DMCACompliance - Revision history

AudioGuy at 06:53, 30 September 2015

2015-09-30T06:53:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:53, 30 September 2015
Line 77:		Line 77:
	Undesirable comments are normally simply down-rated to a level where few readers will actually see it.		Undesirable comments are normally simply down-rated to a level where few readers will actually see it.

	Due to this somewhat unusual system, there are no easily accessible means to '''completely''' remove or delete user submitted material, in the hands of staff. Users do have the ability to edit and remove their own comments. ~~But~~ staff ~~must use somewhat awkward means such as~~ direct database ~~edits~~, ~~since the~~ system as originated was designed specifically to NOT encourage this.		Due to this somewhat unusual system, there are no easily accessible means to '''completely''' remove or delete user submitted material, in the hands of staff. Users have the ability to edit and remove material in their journals, but have no ability to modify their own public comments or articles after submisssion. The only option available to staff is a direct, command line sql database edit, which requires root level privileges only available to a few staff tasked with system maintenance. The system as originated was designed specifically to NOT encourage this type of editing.

	~~Our most straightforward approach to completely removing user submitted materials is to ask the user to remove it~~.

	The DMCA puts us in an awkward position because of the situation described above. Prior to the passage of the DMCA, we relied for our protection on the idea, by law and common usage going back centuries, if not millenia, that entities which provide services for all, freely and indiscriminately, are 'common carriers' and cannot be held responsible for individual acts of the people they serve. In plain language, this means that if someone robs you and escapes in a Ford automobile, the manufacturer or seller of that automobile cannot be held legally responsible for the actions of the robber.		The DMCA puts us in an awkward position because of the situation described above. Prior to the passage of the DMCA, we relied for our protection on the idea, by law and common usage going back centuries, if not millenia, that entities which provide services for all, freely and indiscriminately, are 'common carriers' and cannot be held responsible for individual acts of the people they serve. In plain language, this means that if someone robs you and escapes in a Ford automobile, the manufacturer or seller of that automobile cannot be held legally responsible for the actions of the robber.
Line 140:		Line 138:

	In the case of anonymous users, we really have no means at all to contact them, and do not store any information that could even identify them. In that case it is most practical to simply remove suspected material as soon as discovered and our resources permit.		In the case of anonymous users, we really have no means at all to contact them, and do not store any information that could even identify them. In that case it is most practical to simply remove suspected material as soon as discovered and our resources permit.


	=== Reference Materials ===		=== Reference Materials ===

AudioGuy at 16:03, 29 September 2015

2015-09-29T16:03:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:03, 29 September 2015
Line 81:		Line 81:
	Our most straightforward approach to completely removing user submitted materials is to ask the user to remove it.		Our most straightforward approach to completely removing user submitted materials is to ask the user to remove it.

	The DMCA puts us in an awkward position because of the situation described above. Prior to the passage of the DMCA, we relied for our protection on the idea, by law and common usage going back centuries, if not millenia, that entities which provide services for all, freely and indiscriminately, are 'common carriers' and cannot be held responsible for individual acts of the people they serve. In plain language, this means that if ~~someome~~ robs you and escapes in a Ford automobile, the manufacturer or seller of that automobile cannot be held legally responsible for the actions of the robber.		The DMCA puts us in an awkward position because of the situation described above. Prior to the passage of the DMCA, we relied for our protection on the idea, by law and common usage going back centuries, if not millenia, that entities which provide services for all, freely and indiscriminately, are 'common carriers' and cannot be held responsible for individual acts of the people they serve. In plain language, this means that if someone robs you and escapes in a Ford automobile, the manufacturer or seller of that automobile cannot be held legally responsible for the actions of the robber.

	The DMCA violates this long held principle for specific uses. It has been strongly criticised for this. However, despite the controversy surrounding it, it is at present the law of the land in the United States and since we are incorporated in the United States we must comply with it.		The DMCA violates this long held principle for specific uses. It has been strongly criticised for this. However, despite the controversy surrounding it, it is at present the law of the land in the United States and since we are incorporated in the United States we must comply with it.

AudioGuy at 15:46, 29 September 2015

2015-09-29T15:46:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 29 September 2015
Line 124:		Line 124:
	The interpretation of the word 'expeditiously' in reference to how soon we remove alleged infringing materials is somehwat hazy. The courts have not yet clarified this, so we are relying on the analysis provided on this Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Meaning_of_.22expeditious.22 page].		The interpretation of the word 'expeditiously' in reference to how soon we remove alleged infringing materials is somehwat hazy. The courts have not yet clarified this, so we are relying on the analysis provided on this Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Meaning_of_.22expeditious.22 page].

	Since Wikipedia pages may change from time to time, ~~I quote~~ the relevant paragraph here:		Since Wikipedia pages may change from time to time, the relevant paragraph is quoted here:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	Meaning of "expeditious"		Meaning of "expeditious"

AudioGuy at 15:44, 29 September 2015

2015-09-29T15:44:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 29 September 2015
Line 122:		Line 122:
	Our DMCA policy is this page on our public wiki.		Our DMCA policy is this page on our public wiki.

	The interpretation of the word 'expeditiously' in reference to how soon we remove alleged infringing materials is somehwat hazy. The courts have not yet clarified this, so we are relying on the analysis provided on this Wikipedia ~~page at~~ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Meaning_of_.22expeditious.22		The interpretation of the word 'expeditiously' in reference to how soon we remove alleged infringing materials is somehwat hazy. The courts have not yet clarified this, so we are relying on the analysis provided on this Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Meaning_of_.22expeditious.22 page].
	~~Wikipedia~~ page.]
	Since Wikipedia pages may change from time to time, I quote the relevant paragraph here:		Since Wikipedia pages may change from time to time, I quote the relevant paragraph here:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>

AudioGuy at 15:42, 29 September 2015

2015-09-29T15:42:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 29 September 2015
Line 122:		Line 122:
	Our DMCA policy is this page on our public wiki.		Our DMCA policy is this page on our public wiki.

	The interpretation of the word 'expeditiously' in reference to how soon we remove alleged infringing materials is somehwat hazy. The courts have not yet clarified this, so we are relying on the analysis provided on this Wikipedia page at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Meaning_of_.22expeditious.22]		The interpretation of the word 'expeditiously' in reference to how soon we remove alleged infringing materials is somehwat hazy. The courts have not yet clarified this, so we are relying on the analysis provided on this Wikipedia page at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Meaning_of_.22expeditious.22
			Wikipedia page.]
	Since Wikipedia pages may change from time to time, I quote the relevant paragraph here:		Since Wikipedia pages may change from time to time, I quote the relevant paragraph here:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>

AudioGuy at 15:39, 29 September 2015

2015-09-29T15:39:02Z

AudioGuy at 15:24, 29 September 2015

2015-09-29T15:24:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 29 September 2015
Line 55:		Line 55:
	## If the material is considered likely infringing, it will be removed using any expedient means,		## If the material is considered likely infringing, it will be removed using any expedient means,
	## If appropriate, or needed as a place holder, the offending material will be replaced with a notice indicating that some material has been removed as a possible copyright violation, due to staff concerns.		## If appropriate, or needed as a place holder, the offending material will be replaced with a notice indicating that some material has been removed as a possible copyright violation, due to staff concerns.

			In exceptional cases, flagrant repeated violations may lead to termination of a users account, at the discretion of staff.

	=== Some Things Our Users Need To Be Aware Of ===		=== Some Things Our Users Need To Be Aware Of ===

AudioGuy at 15:16, 29 September 2015

2015-09-29T15:16:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 29 September 2015
Line 129:		Line 129:
	For a commercially run on-line provider taking action within the hour to tell a customer that a takedown notice has been received and informing them that they must immediately remove the content and confirm removal, giving them six to twelve hours to comply; and otherwise informing them that the content will be taken down or their Internet connection terminated, may be considered reasonable. Some courts may find this to be too great a burden on an ISP if it receives a large number of communications at the same time or has limited resources to review § 512 notices for substantial compliance. It may also depend on how the notice is sent. If the notice is sent via regular mail or via fax, there may be a lag between the sending of the notice and its reception by those who are able to act upon it. If the notification is received by a mail delivery on a Saturday when the ISPs offices are closed and not acted upon until Monday, that may be considered reasonable.		For a commercially run on-line provider taking action within the hour to tell a customer that a takedown notice has been received and informing them that they must immediately remove the content and confirm removal, giving them six to twelve hours to comply; and otherwise informing them that the content will be taken down or their Internet connection terminated, may be considered reasonable. Some courts may find this to be too great a burden on an ISP if it receives a large number of communications at the same time or has limited resources to review § 512 notices for substantial compliance. It may also depend on how the notice is sent. If the notice is sent via regular mail or via fax, there may be a lag between the sending of the notice and its reception by those who are able to act upon it. If the notification is received by a mail delivery on a Saturday when the ISPs offices are closed and not acted upon until Monday, that may be considered reasonable.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

			Our interpretation of this is somewhat affected by our specific circumstances, which we believe might be reasonably taken into account. The most significant factor affecting this is that our site is a leisure time activity, and in many cases users may only be able to be contacted by us on weekends, or whenever their leisure time brings them to a condition that they read email or internal messages sent to them.

			In the case of recieving an actual DMCA notice, the safest time period seems to be somewhere around 24 hours. For purposes of our policy we have therefore used that. It is very ikely however that it could take us longer to establish contact.

			In the instances where no DMCA notice has been received we have used a somewhat longer time period, which takes into account something closer to the time frames we actually expect that will be required to contact a user.

			In the case of anonymous users, we really have no means at all to contact them, and do not store any information that could even identify them. In that case it is most practical to simply remove suspected material as soon as discovered and time permits.


	=== Reference Materials ===		=== Reference Materials ===

AudioGuy at 15:03, 29 September 2015

2015-09-29T15:03:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:03, 29 September 2015
Line 119:		Line 119:
	Our DMCA policy is this page on our public wiki.		Our DMCA policy is this page on our public wiki.

	The interpretation of the word 'expeditiously' in reference to how soon we remove alleged infringing materials is somehwat hazy.		The interpretation of the word 'expeditiously' in reference to how soon we remove alleged infringing materials is somehwat hazy. The courts have not yet clarified this, so we are relying on the analysis provided on this Wikipedia page at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Meaning_of_.22expeditious.22]

			Since Wikipedia pages may change from time to time, I quote the relevant paragraph here:
			<blockquote>
			Meaning of "expeditious"

			The law provides for “expeditious” action. The meaning of "expeditious" in the context of this law has not yet been determined by the courts. Black's Law Dictionary defines "expeditious" as "performed with, or acting with, expedition; quick; speedy." In the common law, the term "expeditious" has been interpreted according to the circumstances, allowing more time than "immediate" but not undue delay. Some suggest that the most prudent courses are to comply "immediately" or to seek immediate legal advice from qualified legal counsel. In the commercial online world, taking more than 24 hours may well be viewed as undue delay. However, when legal advice is factored into the equation it is reasonable to give counsel time to review all the facts, verify the necessary elements of the notice and conduct minimal research to ascertain the current state of the law. This may reasonably occur when the material posted appears likely to be covered by a fair use, for fair use is not copyright infringement. So, in some situations it may be reasonable to determine that "expeditious" would take more than 24 hours, and if the ISP was a small not-for-profit provider, or a server run by volunteers, it may not have the resources to obtain a legal opinion with the same speed that a large multinational corporation may have resources at its disposal to comply immediately. There may not even be a person immediately available who is qualified to determine if the notice complies with the standards set forth in the act. Perhaps a reasonable court would take these factors into consideration. The courts in the United States have yet to rule on these issues.

			For a commercially run on-line provider taking action within the hour to tell a customer that a takedown notice has been received and informing them that they must immediately remove the content and confirm removal, giving them six to twelve hours to comply; and otherwise informing them that the content will be taken down or their Internet connection terminated, may be considered reasonable. Some courts may find this to be too great a burden on an ISP if it receives a large number of communications at the same time or has limited resources to review § 512 notices for substantial compliance. It may also depend on how the notice is sent. If the notice is sent via regular mail or via fax, there may be a lag between the sending of the notice and its reception by those who are able to act upon it. If the notification is received by a mail delivery on a Saturday when the ISPs offices are closed and not acted upon until Monday, that may be considered reasonable.
			</blockquote>

	=== Reference Materials ===		=== Reference Materials ===

AudioGuy at 14:54, 29 September 2015

2015-09-29T14:54:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 29 September 2015
Line 91:		Line 91:
	* Various other situations where damages might otherwise result		* Various other situations where damages might otherwise result

	This 'safe harbor' provision was determined to be very ~~desireable~~ for us to qualify for ~~inview~~ of our circumstances.		This 'safe harbor' provision was determined to be very desirable for us to qualify for, in view of our circumstances.

	To qualify, there are a number of conditions that must be met, notably including (with some others):		To qualify, there are a number of conditions that must be met, notably including (with some others):
Line 109:		Line 109:
	** in accordance with 'standard technical means' used by copyright holders provided they 'do not impose substantial costs' on us.		** in accordance with 'standard technical means' used by copyright holders provided they 'do not impose substantial costs' on us.

			Most of the provisions of the law are very clear and precise.

			There are, however, a few areas somewhat open to interpretation, or whose meaning is somewhat unclear. Our interpretation of those items is covered below.

			The last bullet point above referring to 'standard technical means' we are interpreting as the use of automated systems tied to copyright holders systems, such as used by very large service providers such as Google to automate the takedown process, to save staff time. Our system is so small and the expected frequency of violations so low that such a system would be an absurdity, and well beyond our technical and financial means in any case.

			The necessity of terminating a users account access is also expected to be extremely low and will be dealt with on a case by case basis, the final decision will be made by current staff.

			Our DMCA policy is this page on our public wiki.

			The interpretation of the word 'expeditiously' in reference to how soon we remove alleged infringing materials is somehwat hazy.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, 29 September 2015
Line 74:		Line 74:
	In view of this, it is clear there is no practical way for us to fund the level of legal expenses required for legal challenges related to copyright issues, or any other serious legal challenges.		In view of this, it is clear there is no practical way for us to fund the level of legal expenses required for legal challenges related to copyright issues, or any other serious legal challenges.

	Our primary operation is as a user forum where our community can submit articles and freely comment on them. A particular feature of our system, modified from one created in the 1990s by another entity, is that we do not delete or otherwise modify user submitted comments, instead using a moderation system that allows users to assign numeric scores to submitted comments. This was adopted to allow a high level of free speech while still allowing users to be selective in the quality of comments they read.		Our primary operation is as a user forum where our community can submit articles and freely comment on them. A particular feature of our system, modified from one created in the 1990s by another entity, is that we do not delete or otherwise modify user submitted comments, instead using a moderation system that allows users to assign numeric scores to submitted comments. This was adopted to allow a high level of free speech while still allowing users to be selective in the quality of comments they read.
			Undesirable comments are normally simply down-rated to a level where few readers will actually see it.

	Due to this somewhat unusual system, there are no easily accessible means to remove or delete user ~~input to the extent of completely removing it~~, in the hands of staff. Users do have the ability to edit and remove their own comments. But staff must use somewhat awkward means such as direct database edits, since the system as originated was designed specifically to NOT encourage this.		Due to this somewhat unusual system, there are no easily accessible means to '''completely''' remove or delete user submitted material, in the hands of staff. Users do have the ability to edit and remove their own comments. But staff must use somewhat awkward means such as direct database edits, since the system as originated was designed specifically to NOT encourage this.

	Our most straightforward approach to completely removing user submitted materials is to ask the user to remove it.		Our most straightforward approach to completely removing user submitted materials is to ask the user to remove it.

	The DMCA puts us in an awkward position because of the situation described above. Prior to the passage of the DMCA, we relied for our protection on the idea, by law and common usage going back centuries if not millenia, that entities which provide services for all, freely and indiscriminately, are 'common carriers' and cannot be held responsible for individual acts of the people they serve. In plain language, this means that if someome robs you and escapes in a Ford automobile, the manufacturer or seller of that automobile cannot be held legally responsible for the actions of the robber.		The DMCA puts us in an awkward position because of the situation described above. Prior to the passage of the DMCA, we relied for our protection on the idea, by law and common usage going back centuries, if not millenia, that entities which provide services for all, freely and indiscriminately, are 'common carriers' and cannot be held responsible for individual acts of the people they serve. In plain language, this means that if someome robs you and escapes in a Ford automobile, the manufacturer or seller of that automobile cannot be held legally responsible for the actions of the robber.

	The DMCA violates this long held principle for specific uses. It has been strongly criticised for this. However, despite the controversy surrounding it, it is at present the law of the land in the United States and since we are incorporated in the United States we must comply with it.		The DMCA violates this long held principle for specific uses. It has been strongly criticised for this. However, despite the controversy surrounding it, it is at present the law of the land in the United States and since we are incorporated in the United States we must comply with it.
Line 97:		Line 98:
	To qualify, there are a number of conditions that must be met, notably including (with some others):		To qualify, there are a number of conditions that must be met, notably including (with some others):

	* A Designated Agent ~~for~~ to receive DMCA notices must be created		* A Designated Agent to receive DMCA notices must be created
	* Specific information about that agent must be filed with the US Copyright Office which makes it publicly available		* Specific information about that agent must be filed with the US Copyright Office which makes it publicly available
	* We must act 'expeditiously' to remove suspected infringing material upon receipt of a DMCA notice		* We must act 'expeditiously' to remove suspected infringing material upon receipt of a DMCA notice
Line 109:		Line 110:
	* We must have a DMCA policy, and must 'inform' 'subscribers and account holders' of it, which must		* We must have a DMCA policy, and must 'inform' 'subscribers and account holders' of it, which must
	** Provide for the termination of users who are repeat offenders.		** Provide for the termination of users who are repeat offenders.
	** in accordance with 'standard technical means' used by copyright holders provided they 'do not impose substantial costs' on us.		** Be in accordance with 'standard technical means' used by copyright holders provided they 'do not impose substantial costs' on us.

	Most of the provisions of the law are very clear and precise.		Most of the provisions of the law are very clear and precise.
Line 138:		Line 139:
	In the instances where no DMCA notice has been received we have used a somewhat longer time period, which takes into account something closer to the time frames we actually expect that will be required to contact a user.		In the instances where no DMCA notice has been received we have used a somewhat longer time period, which takes into account something closer to the time frames we actually expect that will be required to contact a user.

	In the case of anonymous users, we really have no means at all to contact them, and do not store any information that could even identify them. In that case it is most practical to simply remove suspected material as soon as discovered and ~~time permits~~.		In the case of anonymous users, we really have no means at all to contact them, and do not store any information that could even identify them. In that case it is most practical to simply remove suspected material as soon as discovered and our resources permit.