Urban and Quilter (2006)
|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.|
|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:|
|Linked by:||Beard, Ford and Stern (2018), Fiala and Husovec (2018), 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:|
|Cross Country Study?:||No|
|Government or policy study?:||No|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:||
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
|Level of aggregation:||Takedown notices|
|Period of material under study:||2006|