Lenz court interprets and limits damages available under DMCA 512(f) for wrongfully issued takedown notices

The newest Lenz decision interprets damages available for bogus takedown notices under 17 U.S.C. 512(f), but its practical effect will be to limit the amount plaintiffs can recover.

How service providers deny users the right to counternotify for content removed by DMCA takedown notices

DMCA pic

New Media Rights recently heard from a blogger who received notification that a takedown notice was sent to their service provider, a website that hosts individuals blogs, and that the user’s content was removed.  However, the blogging service didn't

1) Identify the individual who requested the information be taken down OR

2) Specifically identify the infringing material

What's the problem?  This essentially destroys a users right to counternotify, allowing overreaching large content companies to control and remove Internet speech at will. 

Learn about the problem here, and learn how to fight back if you have content removed by a DMCA takedown notice.

Is the DMCA the weapon of choice for Internet bullies?

Internet bullies are taking matters into their own hands by trying to use the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA to wrongfully intimidate others. It is crucial for all Internet service providers, website operators, bloggers, etc. to fully understand the state of the law in order to avoid unneccesary harassment. 

Section 512 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) creates "safe harbor" provisions for online service providers who allow user generated content. Under these provisions, online service providers are granted some protection against copyright infringement claims as long as certain procedures are followed. Generally, a copyright holder must send a "take down" notice to the service provider, and the service provider will inform the user the content has been taken down. In response, the user may reply with a "counter notice" letter to try and have the content re-posted.

The AP is going stop bloggers from pirating content (or quoting in fair use for legitimate reasons)

The AP says it is taking aim at "wholesale theft" with new technology that is aimed at targeting reposting of "entire articles." The new technology is supposed to simply flag questionable articles for lawyers and paralegals to then review.

The question is will the new technology be so limited, or will the AP use the technology to follow the same path it took filing DMCA takedown notices falsely characterizing the law regarding the Drudge retort's postings as follows:

"...the use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only ."

California AB 632 - misguided legislation would overburden social media and undermine user privacy

The California Legislature is considering a bill from Assemblymember Davis regarding "Internet-based social networking: privacy" that is wrong for social media websites large and small, and does little to protect their users. The Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media passed a slightly improved version of the bill on March 31, 2009 (5 to 3), which means it is on to the Judiciary Committee, where it hopefully will be stopped.

New Media Rights files comments supporting EFF's proposed exceptions to DMCA Anti-Circumvention 1201(a)(1) provisions

New Media Rights has filed comments with the Copyright Office supporting EFF's proposal for two exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention provisions. 

Pages