Nas (2004)
Contents
Source Details
Nas (2004) | |
Title: | The Multatuli Project ISP Notice & take down |
Author(s): | Nas, S. |
Year: | 2004 |
Citation: | Nas, S. (2004) The Multatuli Project ISP Notice & take down. Lecture by Sjoera Nas, Bits of Freedom. |
Link(s): | Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: | Marsoof and Gupta (2019) |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | In this pair of studies, the authors tested the level of scrutiny that ISPs gave to takedown notices before acting, by setting up fake web pages containing content, and then sending notices to the ISPs concerned asking for it to be removed. In both cases, the authors used work clearly in the public domain (published pre-20th Century), minimizing doubt that the content could be infringing. Ahlert et al. used portions of a chapter of John Stuart Mill's “On Liberty”, while Nas’ experiment used writing by Eduard Douwes Dekker, dating from 1871. The researchers sent takedown notices, purporting to originate from the non-existent ‘John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation’ and the ‘E.D. Dekkers Society’, using anonymous email addresses. |
Data Type: | Primary 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: |
|
Funder(s): |
Abstract
“Under the European E-Commerce directive internet hosting providers risk liability for apparently illegal content from their customers. Once they are notified, they should take immediate action to block or remove the content. How serious are providers in the Netherlands about their responsibility for the online freedom of speech? Should providers first ask their customer to respond to an allegation, or does 'immediate' mean they have to first shoot and ask questions later? What if the complaint about an alleged infringement lacks legal grounds?”
Main Results of the Study
In the two cases tested by Ahlert et al. (one UK and one American ISP), the UK web host acted immediately to block the test webpage, while the American ISP appeared willing to take action, but asked the researchers for further information before removing the content. Specifically, the US ISP asked the researchers to provide a statement “that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner” as well as a statement that the information contained in the takedown notice was accurate. The researchers decided not to pursue the experiment at that point. In the Dutch example (by Nas), a similar experiment using webpages created on 10 Dutch ISPs, 7 removed or blocked the webpage containing public domain material by Dekker, sometimes before notifying the owner of the website. A further 2 ISPs ignored the requests, while 1 ISP refused to take the material down because it determined it to be in the public domain.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The authors highlight the need for a safe harbour provision for ISPs, with ISPs only being compelled to act immediately (without notice to the creator) in cases of clear illegality. Furthermore, the authors suggest implementing an advice “hotline” for ISPs who are unsure about the legality of complaints; corresponding with this, penalties should be imposed on ISPs who wrongfully remove legal content. Lastly, the authors suggest that all ISPs provide a clear notice-and-takedown policy, with transparency provisions for yearly statistics on removed content.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
{{{Dataset}}}