000042021 000__ 02837cam\a22002535i\4500 000042021 001__ 42021 000042021 003__ SzGeWIPO 000042021 005__ 20240708145856.0 000042021 008__ 200624s2016\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d 000042021 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda 000042021 041__ $$aeng 000042021 1001_ $$aUrban, Jennifer M. 000042021 1001_ $$aKaraganis, Joe 000042021 1001_ $$aSchofield, Brianna 000042021 24503 $$aNotice and Takedown in Everyday Practice 000042021 264_1 $$a[Berkeley, California] :$$bUniversity of California, Berkeley - School of Law,$$c2016. 000042021 300__ $$a75 pages 000042021 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent 000042021 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia 000042021 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier 000042021 520__ $$aIt has been nearly twenty years since section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act established the so-called notice and takedown process. Despite its importance to copyright holders, online service providers, and Internet speakers, very little empirical research has been done on how effective section 512 is for addressing copyright infringement, spurring online service provider development, or providing due process for notice targets. This report includes three studies that draw back the curtain on notice and takedown : 1. using detailed surveys and interviews with more than three dozen respondents, the first study gathers information on how online service providers and rights holders experience and practice notice and takedown on a day-to-day basis; 2. the second study examines a random sample from over 100 million notices generated during a six-month period to see who is sending notices, why, and whether they are valid takedown requests; and 3. the third study looks specifically at a subset of those notices that were sent to Google Image Search. The findings suggest that whether notice and takedown “works” is highly dependent on who is using it and how it is practiced, though all respondents agreed that the Section 512 safe harbors remain fundamental to the online ecosystem. Perhaps surprisingly in light of large-scale online infringement, a large portion of OSPs still receive relatively few notices and process them by hand. For some major players, however, the scale of online infringement has led to automated, “bot”-based systems that leave little room for human review or discretion, and in a few cases notice and takedown has been abandoned in favor of techniques such as content filtering. The second and third studies revealed surprisingly high percentages of notices of questionable validity, with mistakes made by both “bots” and humans. The findings strongly suggest that the notice and takedown system is important, under strain, and that there is no “one size fits all” approach to improving it. Based on the findings, we suggest a variety of reforms to law and practice. 000042021 525__ $$aPublished in : UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper, no. 2755628 000042021 650_0 $$aCopyright 000042021 650_0 $$aCopyright misuse 000042021 650_0 $$aPublic domain 000042021 650_0 $$aFraud 000042021 650_0 $$aLicensing 000042021 85641 $$uhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244$$yView this resource 000042021 904__ $$aJournal article 000042021 980__ $$aBIB