Urban and Quilter (2006)

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Urban and Quilter (2006)
Title: Efficient process or 'chilling effects'? Takedown notices under Section 512 of the digital millennium copyright act.
Author(s): Urban, J, Quilter, L.
Year: 2006
Citation: Urban, J. & Quilter, L. (2006). Efficient process or 'chilling effects'? Takedown notices under section 512 of the digital millennium copyright act. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal. 22, 621.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: Seng (2014), Seng (2015)
About the Data
Data Description: This study analyzes nearly 900 DMCA (17 USC 512) takedown notices from a variety of sources, including all notices received by Google through 2006.
Data Type: Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2006
Funder(s):

Abstract

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), codified at 17 USCA § 512,' was passed in 1998 as a compromise between the nation's copyright and online service provider (OSP) industries.The legislation, passed as Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, created a process that was intended to help copyright owners ensure rapid removal of allegedly infringing material from the Internet while guaranteeing compliant OSPs a safe harbor from liability for Internet users' acts of copyright infringement. This study analyzes nearly 900 DMCA (17 USC 512) takedown notices from a variety of sources, including all notices received by Google through 2006. Its findings comprise a rather negative snapshot of the ways in which the Section 512 process is being used, and reveal little benefit to some of the constituencies it was intended to support.

Main Results of the Study

  • Policy concerns related to questionable takedowns seem likely to increase in importance-however successful or problematic the process is, as the total number of notices sent over time rises, problematic notices may receive attention.
  • Some notices are sent in order to accomplish the paradigmatic goal of § 512-the inexpensive takedown of clearly infringing hosted content or links to infringing web sites. But this study’s data also show the process commonly being used for other purposes: to create leverage in a competitive marketplace, to protect rights not given by copyright, and to stifle criticism, commentary and fair use.
  • These unanticipated or unintended uses of the process are having a continuous and perhaps unquantifiable effect on public discourse. Doing a more detailed check on notices would often result in an assessment of risk of secondary liability in a "gray" situation- exactly what OSPs hoped to avoid through legal safe harbors.
  • In theory, such OSP behaviors might become a consumer choice-point, with consumers choosing OSPs more likely to resist overbroad takedowns, but the lack of public discussion of this issue suggests that consumers have little awareness of the issue or means to compare OSP behavior on this issue.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

Recognizing that significant file-sharing and copyright infringing behavior has shifted from the § 512(c) and (d) environment to the § 512(a) environment, where the notice-and-takedown procedures are ineffective, but widely implemented, we recommend Congress evaluate ways to provide compensation for copyright holders for unauthorized file-sharing.

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Green-tick.png
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)
Green-tick.png

Datasets

Sample size: 900
Level of aggregation: Takedown notices
Period of material under study: 2006