Permission error

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{MainSource |Source={{Source |Name of Study=Ibosiola et al. (2019) |Author=Damilola Ibosiola; Ignacio Castro; Gianluca Stringhini; Steve Uhlig; Gareth Tyson |Title=Who Watche...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{MainSource
 
{{MainSource
 
|Source={{Source
 
|Source={{Source
|Name of Study=Ibosiola et al. (2019)
+
|Name of Study=Ibosiola et al. (2019a)
 
|Author=Damilola Ibosiola; Ignacio Castro; Gianluca Stringhini; Steve Uhlig; Gareth Tyson
 
|Author=Damilola Ibosiola; Ignacio Castro; Gianluca Stringhini; Steve Uhlig; Gareth Tyson
 
|Title=Who Watches the Watchmen: Exploring Complaints on the Web
 
|Title=Who Watches the Watchmen: Exploring Complaints on the Web

Latest revision as of 15:44, 11 June 2019






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

Ibosiola et al. (2019a)
Title: Who Watches the Watchmen: Exploring Complaints on the Web
Author(s): Damilola Ibosiola, Ignacio Castro, Gianluca Stringhini, Steve Uhlig, Gareth Tyson
Year: 2019
Citation: Ibosiola, D., Castro, I., Stringhini, G., Uhlig, S. And Tyson, G. (2019) Who Watches the Watchmen: Exploring Complaints on the Web. Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference (WWW ’19), May13–17, 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA.ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10 pages.https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313438
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: Ibosiola et al. (2019b)
About the Data
Data Description: The study gathered details on complaints issued to websites using transparency repots from Google, Twitter, Bing and Vimeo, as well as the Lumen database. In total, they gathered over one billion URL complaints from nearly 40,000 notice senders. Metadata was also extracted to account for categories of work (e.g. blogs, games etc.) and liveness checks for the website.
Data Type: Primary and 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:
  • 1 January 2017 - 31 December 2017
Funder(s):

Abstract

“Under increasing scrutiny, many web companies now offer bespoke mechanisms allowing any third party to file complaints (e.g., requesting the de-listing of a URL from a search engine). While this self-regulation might be a valuable web governance tool, it places huge responsibility within the hands of these organisations that demands close examination. We present the first large-scale study of web complaints (over 1 billion URLs). We find a range of complainants, largely focused on copyright enforcement. Whereas the majority of organisations are occasional users of the complaint system, we find a number of bulk senders specialised in targeting specific types of domain. We identify a series of trends and patterns amongst both the domains and complainants. By inspecting the availability of the domains, we also observe that a sizeable portion go offline shortly after complaints are generated. This paper sheds critical light on how complaints are issued, who they pertain to and which domains go offline after complaints are issued.”

Main Results of the Study

DMCA notices make up 98.6% of website complaints, significantly more than complaints regarding defamation, court orders or government requests.The study finds that complaints are highly skewed towards a few very active senders - the top ten complainants generate 41% of all notices. These complainants tend to be either large and influential copyright owners (such as British Phonographic Industry, Apdif Brasil, Apdif Mexico, Fox) or specialist third parties primarily targeting pirated content (Muso, Aiplex, Mark Monitor, Entura, Rivendell). “Bursts” of complaints are also apparent, noting that sender Idreto generated 350,000 notices in one day despite otherwise being an irregular sender.

The data also demonstrates that complainants work strategically, often targeting specific categories of work. For example, 42% of MG Premium’s complaints targeted adult websites.

Lastly, the authors note that the complaints process is seemingly effective - 22% of URLs are inaccessible within 4 weeks of the researchers having observed the complaint. Third-party enforcement agencies appear to have the most success in URL removal, with 53% of URLs detailed in complaints from Rivendell being removed within a week.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The authors highlight that the complaints system is open to misuse, noting patterns of bulk, repeat notices from senders, and websites with apparently auto-generated URLs spread across multiple domains. To streamline this process, the authors recommend (i) continued use of transparency points to understand complainants behaviours, and (ii) automation of the complaints process to filter out “spam” notices (cautioning that many complaints will be legitimate).



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)?
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)
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)
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)

Datasets