Fortifying the Safe Harbors: Reevaluating the DMCA in a Web 2.0 World

Brown, Brandon

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1308805

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the US, property right restrictions in the realm of the internet were specified within the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. In principle, the DMCA attributes the entitlement to the holder of the intellectual property right, but also creates safe havens from prosecution under specific circumstances, acting as restrictions to property right claims (Brown, 2008). Still, intellectual property rights were subject to a multitude of legal disputes (e.g., Google vs. Viacom).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restricted Coasean Bargaining

MacKenzie

Ohndorf

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractWe investigate the efficiency of Coasean bargaining when restrictions are placed on the set of feasible bargaining outcomes. When property rights are costly to (defend) appropriate, we find bargaining restrictions may be Pareto superior to unconstrained voluntary exchange. Under cost uncertainty over the externality, we show an efficient configuration of restrictions must balance the potential reduction in appropriation costs with the possibility of allocatively inefficient bargaining restrictions. For cases where the restrictions are contested, we show conditions for the continuing existence of welfare improvements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restricted Coasean Bargaining

MacKenzie

Ohndorf

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The YouTube service, which is owned by Google, has been the subject of many copyright violation reports (Bridy, 2016; Sag, 2017; Jacques et al , 2017). However, the mechanisms of copyright protection introduced are different from the ones used in the Google search engine (Brown, 2008).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Website removal from search engines due to copyright violation

Strzelecki

2019

AJIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to clarify how many removal requests are made, how often, and who makes these requests, as well as which websites are reported to search engines so they can be removed from the search results. Design/methodology/approach-Undertakes a deep analysis of more than 3.2bn removed pages from Google's search results requested by reporting organizations from 2011 to 2018 and over 460m removed pages from Bing's search results requested by reporting organizations from 2015 to 2017. The paper focuses on pages that belong to the .pl country coded top-level domain (ccTLD). Findings-Although the number of requests to remove data from search results has been growing year on year, fewer URLs have been reported in recent years. Some of the requests are, however, unjustified and are rejected by teams representing the search engines. In terms of reporting copyright violations, one company in particular stands out (AudioLock.Net), accounting for 28.1 percent of all reports sent to Google (the top ten companies combined were responsible for 61.3 percent of the total number of reports). Research limitations/implications-As not every request can be published, the study is based only what is publicly available. Also, the data assigned to Poland is only based on the ccTLD domain name (.pl); other domain extensions for Polish internet users were not considered. Originality/value-This is first global analysis of data from transparency reports published by search engine companies as prior research has been based on specific notices.

show abstract

“…The purpose of the act is to hold the providers accountable for the copyright infringement so that copyright holders would not have to track down individuals; instead, they would simply have to ask the provider to take down the content assuming they had all the appropriate paperwork (Guzman, 2015). Brown (2008) discusses the ramifications of OCILLA and the lack of liability that YouTube faces regarding hosting potentially copyright infringing content on their website. Many skeptics see YouTube as benefiting from infringing content on their website, comparing YouTube to sites like Napster; Brown argues, however, that YouTube tries with great zeal to eliminate any potentially infringing content from their website.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As YouTube tries to remove this copyrighted content, they are protected from being found guilty of secondary infringement for benefiting from having copyrighted content on their website. Because YouTube wants to maintain the protection from being sued, they are more likely to flag any amount of infringing content regardless of fair use (Brown, 2008). Guzman continues this discussion of potential repercussions of OCILLA and how the copyright holders have a large amount of power when discussing the potential for fair use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Fair Use on YouTube: A Guide to Modern Copyright

Scott¹,

Murnan

2021

J Stud Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copyright law is a large, complex issue that has found itself at the center of controversy on YouTube. Much of the debate around copyright centers on whether a video is fair use, the exception to copyright laws. There are large problems on YouTube surrounding the exploitation of the Content ID system, and the solutions to these problems often rely on the assumption of clear and defined copyright law, which is far from the case. This led my research into finding out based on the case law, what constitutes fair use on YouTube? Using a content analysis, these complexities of copyright law were able to be broken down into easy-to-understand guidelines. To do this, roughly 30 cases were found using the websites case.law and copyright.gov, and the decision of the case and the reasoning behind it were pulled out to create guidelines based on the copyright case law of court decisions. These guidelines consist of having a license for the copyrighted content, using the content for education, criticism or review, providing significant commentary to shift the focus away from the content, using the content for parody, changing the purpose of the content, or using an insignificant portion of the content. If any of these scenarios are met, then the video will likely not violate copyright. The use of these guidelines could be implemented into YouTubes algorithm, but more likely these guidelines would be easy to follow for creators to know whether or not their video will violate copyright.

show abstract

Fortifying the Safe Harbors: Reevaluating the DMCA in a Web 2.0 World

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Restricted Coasean Bargaining

Restricted Coasean Bargaining

Website removal from search engines due to copyright violation

Defining Fair Use on YouTube: A Guide to Modern Copyright

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About