Seng (2014)

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

Seng (2014)
Title: The state of the discordant union: An empirical analysis of DMCA takedown notices
Author(s): Seng, D.
Year: 2014
Citation: Seng, D. (2014). The state of the discordant union: An empirical analysis of DMCA takedown notices. 18 Va. J. L. & Tech. 369. Available at SSRN 2411915
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: Beard, Ford and Stern (2018), Carpou (2016), Cotropia and Gibson (2016), Dholakiya et al. (2014), Elkin-Koren, Nahmias and Perel (2019), Erickson and Kretschmer (2019), Ibosiola et al. (2019b), Urban, Karaganis and Schofield (2017a), Urban, Schofield and Karaganis (2017b)
About the Data
Data Description: For this study, the cut-off date for the notices in the base dataset is December 31, 2012. The notices were additionally post-processed to correct for errors. This yielded a slightly reduced dataset of 539,000 notices (N1=539,558) between January 2001 and December 2012 (“first dataset”). After a six-month long exploratory study, a decision was made to also conduct a census of all formbased notices submitted to Google within the first dataset (N2= 501,286 notices). It is this dataset that is used to analyze the notices and requests in this paper.
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:
  • 2012-2013
Funder(s):

Abstract

By conducting a census on half-a-million takedown notices and more than 50 million takedown requests in its datasets, this paper takes a detailed and systematic look at the state of the takedown process from an empirical perspective. It examines the use and issuance of takedown notices by copyright owners and reporters and the response of service providers to them. It further studies the relationship between the notices and requests and safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and identifies ways in which the takedown process can be further improved to preserve the diversity and freedom of the Internet.

Main Results of the Study

  • The DMCA takedown mechanism, a bold and innovative experiment that allows content owners, service providers and Internet users to arbitrate their differences, has worked remarkably well. And its success is due in no small part to its ability to temper our individual initiative and creativity with our commitment to participate in a positive way in a worldwide conversation.
  • But We have changed from sending notices with one or two takedown requests to sending thousands of notices with millions of requests to service providers.
  • With this comes a lack oftransparency about arrangements for automated submission and processing of “mega” notices, and of incessant user failure to respond to and correct abusive and erroneous takedowns.
  • In order to improve the situations, all notices by all reporters should be treatied fairly and equally. Infringing content should be accurately detected and removed with precision. The online voices of the small and disenfranchised must be preserved, otherwise they may be silenced forever.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

All notices by all reporters should be treated fairly and equally. Infringing content should be accurately detected and removed with precision. The online voices of the small and disenfranchised must be preserved, otherwise they may be silenced forever.

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Green-tick.png
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)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Green-tick.png
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
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)
Green-tick.png
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: 50,000,000
Level of aggregation: Takedown requests
Period of material under study: 2001-2012


Sample size: 501,286
Level of aggregation: Takedown notices
Period of material under study: 2001-2012