Data from one enforcement vendor, for instance, showed that takedown efforts increase sales of ebooks. But the automation has also meant that perfectly legal content has been flagged for takedown. This can be amusing when copyright owners flag their own content. But it’s less funny when legitimate work gets caught in automated sweeps. Techdirt’s Mike Masnick flags the example of Warner Bros.’s Wrath of the Titans: Takedown notices went out for the movie’s IMDB page–and also for articles from BBC America and the Charleston Post & Courier. It’s hard to say how often these sorts of mistakes happen or what sort of impact they’re having on people who are trying to use copyrighted content legitimately online, because there’s little transparency from anyone involved in this system–not from ISPs and search engines, not from content creators and enforcement vendors, and certainly not from content pirates. That’s part of what the Takedown Project–a collaboration led by Berkeley Law School, where Urban now works, and the American Assembly–is meant to address. The project’s researchers are trying to look comprehensively at “the impact of automat[ing] both sending and receiving process of notice and takedown” and to survey online services providers about their half of this system.
MLRC’s first conference on Legal Issues Concerning Hispanic and Latin American Media is designed to provide lawyers from North America and Latin America a unique opportunity to meet and educate one another on the issues that arise in cross-border content creation, newsgathering, and distribution.
The CJEU however decided in this case that while providing links to protected works constitutes an act of communication, that in order to violate the law the communication must be directed at a new public, according to the release. By a new public the court means a public that was not taken into account by the copyright holders at the time the initial communication was authorized, it added.
Fair use has also transformed the internet from a passive information library to an active, participatory, sharing web. People interact with information more meaningfully and passionately when they can transform it, review it, mash it up, and add their own individual perspectives to it — leading to a better internet for everyone (including copyright holders!).
‘Evidence-based policy’ has become a mantra of many governments that may determine, justify, illuminate or act as smoke screen for projected changes to a specific policy. In economic terms this means that net benefits should be calculated by estimating the expected future returns from a potential change discounted into the present value and compared with estimated costs to those affected: this is sometimes called ‘impact analysis’. Its ‘shadow’ side is ‘policy-based evidence’, whereby selective facts are offered in support of a predetermined government position. Actual practice probably veers between the two. The increased focus on evidence has been a boon to economic consultancies and to lobbyists. But to many the meaning of ‘evidence’ remains unclear. Put bluntly: Is it just a rhetorical device? (it’s ‘evidence’ if you like it, ‘lobbying’ if you don’t); Or is ‘evidence’ a useful social science concept for understanding human behaviour, and evaluating different normative paths?