something about it, you’ll have to either make it worth their while by offering them some sort of benefit that outweighs the hassle to them, or you’ll have to force them to do it, with some sort of penalty for noncompliance. Carrot or stick; why would it be otherwise?
“The fact remains that wrongful DMCA takedowns, whether accidental or abusive, are the exception to the rule”
But there’s still no excuse for them. And if strict liability is a good enough standard to hold copyright infringers to, surely it is a good enough standard to hold copyright holders to. Alternatively, if you think that a mere negligence standard would suffice for erroneous takedowns, why not for infringement? (In fact, why not for infringement? A negligence standard sounds like it would be better than what we’ve got now. But that’s a different discussion.)
“The fact that you bother referencing the editorial’s “problem with foreign sites” makes me wonder what story you’ve been following.”
Well that was the gist of the editorial, which spent three paragraphs discussing the relevant history and the current situation, one to the fact that the DMCA works. (Although the publishing industries still aren’t happy with it, because while it does what it says on the can, they’re being overwhelmed by individuals who use these sites en masse) Then a paragraph on how the DMCA doesn’t work abroad, where different measures are required. And finally a paragraph saying that things should be different. There was very little argument for anything there, but my takeaway was that the DMCA is working domestically — though the industry doesn’t like how hard they have to work to use it — but that in an age of global telecommunications, that’s not so useful.
“They do through trade negotiations, and that is also criticized by web activists and the anti-copyright crowd.”
Well, the criticism is bifold. First there are the usual complaints that we have excessive copyright protection. But second are complaints — quite legitimate ones, too — that trade negotiations are being used to subvert democratic processes.
Personally, I don’t think that the US should participate in any form of copyright treaties at all; we should do what’s best for ourselves and encourage other countries to do what’s best for themselves. For our part, I hope we’d unilaterally grant national treatment for foreign works, but still have substantially less copyright protection in both scope and duration than we do now.
But if we’re going to have trade treaties, then they should be fully public throughout the negotiations (after all, this isn’t a matter of national security, or personal privacy, which are among the few justifications for governments keeping secrets), should be kept separate from other, unrelated issues lest one ride the other’s coattails unjustifiably, and democratically elected officials should participate and in general pursue what is in the best interests of the nation, of their constituents, while also listening to what their constituents are telling them. That is, it should all be impeccably above board. Why isn’t it impeccably above board now, David?
“An independent content owner, who does not have automated systems, has no remedy for removing unlicensed content from these foreign sites and may even have a fairly difficult time using DMCA domestically.”
As I said, business opportunity. Someone could make a smartphone app. If I were any good at programming, I’d give it a shot. At least for the domestic DMCA stuff. If other countries don’t have a similar process, then it’s going to have to be lawsuits. Lawsuits work for millions of litigants all around the world all the time. What’s so special about artists that it’s all too difficult for them? I’m afraid I have no patience for such affected helplessness. Art may be an airy, creative enterprise, untethered with worldly concerns, but copyright is pure business. An author suing someone for infringement is not materially different from an importer suing a foreign manufacturer for sending the wrong sorts of goods.
“If you want to say DMCA isn’t working for anybody, I’m inclined to agree”
I think that section 512 is lousy, but it’s better than nothing. My bigger complaint is with chapter 12, as I said.
“but the implication that content owners want a new mechanism to chill speech doesn’t belong in a serious conversation”
And yet you’re the one who brought it up, not me. Do you protest too much?
So, since I hate doing line by line responses that turn into 10,000-word threads, I’ll try to summarize: you don’t like copyright and are none to fond of artists. I’m not sure why artists trying to protect their work are “affecting helplessness” while people whining about their dumb home movies accidentally being taken down is a human deprivation beyond all tolerance, but we all have our different world views. I leap to the First Amendment matter because your intolerance for wrongful takedowns, even in error, is best justified if the First Amendment itself is really in peril. I reject this fear.
As for trade agreements, I assume you’re referring to the TPP. If you want a complete answer to the “secretive” negotiations, ask someone at the USTR, but the basic principle is that 15 nations won’t accomplish a damn thing through national referendum at every stage of the process. Moreover, they’re not quite as secretive as some have exaggerated, with Hollywood somehow having the only stakeholder seat in the room. Say you don’t think these trade negotiations are good or that you don’t think copyright should be part of the conversation, and that’s one opinion — one with which I disagree — but the rationale behind the manner in which the negotiations are conducted is a separate issue. Similar to the first amendment thing, I reject the narrative that it’s all sinister and therefore secretive. Even more importantly, I think your notion of what “impeccably above board” might look like is an illusion. You mean more reporting on the Internet? After 5,000 Americans bother reading the neutral reportage on one of the most complex trade agreements in history and 2,000 of them understand it, the truth will still be drowned in a mosh pit of incendiary headlines, memes, and other short-attention-span gibberish. You’ve read the title of this blog, right?
David–
“So, since I hate doing line by line responses that turn into 10,000-word threads, I’ll try to summarize: you don’t like copyright and are none to fond of artists.”
I’m sorry, but you keep misreading me. I love the idea of copyright, I think it’s genius. I think that circumstances are such that we should certainly have a copyright law on the books and it should be enforced. I just don’t like the current statute. As for artists, I like them, I wish them well, but I am not going to put their commercial interests ahead of my own, and I expect they’ll behave similarly. But it’s possible to accomplish something even at arm’s length, so that’s no obstacle.
“I’m not sure why artists trying to protect their work are ‘affecting helplessness'”
They have a good remedy available to them and are choosing to not use it and even to pretend as though it doesn’t exist, in order to justify being given yet more remedies, that are easier for them to use, regardless of what burdens are placed on others.
I wonder if the RIAA’s and MPAA’s ideal copyright law would be like drone strikes: if they suspect someone of infringing, they can blow up the offender plus anyone around him, and any of his friends, anywhere in the world. Plus, it would be too burdensome for the actual rights holders to look for infringers or carry out such killings, so someone else will have to spend their time and money autonomously yet perfectly doing the industry’s bidding.
“I leap to the First Amendment matter because your intolerance for wrongful takedowns, even in error, is best justified if the First Amendment itself is really in peril.”
No, it’s just simple fairness. We have an official policy of no tolerance for copyright infringement in that no mens rea is required. I just don’t see why that strict standard should only be used as a sword against infringers and not as a shield against those who wrongfully accuse others of infringing.
“but the basic principle is that 15 nations won’t accomplish a damn thing through national referendum at every stage of the process.”
Well, let’s find out! And if you’re right, then maybe we should scale back our ambitions of having these grandiose super treaties between everyone at once. It’s not like that’s necessary.
“You mean more reporting on the Internet?”
No, not just the Internet.
David–
“Also, a wrongful use of a creator’s work can be an infringement on speech as well,”
I don’t see how. In fact that is one of the strangest claims I’ve ever heard. Would you care to explain further, or to provide an example?
The simplest and most common example would be using a creator’s work to sell something to which the creator is opposed, or to which he/she does not want to lend any voice. I don’t know what’s strange about calling that an infringement on speech. Surely the right to say nothing in favor of an insurance company or a fast food chain is protected by the First Amendment.
David–
No, I don’t think so. Free speech does include a right to be silent, and I would direct you to one of my all time favorite cases, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette for more on that.
However, the creator’s chance to be silent passed when he chose to create something instead.
If, say, a photographer had published a book of pictures of the Nazi death camps, he could not prevent a Neo Nazi bookstore (they probably also sell matches, the little shits) from selling post first sale copies of the book. The change in context would be appalling, as it would now be sold more or less for the purposes of propaganda or some sort of death porn without having to alter the book itself.
But copyright would allow it (it’s simple first sale), and so would the First Amendment (which isn’t enforceable against private entities anyway, in most cases). If the photographer didn’t like the context in which his work was found being changed around the work, he should not have created the work and taken the risk that it would occur.
I still don’t see how your argument about infringement of free speech is meant to work. At best it looks like you’re trying to describe publicity rights.
I have a crazy week, but thanks for the tip on the case, which I shall look up. In the meantime, it seems to me your Neo Nazi bookstore example is strictly first sale and has nothing to do with a case in which (an example I’ve used before) a Pete Seeger recording is used in a brand ID commercial for Shell Oil. Isn’t it fair to say that this famous environmentalist’s voice is being misappropriated in a way that chills his right to sing about the corruption of oil companies? On a cultural level, this has the ring of revisionist history through misuse of a speaker, which is one of the reasons separate from money that heirs want to protect legacy rights. You seem to be arguing that once a work is out there, it’s fair game, although in your other response, you say you love copyright. I don’t quite understand how these two sentiments align.
[The owner of the copyright, if he pleases, may refrain from vending or licensing, and content himself with simply exercising the right to exclude others from using his property.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/286/123/case.html%5D
That I grant a license to Joe Blow to print a book of photos, doesn’t stop a neo-nazi group from buying copies and selling or distributing them or even cutting up the pages and selling the pictures separately, but it doesn’t mean that they can print their own copies.
Example I believe that Google is one of the most corrupt businesses that we have seen in the last 30+ years. That it is an agent for nothing but harm in all aspects of life. So any images I create and put on the web will NOT be accessible via Google Image Search. I would encourage other content creators to do the same. Google’s business is nothing without the content that we allow them to skim.
You will not find any images by me selling any product. Though you will find them in plenty of non-commercial sites, turned into posters by charities, academic books, and teaching material. IOW what I create is by and large outside of the commercial sphere.
All the above is as much a political statement as standing outside funeral homes waving “God Hates Fags” placards it should garner the same protection in law.
David–
“I have a crazy week, but thanks for the tip on the case, which I shall look up.”
Yeah, you and me both. About Barnette: when you read it, please bear in mind that it happened in 1943, right in the midst of WW2.
“a Pete Seeger recording is used in a brand ID commercial for Shell Oil. Isn’t it fair to say that this famous environmentalist’s voice is being misappropriated in a way that chills his right to sing about the corruption of oil companies?”
No. I really feel that what you’re looking for are publicity rights, not copyrights.
Further, I don’t think that it would chill his speech (assuming he were alive); instead, I think that it would likely encourage more speech, that Seeger might counter Shell. And that would fit nicely into J. Brandeis’ concurrence in Whitney v. California. He was talking about speech that threatened the government, and the case is no longer good law, but this bit has always stood out: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom.”
“On a cultural level, this has the ring of revisionist history through misuse of a speaker, which is one of the reasons separate from money that heirs want to protect legacy rights.”
And that’s why it’s important to extinguish publicity rights upon death. The world rightly belongs to the living; a dead person’s reputation is not worth protecting through legal measures. They’ll suffer no harm, and since we don’t impute the sins of the father to the sons, the heirs will not suffer either. AFAICT the only voices to the contrary generally do focus on the money, actually.
“You seem to be arguing that once a work is out there, it’s fair game, although in your other response, you say you love copyright. I don’t quite understand how these two sentiments align.”
I love copyright because it is a great way of causing the creation and publication of works that would not otherwise be created and published, and because having accomplished that, it then imposes minimal limits on the public during the copyright term, and keeps the copyright term as short as possible too, so that the public domain is enlarged as fully and as rapidly as possible.
At least, that’s the idea. I did say that I didn’t like the current statute.
It’s easy to reconcile the idea of works being “fair game” with the ultimate purpose being to get more works into the public domain ASAP.
John–
I did say that the Neo Nazis were engaged in first sale. As for cutting up the books, IIRC there has been some dispute about that in the 9th Cir. in years past, but I’d see no legal problem with it.
[Further, I don’t think that it would chill his speech (assuming he were alive); instead, I think that it would likely encourage more speech, that Seeger might counter Shell.]
Nonsense. Someone should not be required to engage in any form of debate with someone that they are fundamentally opposed to, in order to stop the commercialization of their work.
http://reporter.blogs.com/files/slapp-order-2.pdf
John Warr–
“Nonsense. Someone should not be required to engage in any form of debate with someone that they are fundamentally opposed to, in order to stop the commercialization of their work.”
Sorry, but you seem to be responding to an argument that wasn’t made.
David, as near as I can tell, was arguing that if Shell could use a Pete Seeger recording in an advertisement, this would deter (chill) Seeger from making recordings in the first place, lest they be misused somehow in the future. Alternatively, if he did make a recording, and it were misused, this would infringe on his free speech right to have remained silent on the matter that his recording was being used for.
I pointed out that in the first case, Seeger would not lose his opportunity to respond, and that such a slight chance of chilling (basically amounting to not much more than holding your breath if you can’t have your way) wasn’t worth having the government silence Shell on Seeger’s behalf. And in the second case, I showed that it’s possible to grossly misuse speech without infringing on a copyright, and that having spoken by creating and publishing a work, any free speech argument along the lines David was making has already flown out the window.
I also kept pointing out that the far better route in such a case was based in publicity rights.
You seem to be arguing against J. Brandeis’ point that more speech is better than less, which I and most friends of free speech would disagree with, I think. And you also bolster my point about publicity rights by citing a publicity rights case.
But I don’t recall saying that people should be _required_ to respond, just that it’s better. Censorship is almost always bad, no matter how noble the reason for trying to wield it might appear. This includes censorship by means of an infringement suit.
Anonymous —
Actually, the point I was making had nothing to do with chilling Seeger from speaking in the first place and nothing to do with the kind of “misuse” you hypothesized in your first-sale example. Also, I don’t think the question at hand gets into refuting the basic principle that more speech is better. The progressive’s loathing of Citizens United demonstrates that we can uphold the more-is-better principle while still debate what exactly constitutes free expression. The question I’m posing is more narrow than you’ve interpreted, or than I’ve successfully communicated. The question is whether or not an infringing, albeit transformative, use of a copyrighted work can be said to infringe on the author’s right of free expression. The context in which I posed the question, as this is the DMCA thread, is one in which Lessig’s remix culture is allowed to rule the day, people can upload anything they want to YouTube without a second thought, and along comes Shell Oil with a new brand campaign edited to “This Land is Your Land.” Depending on the nature of the ad, how successful it is, etc. does it not in principle place Pete Seeger’s work in the unauthorized role of endorsement of something he abhors? And does this not constitute an infringement on his right of free expression?
Granted, the right to express oneself does not guarantee the right to be understood, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee the right not to be parodied in some context that would be fair use. In the above example, Seeger or his estate might pursue a case against Shell for violation of copyright, but the rationale for Seeger making that choice would arguably be about speech and not about money. When the Beastie Boys made a determination to universally reject use of their works in advertising, the roots of that decision are grounded in their freedom of expression.
I raise these corporate examples because they’re the more serious manifestation of free-wheeling “remix.” Citizens United equates corporations with people and equates money with speech. Combine this with the logical extensions of some of the arguments made for universal reuse of IP, and my example of an oil company bastardizing the work of an environmentalist artist isn’t terribly farfetched. Individuals have already shown a lack of tolerance for this kind of thing each time Facebook changes its TOS and sounds like its going to use your family photos, etc. anyway it wants (i.e. advertising). In fact, when the Facebook news feed tells me one of my vegetarian friends “Likes McDonalds,” I chuckle, but isn’t this putting words in her mouth in a way that violates her right to express her own views about McDonalds? How is this any less an infringement on my friend’s speech than the temporary removal of a home video from YouTube? Ergo, how is putting words in a famous artist’s mouth not a more profound example of the same kind of infringement?
If you agreed at all that speech is being infringed in any of these examples, you may consider the infringement to be very narrow, but is it any more narrow than claiming a grandma whose home video was temporarily removed by automation has had her speech infringed? One could argue that she was silenced for a period of time, but that begs a number of questions about what YouTube is — a commons, a promotional vehicle, a place to share private videos that only friends and family will care to see? It’s all of the above and a few things more, suppose. If Mrs. Lenz’s dancing baby video is removed for ten days and unwatchable to the perhaps 50 people who might have watched it in that time period, how does this contrast to Pete Seeger stumping for Shell Oil against his will in a national campaign that might be seen by millions in a matter of hours? If we both agree neither should happen in an ideal system, then I’m simply trying to put our shared interest in preservation of speech in some sort of reasonable context.
Real life example someone took a photo of a young women next to a horse and put the photo on flickr with CC-BY license. The photo was copied cropped and placed Wikipedia Commons and added to an article on Bestiality. The result was that the photographer removed all their photos from flickr.
If I come to believe that I cannot not stop Monsanto from reusing photos of insects in pest controls adverts, whilst allowing the reuse by wildlife refuge societies, I’d stop publishing such photos.