Com125 Assignment 3: What you don't know about copyright infringement

People know about copyright infringement when it comes to illegally downloading music. It’s been all over TV, radio, and obviously the internet. What most people don’t know about is copyright infringement related to websites and their content. What are the processes related to removing and restoring the content and what gives people or companies the authority to do it? Also, who is favored in these processes?
In 1998, a federal law was passed that grants online and internet service providers the authority to remove internet content if it allegedly infringes a copyright. This law also gives these providers safety from being prosecuted by the person who has the copyright, and the person infringing upon it. The law is the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act or OCILLA, which is a part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA.
The two parts of the law that are most commonly encountered are the take down and put back provisions. How do they work? Check out the example provided by this site:

Takedown example

Here's an example of how the takedown procedures would work:
1. Alice puts a copy of Bob's song on her AOL-hosted website.
2. Bob, searching the Internet, finds Alice's copy.
3. Charlie, Bob's lawyer, sends a letter to AOL's designated agent (registered with the Copyright Office) including:
1. contact information
2. the name of the song that was copied
3.the address of the copied song
4. a statement that he has a good faith belief that the material is not legal
5. a statement that, under penalty of perjury, Charlie is authorized to act for the copyright holder
6. his signature
4. AOL takes the song down.
5. AOL tells Alice that they have taken the song down.
6. Alice now has the option of sending a counter-notice to AOL, if she feels the song was taken down unfairly. The notice includes
1. contact information
2. identification of the removed song
3. a statement under penalty of perjury that Alice has a good faith belief the material was mistakenly taken down
4. a statement consenting to the jurisdiction of Alice's local US Federal District Court, or, if outside the US, to a US Federal District Court in any jurisdiction in which AOL is found.
5. her signature
7. AOL then waits 10-14 business days for a lawsuit to be filed by Bob.
8. If Bob does not file a lawsuit, then AOL puts the material back up.

So who does it appear is favored by this example? Bob clearly has the advantage because all he needs to do in order to have the song removed is state that he has a good faith belief that the material is a copyright infringement. In order to have it put back up, Alice needs to state (under penalty of perjury) that it is not infringing. What this means is that Bob can make any claim he desires whether it be true or false, without suffering any legal action if he is false. Alice has to make a legally binding statement that the material was mistakenly taken down.
Another advantage for Bob would be the delay between receiving Alice’s counter-notice, and the ISP putting her content back up. This generally takes between 10 and 14 days. An example, once again used by this site, would be that Alice has a website advertising a protest against Bob’s company. A week before the protest, Bob claims that the site has infringed the copyright of his company name. Alice’s site will be taken down right away. Even if Alice appeals immediately, having to wait 10-14 days means that the protest will be over before the site is put back up, thus being useless.
As is the case with music, the creator of the material seems to have the upper hand here as well. It is important that they are able to receive due credit for their work, but in the cases above, it seems as though they are given too much freedom and ability to make false claims that directly benefit themselves.

Complying with the DMCA

More info on the DMCA

OCILLA