Read on Twitter
You know, the thought of copyright and how it applies to the internet has crossed my desk, and I feel I've a potential solution, at least in my non-legally-trained eyes (please, let me know otherwise), that provides a balanced solution to abuse on both sides of the DMCA. 1/
Remove the requirement from 17 USC 512(c)(2) that the service provider must register an agent for receipt of notice, but maintain the ability to register for liability protection. 2/
As an alternative measure to gain liability protection, service provider must provide as text directly on the page, or a descriptive link within the page labelled for copyright notices, or, within a descriptive link within the page labelled terms, such an agent's information. 3/
Clarify 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) to provide a list of options valid for what can be considered sufficient identification. This should include, as a base, a URL. 4/
If the infringing material is not the entirety of the substantial portion of the page, identifying what, within that page, is the infringing material. This might include a position within the page (if text or an image), or the timestamp (if the substantial portion is video). 5/
Add to 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A) a requirement that the sender of the notice declare whether the infringement alleged is the result of a human reviewing the material directly, or, in the processing and sending of the notice, only automated technology were used. 6/
Add to 17 USC 512(f) an additional clause to penalize misrepresentation of whether a human reviewed the material directly, referring to the 6th tweet in this thread. 7/
Add to 17 USC 512(f) additional liability equal in penalty to the statutory damages provided for by the copyright act, as a deterrent to knowing material misrepresentation. 8/
Clarify 17 USC 512(g)(2) to indicate that the material can be immediately replaced if, in the notice requirement addition listed in the 6th tweet in this thread, the notice provider describes the notice as having been sent with automated technology. 9/
Clarify 17 USC 512(g)(2)(C) to indicate that the notification sender may signal their intent to file an action, rather than directly file the action immediately. In the event they choose to do this, the infringing material must be removed for 180 days from this point. 10/
If, after notifying of the intent to pursue an action, an action has been filed, the sender of the notice shall notify the party claiming immunity under 512, and the material shall be made permanently unavailable. 11/
If, however, no such notice has been sent, the material shall be restored within 7 days of the 180th day of the notice of intent to sue. 12/
Furthermore, even if the material is restored due to lack of action as described in the last three items in this tweet thread, the material shall be permanently removed within reasonable time frame of notice that an action has been filed, even if it had been restored. 13/
Finally, if the party responsible for the material that is alleged to have been infringing prevails, they may provide notice to the service provider, who, within a reasonable time frame, shall restore the material. 14/
Clarify 17 USC 512(i)(1) to indicate that, for the purposes of such a policy, service providers are not obligated to consider an act an infringement if, in the notice requirement listed in the 6th tweet of this thread, automated technology was used, a counter notice under... 15/
17 USC 512(g) was provided, and the notifying party has not indicated their intent to pursue an action related to this material. 16/
Furthermore, clarify 17 USC 512(i)(1) to not require service provider to consider, as part of said policy, materials submitted before the receipt of the notice described in 17 USC 512(c) to service provider as multiple infringements. 17/
As well, further clarify 17 USC 512(i)(1) to require service providers to consider uploader's prevalence in any action taken as not an infringement. 18/
Clarify 17 USC 512(k)(1) to allow for modification in the interest of optimizing either storage and/or delivery of material on uploader's behalf. 19/
Clarify 17 USC 512(k)(1) to allow for curation of materials by the service provider via methods that don't require interaction by any human agent of service provider without assuming liability. 20/
I think, with these amendments, 17 USC 512 will be strengthened both against abuse by both parties sending false notices, as well as against abuse by uploaders uploading infringing materials, in such a way as to facilitate the benefits provided in a neutral manner. 21/
Did I get something wrong? Should there be additional changes to what I proposed above? Should a part of the above proposal be removed, or clarified? Let me know. I'm interested in having a discussion on the merits of this proposal, and how it can be better. 22/22
