That was very helpful. Thanks for taking the time to write that up. Now
that we're getting these notices we're probably going to have to
reevaluate our game plan.
On 10/23/2013 11:50 AM, Strandskov, Mark D. wrote:
> We received 4 so far in this month, 73 in September, 17 in August, 1 in
> July. We are at 225 for the year. We have 27,000 students to put this
> in perspective. Last year, we were at 398 through October (430 for the
> 2012 year). I think we rolled the system into production in the mid-late
> spring of 2012. This is again down from 871 in 2011 before we implemented
> the system and 2024, our peak in 2010.
> Now I need to clearly state that I am not an attorney and am not giving
> any legal advice. Legal wants to make sure we are clear on this. :-)
> We have discussed shutting off the service from the first incident
> however, we don't currently. Legal has vetted our policy as it is. With
> the current system, we immediately notify the user and they are informed
> to immediately take action and remove the infringing content. We are
> hesitant to just block the user from the beginning because we have had
> documented cases where the complaints were wrong. (e.g. Dates and times
> corresponded to when there was no one using that address at that stated
> date and time.) There is also some legal grey areas where the companies
> hired to gather this information and send the complaints are authorized to
> download the material. They typically look for who is advertising a
> copyrighted piece of work and then sending the notice to the service
> provider. Since they are authorized by the copyright owners, if they
> download the material, it is not illegal and there is no way they can
> prove that a non-authorized individual did, in fact, download the
> copyrighted material off that individual's system. The user's are merely
> advertising the copyrighted material.
> It also states in Subsection 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright
> Act, a "service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications
> of claimed infringement by providing contact information to the Copyright
> Office." We have done that. Under the notice and takedown procedure, "a
> copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including
> a list of specified elements, to the service provideršs designated agent.
> Failure to comply substantially with the statutory requirements means that
> the notification will not be considered in determining the requisite level
> of knowledge by the service provider." So should I ignore any complaints
> (which are unfortunately significant) because they are not following the
> statutory requirements and sending to the wrong email account? No. Also,
> like I indicated before, the copyright owners haven't necessarily followed
> the law in the past with their pre-litigation notices. Our attorneys are
> ok with our safe harbor status given our current policy and procedures.
> Again, anyone can claim copyright infringement and while they "submit the
> notification under penalty of perjury," they are simply sending a take
> down notice. Given we have documented cases where we could prove that
> there was no one on the network at those given times, our attorneys feel
> we are complying with the law with our current policy. We also have no
> way to validate or verify whether a user has complied unless we donšt
> receive further complaints. Doing so, would then alert us to copyright
> infringement activity on our network which we would then be legally
> obligated to do something about it and our safe harbor status would be in
> jeopardy. It is like the song "There's a hole in the bucket."
> I know that when this first came out our attorneys along with their other
> higher ed cohorts, did analyze the law extensively and it was from this
> that we came up with our current policy. It was only recently that we
> were able to automatically process the complaints in a very timely
> fashion. In 2010, I received as many as 150 in one day, usually sent on
> Friday afternoons for some reason. Now, if I were to receive that many
> complaints in a day, they fully processed in a matter of seconds.
> Again, I think the most important thing is for you to make sure your legal
> department or institutional attorneys believe you are following the law to
> maintain your safe harbor status. They are the ones who ultimately know
> your circumstances and can give you the best legal advice.
> I hope this helps from my non-legal viewpoint.
> On 10/23/13 10:24 AM, "Vlade Ristevski" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Thanks for the info. It's very helpful.
>> How many notices do you get in a months since you don't block it? Does
>> this script also quarantine or remove them from the network? I just read
>> over the safe-harbor status FAQ and there was a section in there that
>> once the DMCA tells you content is illegally being shared that you have
>> to remove it immediately. Or am I interpreting this wrong?
> Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.