Re: [Lilux-info] [Fwd: [escape_l] Etats-Unis: le Digital Millenium Copyright Act à l'épreuve]

Une information qui jete de sérieux doutes sur la loi DMCA dont, on le rappellera, la directive EUCD est une copie ! Dans la mesure où le Luxembourg doit/devra adapter cette directive, il convient de faire ATTENTION !

Dans la mesure où d'autres projets de directives/projets de loi vont dans des directions similaires nous devons attirer l'attention des députés luxembourgeois et européens sur ces dérives dangereuses et proprement "liberticides" Serge -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [escape_l] Etats-Unis: le Digital Millenium Copyright Act à l'épreuve Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:02:47 +0100 From: Florent Latrive <flo(a)latrive.net> To: escape_l(a)freescape.eu.org, escape_actu_l(a)freescape.eu.org Aux Etats-Unis, le Digital Millenium Copyright Act comporte une clause dite "notice and take down" "DMCA takedown notices are notices sent to Online Service Providers (OSPs) such as ISPs, web hosting providers, and search engines pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512 that claim the service provider is providing access to material that infringes the claimant’s copyright and demanding its removal from the internet. If service providers comply with these notices they are granted a “safe harbor” from liability for the alleged infringement committed by their users/customers." Deux universitaires ont étudié 900 cas de tels "notice & take down" pour vérifier si le retrait des pages ou fichiers accusés de contrefaçon était légitime..... Résultat? 30% d'exigences douteuses (fair use, oeuvres non protégeables etc..) A lire ci dessous. [FL] http://boalt.org/biplog/archives/635 Disturbing Number of Flaws Found in DMCA Takedown Notices Jennifer Urban, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Intellectual Property Clinic at the University of Southern California Law School and Laura Quilter, Fellow of the Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) released a summary report (pdf) yesterday summarizing their findings after studying nearly 900 DMCA takedown notices collected by the Chilling Effects project. DMCA takedown notices are notices sent to Online Service Providers (OSPs) such as ISPs, web hosting providers, and search engines pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512 that claim the service provider is providing access to material that infringes the claimant’s copyright and demanding its removal from the internet. If service providers comply with these notices they are granted a “safe harbor” from liability for the alleged infringement committed by their users/customers. Since service providers want to limit their liability without spending thousands of dollars on legal advice, most such notices result in the removal of the material from the internet without any evaluation of the merits of the takedown notice and often without notice to the alleged infringer. While this process is disturbing in its implications for free speech on the internet already, Urban and Quilter’s research presents further reasons for concern. They found that * Thirty percent of notices demanded takedown for claims that presented an obvious question for a court (a clear fair use argument, complaints about uncopyrightable material, and the like); * Notices to traditional ISP’s included a substantial number of demands to remove files from peer-to-peer networks (which are not actually covered under the takedown statute, and which an OSP can only honor by terminating the target’s Internet access entirely); and * One out of 11 included significant statutory flaws that render the notice unusable (for example, failing to adequately identify infringing material). Additionally, Urban and Quilter report that * Over half—57%—of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors; * Over a third—37%—of the notices sent to Google targeted sites apparently outside the United States… [which raises] complex questions related to U.S. jurisdiction over foreign actors who run afoul of United States copyright laws—questions that OSPs are almost certainly not in a position to answer when deciding whether to pull material out of an index. While Urban and Quilter hesitate to draw firm conclusions from this data set, they write, The surprising number of questionable takedowns we observed, taken in conjunction with the ex ante removal of content, the minimal remedies for abuse of the process, and the lack of knowledge about the counternotice procedures, suggest that few are well-served by the current Section 512 process, and some or many individuals, as well as public discourse and the Internet’s value as an expressive platform, may be harmed. Urban and Quilter’s full study will be published in the March 2006 edition of the Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vous avez recu ce message car vous etes abonne a la liste de diffusion Escape_l, consacree a la propriete intellectuelle, au Libre et au numerique. Pour ecrire a la liste: escape_l(a)freescape.eu.org Abonnement/Desabonnement: http://listes.samizdat.net/sympa/info/escape_l Pour inciter une connaissance a s'inscrire: http://listes.samizdat.net/sympa/info/escape_l Archives de la liste: http://listes.samizdat.net/sympa/arc/escape_l ---------------------------------------------------------------------------