Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice

Urban, Jennifer M.; Karaganis, Joe; Schofield, Brianna L.

doi:10.31235/osf.io/59m86

Cited by 72 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…211 While these examples may seem extreme, in 13.3% of takedown requests in a sample, the underlying infringing content cannot be located, and for another 6%, the allegedly infringed work cannot be identified. 212 Third, the DMCA's notice-and-takedown requirements establish barriers to entry for new competitors because notices from others, by their nature, require repeated investigation. A small company that publishes usergenerated content but has limited resources must dedicate at least some of its staff to responding to takedown requests even though they may turn out to be false.…”

Section: When Notice Liability Is Less Successfulmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Erosion of Publisher Liability in American Law, Section 230, and the Future of Online Curation

Skorup

Huddleston²

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As internet businesses started to emerge in the 1990s, online content distributors were taken to court for material they published or republished. While the court in Cubby v. CompuServe found that the internet-based company was not liable, another court arrived at the opposite conclusion in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Congress resolved the ambiguity by enacting the Communications Decency Act of 1996, of which § 230 established a broad liability shield for online content distributors. Two decades later, § 230 has come under scrutiny, and many critics and lawmakers characterize it as a drastic deviation from common law that requires correction. However, an examination of the relevant case law reveals that courts had instead narrowed liability for publishers, republishers, and distributors for decades-eventually culminating in the Cubby decision. Section 230, we suggest, codified this process by establishing a publisher liability regime that likely would have emerged in common law. Based on this legal history, we discuss the circumstances under which mandated online content takedown could be prudent and practicable as well as those under which continuing § 230 protections may prove necessary.

show abstract

Section: When Notice Liability Is Less Successfulmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Erosion of Publisher Liability in American Law, Section 230, and the Future of Online Curation

Skorup

Huddleston²

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although complaints and redress mechanisms can be helpful, studies have indicated that, if improperly formulated, they may have a "chilling effect" on end-users, who are dis-incentivised from using them to exert their rights. 21 In this regard, it is significant that, as currently formulated, the complaints and redress mechanisms included in art.13 remain very vaguely sketched. It is also worth noting that a Compromise Proposal tabled by the Council is particularly worrying, as it would place decision-making in the case of disputes in the hands of the right holder-a party with strong incentives to disallow use.…”

Section: Question 6-germanymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Recommendation on Measures to Safeguard Fundamental Rights and the Open Internet in the Framework of the EU Copyright Reform

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lumen, a project at the Berkman-Klein Center for Internet and Society, acts as a clearinghouse for legal complaints and requests for removal of online materials, and is particularly robust for information such as DMCA takedown requests received by a small number of participating intermediaries. Researchers have been able to make good use of this data to analyze how the notice and takedown system works in practice, and how it is changing over time (Urban et al, 2016;Urban and Quilter, 2006).…”

Section: Transparency Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the legitimacy of platform governance

Suzor¹,

Geelen²,

West³

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an overview of the key values that we argue should underpin an index of the legitimacy of the governance of online intermediaries. The aim is ultimately to allow scholars to rank the policies and practices of intermediaries against core human rights values and principles of legitimate governance in a way that enables comparison across different intermediaries and over time. This work builds on the efforts of a broad range of researchers already working to systematically investigate the governance of social media platforms and telecommunications intermediaries. In this paper, we present our review and analysis of the work that has been carried out to date, using the digital constitutionalism literature to identify opportunities for further research and collaboration.The theme of this special issue is the deeply contested political question of how human rights should be protected in a digital environment. 'Digital constitutionalism' encompasses "a constellation of initiatives that have sought to articulate a set of political rights, governance norms, and limitations on the exercise of power on the Internet" (Gill et al., 2015: 2). One of the key challenges of the digital constitutionalism project is to articulate appropriate limits on the private exercise of power by online intermediaries, how those limits may be imposed, and by whom. This is a complex problem, and requires a new understanding of constitutionalism in an era where regulation is not only, or even not primarily, done by the state (Black, 2001). We take a broad view of 'governance' that encompasses all 'organized efforts to manage the course of events in a social system ' (Burris et al., 2008: 3). This broad definition focuses attention particularly on the policies and practices of online intermediaries as key actors in the governance of online behaviour.Intermediaries play a critical role in governing the internet by developing and managing its infrastructure. By 'intermediaries', we mean the broad range of entities that "bring together or facilitate transactions between third parties on the Internet" (OECD, 2010: 9). Intermediaries of all types ---the owners of physical pipes, the providers of core routing services, the search engines that make content visible, the content hosts, and the social media platforms ---all shape how people communicate in important but different ways. They are the focal points of control, where pressure can be most effectively deployed to influence user behavior (Goldsmith and Wu, 2006), and the decisions that they make have a real impact on public culture and the social and political lives of their users (DeNardis, 2014). In order to progress the political project of digital constitutionalism, more needs to be known about how intermediaries govern their networks and how their decisions impact the basic rights of individuals in different contexts. In this paper, we present an outline of the values we suggest ought to be measured, a guide to the work that has already been completed, and a sketch for futu...

show abstract

Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice

Cited by 72 publications

References 0 publications

The Erosion of Publisher Liability in American Law, Section 230, and the Future of Online Curation

The Erosion of Publisher Liability in American Law, Section 230, and the Future of Online Curation

The Recommendation on Measures to Safeguard Fundamental Rights and the Open Internet in the Framework of the EU Copyright Reform

Evaluating the legitimacy of platform governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About