Public Citizen, EFF, CDT And CMLP Team Up To Question Recent Ruling On Section 230 Safe Harbor

Tue, Feb 3rd 2009 3:39pm

Filed Under:
commentary, copyright, demands, fair use

Companies:
eff, fox, progress illinois, public citizen

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Fox Demands Site Give Up Fair Use Rights, Run Special Fox Ads, To Do Any Commentary

from the fair-use-doesn't-work-that-way dept

Here's a follow up to our story last Friday about Progress Illinois having its YouTube account restored. The YouTube account had been taken down following multiple DMCA takedown notices from Fox, leading YouTube to institute its usual policy of shutting such accounts down. Progress Illinois sent a counternotice, and after Fox failed to sue the activist group, the account was turned back on. Paul Alan Levy points us to some more troubling details about the discussions between Progress Illinois and Fox. Apparently, Fox sought to have Progress Illinois waive its fair use rights on all future Fox material and demanded that it be allowed to run ads on the Progress Illinois site in exchange for allowing the content to be placed on YouTube. On top of this, Levy notes that Fox is apparently preparing a deal with another video site (that will include its desired ads), which Fox will apparently demand sites use in reporting on Fox News reports. As Levy suggests, Fox may then use this to suggest that any "unauthorized" clip of a Fox broadcast fails the "impact on the market" prong of the fair use test. If true, that could create quite an interesting test case the first time Fox employs that argument on a site doing commentary. Its lawyers do know that failing one prong of the test doesn't automatically disqualify a fair use defense, right?

Fri, Jan 30th 2009 2:04pm

Filed Under:
decline to sue, dmca, takedowns

Companies:
eff, fox, progress illinois, public citizen

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Declining To Sue Is Hardly An Acceptable Solution For DMCA Takedown Response

from the still-problematic dept

Earlier in January, the EFF and Public Citizen called attention to a local Fox affiliate using a DMCA takedown notice to remove a video that was used by an activist group, Progress Illinois, to comment on the broadcast. It was almost certainly fair use, but thanks to the way the DMCA works, even with a counternotice, YouTube is required to keep the video down for at least 10 business days. Considering that it was being used for commentary on current events, the fact that Fox is able to keep the content down for 10 business days should be seen as a problem. Anyway, as (former Fox lawyer) Ben Sheffner notes, Fox appears not to have filed a lawsuit in those 10 days, and thus, YouTube has restored Progress Illinois' account. Of course, as Sheffner also points out, Fox could still sue Progress Illinois at a later date, despite its failure to do so during the counternotice response window. Again, the whole scenario is problematic. Fox gets to take this video down at a time when it's most useful for commentary purposes, and then retains the right to sue at a later date without ever having to make a case for why the takedown was legitimate. It seems like there should be clarity that, if a company that issues a takedown does not sue following a counternotice, it should be seen as approval that the video is not infringing.

Mon, Oct 20th 2008 10:46am

Filed Under:
barack obama, copyright, dmca, fair use, john mccain

Companies:
public citizen

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Either McCain Or Obama Commit To Reforming The DMCA?

from the unlikely dept

With the McCain campaign upset at how the DMCA (which he voted for) makes YouTube take down videos even if they might not have infringing content, we wondered if he would go beyond asking YouTube for special treatment, and instead push to fix the DMCA. So far, the campaign has been pretty quiet on that issue, but Paul Alan Levy from Public Citizen has written a letter (pdf) to both campaigns, asking them to commit to having the DMCA reformed in a few significant ways once Congress is back in session.

The suggested changes would definitely be a big step in the right direction -- effectively moving the system from a "notice-and-takedown" system to a "notice-and-notice" system, which allows whoever posted any content to respond before it's taken down. It would also require a lot more openness in the process, including an initial notification to whoever uploaded the content, as opposed to just the service provider, and a system for making the takedown notices public. As it stands now, the system allows anyone to claim infringement and get the content taken down, without the original uploader or the public understanding why. The proposal would also make it easier to punish those who send false takedowns, which might help alleviate some of the problems. Somehow it seems unlikely that either campaign will get behind these proposals, but considering that they've both now seen how the DMCA has worked against them, it would be nice for them to make a concerted effort to fix it.

Thu, Sep 25th 2008 11:36am

Filed Under:
amicus brief, trademark

Companies:
eff, jones day, public citizen

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jones Day Afraid Of Letting Judge See Public Citizen, EFF Briefs In Its Bogus Trademark Lawsuit

from the fascinating-legal-reasoning dept

Remember last week when the huge law firm Jones Day was called out for abusing trademark law by suing a small site for reporting public information about some associates at the law firm? Jones Day was basically claiming that using their name and linking to their site, even in reporting factual information, was trademark infringement. That is, of course, ridiculous. A few public interest groups, such as Public Citizen (who first alerted us to this case) and the EFF filed an amicus brief with the court in support of the bullied website, Blockshopper.

Stunningly, Jones Day's response is to file a brief telling the judge he shouldn't even accept the amicus brief. Yes, they're filing a legal brief to tell the judge that these groups should not be allowed to provide their thoughts on the case. The reasoning is the sort that only a true lawyer would appreciate. First, these groups shouldn't be allowed to file a brief because they're "partisan." Of course, a large number of amici briefs are "partisan" in that they support one side or the other (there are some that are neutral). Then, it claims they should not be able to file the amicus brief because it doesn't add anything beyond what the defendant has already filed. And then, in the same sentence where Jones Day complains that the amicus brief doesn't add anything new, it also says the brief shouldn't be allowed because it adds a new argument that the defendant, Blockshopper, didn't think was worth raising.

Yes, you read that correctly. Jones Day is claiming that no amici briefs should be allowed if it favors one party of the other (partisan!). Also, that no amici briefs should be allowed if they don't raise any new issues... and at the same time that raising new issues is a reason not to allow the amici briefs. Is it any wonder that this law firm believes that mentioning its name is a trademark violation? All of this leads you to wonder, what is Jones Day so afraid of in the amicus brief that it wants to prevent the judge from viewing it?

Wed, Feb 27th 2008 1:58am

Filed Under:
aclu, eff, first amendment, free speech, public citizen, wikileaks

Companies:
aclu, eff, public citizen

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Various Rights Group Fight Back Against The Wikileaks Injunction

from the standing-up-for-freedom-of-speech dept

Last week, the decision by a California court to have a registrar attempt to force Wikileaks offline got plenty of attention -- not the least of which was because the injunction had no impact on the site's IP address: 88.80.13.160. Yet, much more troubling were the implications concerning why a judge in California would try to take down an entire site because of complaints from a Swiss bank about just a few documents on the site concerning a lawsuit in Switzerland. Now it appears that plenty of organizations who fight for various civil rights have shown up to file briefs against this questionable ruling.

Paul Alan Levy, of the group, Public Citizen, writes in to let us know: "We at Public Citizen are concerned with the First Amendment and the issue of prior restraint, but in attacking the orders we decided to focus on some more technical issues that neither the lawyers in the case nor, apparently, the judge had noticed. Thus, earlier today, along with the California First Amendment Coalition, we filed a brief pointing out that the case did not even qualify for federal court jurisdiction because there are subjects of foreign states on both sides of the case -- the Swiss bank on one side, and Wikileaks, many of whose members are abroad, on the other side. In addition, we point out that the main cause of action on which the bank relied, section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, applies only to unfair or unlawful "business practices" and hence does not apply to completely non-commercial web sites like Wikileaks. Our brief is discussed on the Citizen Vox blog, and in this press release.

A brief attacking the injunction on First Amendment grounds was also filed today by a coalition of media organizations. Finally, the ACLU of Northern California and EFF have also filed a brief arguing against the decision on First Amendment grounds."

Fri, Dec 21st 2007 2:19pm

Filed Under:
infomercials, reviews, slapp

Companies:
infomercialscams, lifestyle lift, public citizen