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

[Kathy Brown]

Hi Dave and Richard,
I am just returning from a long --and terrific-- road trip to Botswana (AIS) and Brussels (EuroDig).
You may know that Sally is on maternity leave with her new baby boy.
Will have a look at this when I get back to the office on Monday.
Thanks for raising the issue. Kathy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 8, 2016, at 8:35 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch<mailto: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/>

[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/20160610/44eb9050/attachment.htm>