[Chapter-delegates] What are we doing on a major U.S. free speech issue?

[Narelle]

Do I hear TPP?!??

[ie Trans Pacific Partnership a massive "free" trade agreement that is a
touch US big corporate biased, imnsho]


Narelle

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:35 Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> Since the US has a tendency to lobby other countries to implement whatever
> copyright restrictions have been adopted by the US Congress, and is usually
> quite successful in obtaining what it asks for regarding copyright, I think
> that it would be good if ISOC joined the effort to stop this new tightening
> of copyright from being approved by the US Congress.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> *From:* Chapter-delegates [mailto:
> chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On Behalf Of *Dave Burstein
> *Sent:* mercredi, 8. juin 2016 02:59
> *To:* ISOC Chapter Delegates
> *Subject:* [Chapter-delegates] What are we doing on a major U.S. free
> speech issue?
>
>
>
> Folks
>
>
>
> I don't think ISOC is credible addressing free speech issues far from our
> headquarters in D.C. and Geneva unless we also take strong action in our
> own part of the world. Brown and Wentworth have decades of experience
> influencing policy in D.C. Let's put that to use.
>
>
>
> Apologies to the non-U.S. members of this list for reporting something
> that currently is mostly a U.S. issue but I'm sure the movie and record
> folks will bring it to other countries if they win in the U.S.
>
> The Internet Archive - the Wayback Machine people - issued a very strong
> statement (below) that the new proposal in the U.S. Copyright Office "Would
> Force the Internet Archive and Other Platforms to Censor the Web. ... the
> Copyright Office is strongly considering recommending changing the DMCA to
> mandate a 'Notice and Staydown' regime. This is the language that the
> Copyright Office uses to talk about censoring the web."
>
>
>
> The Archive is a highly credible source and others are jumping in. ISOC
> founder and former board member Dave Farber just sent me the story.
>
> "
>
> Kathy, Sally
>
>
>
> How do we get ISOC involved in this major Internet free speech issue here
> in our home base? It appears the decision is being made by government
> working closely with lobbyists. Civil Society and the public seem not to be
> involved in the decisionmaking.
>
>
>
> How can ISOC in the U.S. freeze this, at least until a multi-stakeholder
> body is reviewing the decision? Should we do that through the chapters and,
> if so, what kind of support can the two of you provide? I know that you
> both have built relationships in D.C. that can open any door.
>
>
>
> In particular, I'd like to get the documents about the discussions between
> Patent office officials and corporate lobbyists, something equivalent to
> the ex parter reports you handled at the FCC and Verizon. If I put in a
> FOIA request, they'll probably bury me in months of paperwork and then
> demand more than I can afford as a copy fee. An insider can probably get
> everything quickly.
>
>
>
> We all believe in an open, "multi-stakeholder" model to make policy
> decisions. Let's try to make that work, both on U.S. Internet policy and
> ISOC itself.
>
>
>
> Dave Burstein
>
>
>
>
> Copyright Office’s Proposed Notice and Staydown
> ​​
> System Would Force the Internet Archive and Other Platforms to Censor the
> Web
>
> Posted on June 2, 2016
> <https://blog.archive.org/2016/06/02/copyright-offices-proposed-notice-and-staydown-system-would-force-the-internet-archive-and-other-platforms-to-censor-the-web/>
>  by Lila Bailey <https://blog.archive.org/author/lila/>
>
> [image: censored]In May, the US Copyright Office came to San Francisco to
> hear from various stakeholders about how well Section 512 of the Digital
> Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA is working. The Internet Archive appeared
> at these hearings to talk about the perspective of nonprofit libraries. The
> DMCA is the part of copyright law that provides for a “notice and takedown”
> process for copyrighted works on the Internet. Platforms who host content
> can get legal immunity if they take down materials when they get a
> complaint from the copyright owner.
>
> This is an incredibly powerful tool for content owners–there is no other
> area of law that allows content to be removed from the web with a mere
> accusation of guilt. Victims of harassment, defamation, invasions of
> privacy, or any other legal claim, have to go to court to have anything
> taken down.
>
> Unfortunately, this tool can be, and has been abused. We see this every
> day at the Internet Archive when we get overbroad DMCA takedown notices,
> claiming material that is in the public domain, is fair use, or is critical
> of the content owner. More often than not, these bad notices are just
> mistakes, but sometimes notices are sent intentionally to silence speech.
> Since this tool can be so easily abused, it is one that should be
> approached with extreme caution.
>
> We were very concerned to hear that the Copyright Office is strongly
> considering recommending changing the DMCA to mandate a “Notice and
> Staydown” regime. This is the language that the Copyright Office uses to
> talk about censoring the web. The idea is that once a platform gets a
> notice regarding a specific copyrighted work, like a specific picture,
> song, book, or film, that platform would then be responsible for making
> sure that the work never appears on the platform ever again. Other users
> would have to be prevented, using filtering technology, from ever posting
> that specific content ever again. It would have to “Stay Down.”
>
> This idea is dangerous in a number of ways:
>
> §  *No Due Process.* Notice and Staydown would remove all of the user
> protections built in to the DMCA. Currently, the statute allows users who
> believe material they have posted was taken down in error to file a
> counter-notification. If the copyright holder does not choose to bring a
> lawsuit, then the content can be reposted. The law also prohibits the
> sending of false notices, and allows users who have been falsely accused to
> being a claim against their accuser. These protections for the user would
> simply go away if platforms were forced to proactively filter content.
>
> §  *Requires Platforms to Monitor User Activity.* The current statute
> protects user privacy by explicitly stating that platforms have no duty to
> monitor user activity for copyright infringement. Notice and Staydown would
> change this–requiring platforms to be constantly looking over users’
> shoulders.
>
> §  *Promotes Censorship.* Notice and Staydown has a serious First
> Amendment problem. The government mandating the use of technology to
> affirmatively take speech offline before it’s even posted, without any form
> of review, potentially violates free speech laws.
>
> §  *It Just Won’t Work In Most Cases.* Piracy on the web is a real
> problem for creators. However, filtering at the platform level is just very
> unlikely to stop the worst of the piracy problem. Filtering doesn’t work
> for links. It doesn’t work well for certain types of content, like
> photographs, which are easily altered to avoid the filter. And so far, no
> computer algorithm has been developed that can determine whether a
> particular upload is fair use. Notice and Staydown would force many cases
> of legitimate fair use off the web. Further, intermediaries are not the
> right party to be implementing this technology. They don’t have all the
> facts about the works, such as whether they have been licensed. Most
> platforms are not in a good position to be making legal judgements, and
> they are motivated to avoid the potential for high statutory damages. All
> this means that platforms are likely to filter out legitimate uses of
> content.
>
> §  *Lacks Transparency.*  These technical filters would act as a black
> box that the public would have no ability to review or appeal. It would be
> very difficult to know how much legitimate activity was being censored.
>
> §  *Costly and Burdensome.* Developing an accurate filter that will work
> for each and every platform on the web will be an extremely costly
> endeavor. YouTube spent $60 million developing its Content ID system, which
> only works for audio and video content. It is very expensive to do this
> well. Nonprofits, libraries, and educational institutions who act as
> internet service providers would be forced to spend a huge amount of their
> already scarce resources policing copyright.
>
> §  *Technology Changes Quickly, Law Changes Slowly.* The DMCA requires
> registered DMCA agents to provide a fax number. In 1998, that made sense.
> Today it is silly. Technology changes far too quickly for law to keep up.
> Governments should not be in the business of mandating the use of
> technology to solve a specific policy problem.
>
> The DMCA has its problems, but Notice and Staydown would be an absolute
> disaster. Unfortunately, members of the general public were not invited to
> the Copyright Office proceedings last week. The many thousands of comments
> submitted by Internet users on this subject were not considered valuable
> input; rather, one panelist characterized them as a “DDoS attack” on the
> Copyright Office website, showing how little the people who are seeking to
> regulate the web actually understand it.
>
> The Copyright Office has called for more research on how the DMCA is
> working for copyright holders and for platforms. We agree that this
> research is important. However, we must remember that the rest of the
> online world will also be impacted by changes to the DMCA.​
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Editor, Fast Net News, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
> Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
> Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20160608/f5b5a2db/attachment.htm>