The US government have been inviting comments regarding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and how it works. The comment period has been extended until 11:59pm Eastern Time today, you can see more here.
The main document describing the reasons for comments is Requests for Public Comments: Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor Provisions. Comments are closed there, but as I said the commenting period has been extended, so follow the first link if you want to comment. The main document however is summarised as :
The United States Copyright Office is undertaking a public study to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor provisions contained in 17 U.S.C. 512. Among other issues, the Office will consider the costs and burdens of the notice-and-takedown process on large- and small-scale copyright owners, online service providers, and the general public. The Office will also review how successfully section 512 addresses online infringement and protects against improper takedown notices. To aid in this effort, and to provide thorough assistance to Congress, the Office is seeking public input on a number of key questions.
This should be of interest to Second Life and other virtual world content creators, although I suspect it’s intended for an American audience, being an American law being discussed on an Amercian Government website. The results of this discussion however, are going to be of interest to content creators worldwide.
The subjects of the inquiry involves thirty questions covering subject areas such as General Effectiveness of Safe Harbors, Notice-and-Takedown Process, Counter Notifications, Repeat Infringers, Standard Technical Measures, Remedies and Other Issues.
I’m not going to list all the questions, but here are a few :
- Do the section 512 safe harbors strike the correct balance between copyright owners and online service providers?
- How efficient or burdensome is section 512’s notice-and-takedown process for addressing online infringement? Is it a workable solution over the long run?
- Does the notice-and-takedown process sufficiently protect against fraudulent, abusive or unfounded notices? If not, what should be done to address this concern?
- In what ways does the process work differently for individuals, small-scale entities, and/or large-scale entities that are sending and/or receiving counter notifications?
- Is there sufficient clarity in the law as to what constitutes a repeat infringer policy for purposes of section 512’s safe harbors? If not, what should be done to address this concern?
- Are the remedies for misrepresentation set forth in section 512(f) sufficient to deter and address fraudulent or abusive notices and counter notifications?
There are many more questions there and the discussion is aimed at large and small businesses as well as service providers such as Linden Lab.
Whereas many of us won’t have our voices heard on this issue, if you have friends, particularly Americans, who may be interested in this, then now is the time to give them a nudge as time is running out.