Blogger changes their DMCA Complaint process
  • Just read a new post on the Blogger blog...

    http://buzz.blogger.com/2009/08/let-music-play.html

    The good: As of today, they will no longer completely delete posts they host based on DMCA complaints. They'll put them in draft form rather than delete them, and the author will be notified of the particular offending link.

    The bad: It's a hell of a lot easier for people to file those complaints now that there's an online form to do so.

    Here's the complete text from the post:
    -------------------------------------------------------

    August 26, 2009

    "Let the Music Play"

    Earlier this year, a number of our users complained about their experience on the receiving end of a DMCA complaint. Much commentary at the time focused on claims that we were removing blog posts at the behest of music labels, that we were not notifying users, and that we weren't providing users with any recourse if they were linking to the music with permission. Though we noted at the time that we hadn't changed anything and were still following our documented policy, we realized that there was room for improvement. Over the next several months, we talked with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ChillingEffects.org, and reached out to a number of users to find out what they'd like to see in our policy moving forward. We're happy to make those changes our latest birthday present for our users.

    First, a quick review: the DMCA is a U.S. law that says that a copyright holder (a music label, for example) can notify services like Blogger if they see cases where their content is being used without permission. Once we're notified by the music label and we believe the claim to be valid, we are then obligated to remove the content—otherwise we could be found liable for its continued use. Up until today, when we received a DMCA complaint, we would send an e-mail to the owner of the blog, forward a copy of the complaint (usually a fax) to ChillingEffects.org (more about Chilling Effects here), and delete the post.

    There were several problems: first, some of our bloggers hadn't updated their e-mail addresses in years (Blogger's been around a while!). Second, ChillingEffects.org needed to review the faxes we sent to ensure that they weren't inadvertently publishing personal info, sometimes causing lengthy delays in the publication of the complaint. This meant that the blogger couldn't see the substance of the complaint—often for months. Finally, the post was gone! Posts that contained dozens, even hundreds, of links were removed from the Internet because of one link, and often the blogger didn't know the link wasn't acceptable.

    Starting today, we've changed how we handle these situations:

    * DMCA Complaints are handled via a web form. This form makes data intake easier, and makes it possible for us to share information with ChillingEffects.org without passing along personally identifiable information. It also allows us to notify affected bloggers more efficiently, as we provide information on not only the blog post in question but also the actual link(s) at issue.
    * Complaints are sent to ChillingEffects.org automatically. ChillingEffects.org will have a copy of the complaint soon after Blogger receives it, making it possible for the blogger to find the complaint by searching for their blog's URL at ChillingEffects.org.
    * Blogger notifies affected users through their dashboard as well as by e-mail. While we hope all of our users keep their e-mail addresses current so we can notify them in case there's anything important (hint, hint), we also went further by putting a big status message at the top of their dashboard to let them know about the DMCA complaint.
    * Blog posts are reset to draft status and are not deleted. Now that users have the info they need to know specifically what the complaint was about, they can edit their post (found in their blog's dashboard status message, as well as by searching for posts in "draft" status) to remove the offending content and republish the post.

    We realize this birthday present isn't for everyone—we'd hope most of you never receive a complaint. But music bloggers are a large segment of our users—and we know that for those who've received one or more DMCA complaints in the past, this may have been a frustrating experience. Please take care to remove the offending content once notified of the complaint—once you do, you can republish the original post so your audience will continue to have access to the other content contained in the post.

    This was a cross-team collaboration between our legal, policy and engineering groups, and on behalf of everyone who helped make this change possible: happy birthday!

    Rick Klau, Blogger Product Manager
    Alice Wu, Google Legal Department
    Steven Chen, Google Policy Team
    Saurav Shah, Blogger Engineering Team
  • It'd be awesome to know what the burden of proof is for this web form complaint. Any chance of making this thread non blogger-only? Others who just read us are interested as well, xoxo (oh and if course, thanks for posting this!)
  • Sure, no problem. I just changed the category.
  • I doubt the burden of proof is any greater than it was before - THEY TOOK MY SONG! OMG NOES MUST DELETE
  • Come on, though.  Some sort of recourse and non-deletion is a pretty big step forward.
  • Oh I agree. I'm just saying there's probably a long way to go.
  • True, but Google are a big fucking company and if they feel they need to resist this copyright madness in order to retain the trust of everyone in the universe with pretty much all their information then they could be at least a little step closer to being on our side.  That would be a big deal.



    Not that they'll ever be on anyone's side other than their own of course, but you know what I mean.
  • This is great. I've had a couple of posts deleted in the past year for bullshit reasons. This way we can just do some editing and everyone wins.
  • i think i've had 2-3 posts deleted by blogger, presumably for copyright violation, though i never recieived any notice.  i reposted them as soon as i noticed they were missing.  my gmail is listed on my blogger account, and it has remained the same from the day i started my blog, so i don't believe for a second that they were consistently notifying bloggers when they deleted the posts, like they claim.


    the draft thing is good, since deleting posts was a pointless exercise, just so they could say they did something about the DMCAs.

  • I hope chillingeffect will compile a huge database of dmca requests. whatever name comes out on top will get the prize, pissed off worldwide bloggers.
  • I'm with you, Matthew. That Google even bothered does say that they're at least listening, and that's certainly a good thing. I never expected change overnight. And I can understand why Google gets nervous. These labels scream DMCA and everyone shits their pants. I keep thinking of Paul Haig Day, and how a simple verification could have prevented the whole mess.
  • But see, there will never be a simple verification process and all this face saving that Blogger is doing with this publicity stunt sidesteps that issue completely.
  • True, but I can also see where it would be incredibly difficult to verify ownership without some kind of easily accessed database at their disposal, which I assume probably doesn't exist (at least not in that form). I can also imagine the labels aren't really doing much to move that process forward. So we can't put all the blame on Google. The heart of this is really about copyright, and that entire system is long overdue for an overhaul that acknowledges the current internet reality.
  • Sean, who are the parties that could possibly own copyright to an mp3? recording artist, label or songwriter? Yes, it gets more complicated when you don't have singer/songwriters and when you have remixes and producers and such but in most instances it's the labels who own copyright, no? Tim or some other legal whiz kid can maybe give us info here. This is what's at the heart of Morrissey's gripe about the reissuing of the Smiths singles and B-sides, his complaints that he'll not see a penny for it as he doesn't receive royalties or hold copyright anymore, right? I'm truly asking, as I'm not sure I've got the story straight here.



    So having a database of who owns what isn't nearly as important as saying that NO, any Dick, Jane or Harry can NOT simply fill out a web form and say "I'm the copyright holder to that there song, it must come down!" and no burden of proof is necessary. Proof that they actually do represent the label, that they actually are the songwriter or the artist would be a good start.



    xoxo
  • I think one of the reasons the whole system needs an overhaul is that at the moment it is not just about copyright.  There are complicated territorial distribution licenses to be considered as well, and what we are doing does also infringe on distribution, or can at least be argued to be doing so.  So half the time these stupid complaints are issued by the UK distributor of a US release, when the copyright might be owned by a nice little label who are happy to share, but they license their records to a larger label for distribution elsewhere and that label engages a distributor whose business is infringed upon by us making these things available for free.  The tangled communication link from the person who issues that complaint all the way back to the original label and artist can be ludicrously complicated, and there is simply no way we can expect Google to wade through that level of shit.



    The lack of any reasonable burden of proof is actually written into the DMCA itself, so as Sean says, copyright law needs to be rewritten because at the moment, for all they can make their terms and process more friendly, which they have, Google's hands are, in the final analysis, completely tied by the substance of the law.  At least that's my interpretation - please do correct me if I'm wrong.
  • Tart, I think part of the problem (and like everyone else, I'll wait for Tim to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong) is that sometimes the rights to a song are held by multiple parties at the same time. So it's not just a matter of one person saying 'Sure, share it!'. With The Smiths, you'd have to have both Morrissey and Johnny Marr's permission - again, if I understand the situation correctly - because they are listed as co-songwriters on most songs. And even in that case, I doubt Johnny or Morrissey are going to cruise the internet looking for mp3 offenders, so they'd undoubtedly have a third-party acting on their behalf, issuing notices, etc.

    Morrissey's complaints are about his solo back catalog, not stuff from The Smiths. As far as I know, he and Marr have always received compositional and performance royalties, in fact that was at the heart of the lawsuit with Mike Joyce. Morrissey's gripe was with Warner because they kept reissuing stuff from his back catalog and he hadn't received a royalty payment from them since the 90s. Apparently, Warner somehow owned rights to using his image, etc. I'm not sure exactly how that all worked out. But I believe it's why he went without a label for 7 years.
  • I'll not bore everyone with the details of my own successful but ineffective counter claim again (Matthew's right about licensing being a bigger influence here than copyright), but I never blamed Google for protecting themselves. I just felt they alienated their users with their actions - censoring the innocent along with the guilty, not verifying the claims even after they admitted to me they knew some were false, the lack of notification (every blog's connected to a Gmail), and making it ridiculously difficult to recover your own writing.

    I'm glad they're finally making changes - specifically setting posts to draft instead of deleting them & notifying users through dashboards. But it's a year too late for most of us. My traffic is still only 1/8 what it was this time last year, all because of the prolonged battle while on Blogger and subsequent domain change. But this'll be my last rant on the topic. Traffic aside, I'm much happier where I am now. And I'm very grateful to Matthew for helping me escape that mess! :)
  • I don't blame Google for not independently verifying the truth of the claims - that would swamp even a major conglomerate of their size.  What I do blame them for is the completely unilateral, inflexible nature of their own process: just deleting things without even contacting the writer.
  • My grasp of law seems to be getting more attention than its really worth a bit here, not to say I don't appreciate that of course...

    I haven't been following the Morrisey case too closely so I won't pretend to have a full grasp of the facts, but as a general note - copyright is a commodity and can be owned, bought, sold, divided, licensed or whatever. Most the time a song would only have a few parties with a claim as to its copyright - the songwriters, performers and labels, but this can and often does get a lot more complicated. And as Matthew says the licensing is where things can get messy (and I think he's probably been reading more on copyright law than me recently).

    As a relatively simple example, if you have a singer/songwriter who signs to a label - they would sign deal with the label. This deal could leave the copyright ownership with the artist and license the label to make CDs, promote, find uses for the song in adverts etc OR transfer copyright ownership to the label leaving the artist with a cut of the royalties and permission to perform the songs live, etc. These can obviously be very complex contracts, and whilst the latter option would mean more money for the artist upfront, they would lose copyright of their work. Plenty of bands have been screwed in the past from signing contracts without properly understanding what they were doing. The licenses in either of these cases granted by the copyright holder can be for set periods of time, and Morrisey might have made the mistake to agree to a contract that meant he stopped receiving royalties after a decade or similar - again I don't know the facts here.

    Whoever owns the copyright of the song can license it a myriad of ways from choosing various international distributors and giving them exclusivity in that country, or for exclusive use in a certain tv show or in an advert, or for use in games (Guitar Hero, etc), or exclusive place to get it online. There are all great ways to exploit the copyright of material for its full commercial possibilities, but the internet screws things up a bit there. Exclusive regional licensing or distribution can be a problem as the internet has not borders and whilst one distributor is happy to give away an mp3 as promotion (which then obviously goes worldwide quickly), their counterpart in another country may not, and those making that mp3 available in the country where they have bought exclusivity would be infringing (hello blogging world). This is obviously almost impossible to safeguard against and the host and website owner offering the mp3 may be from another country where they would have no claim anyway but it does have wide ranging effects. What has been licensed in one country does mean mean the same in others even if that is how we and others treat it. Copyright laws were formed in greater depth in the 19th century when it was more difficult to transfer goods across borders and around the world and then continued to develop with national boundaries. The contracts used by the businesses built on copyright were formed within and making use of national boundaries, and it is the lack of any such boundaries that makes it so difficult for that part of the law to catch up (and pull the entertainment businesses with it).
  • If I lost a post, I'm not aware of it, I just don't track my past that much. I'm happy with blogger's move, as I really didn't want to move to wordpress, I saw Captain's Dead's monthly bills and I like the free blogger (and I reeeeeally just don't like wordpress). So, this makes me warm in my belly. Well, this and the wine.
  • Just curious, why do you dislike Wordpress (aside from the money issue)?
  • clunky... don't care for the themes... don't like the posting process... find it slow... and, because I'm sooooooooooooo use to blogger, it's just awkward.
  • yeah, didn't like it.. though I tried to get my wife to like it for http://tsuruandthebride.com but really, I prefer blogger.... so we moved it.
  • Interesting. When I switched from Blogger I thought Wordpress was heaven! Much greater flexibility.
  • I don't need flexibility, you know? Once I set it up (which I like how my page looks and there's tons of layouts available and all are very adjustable), I just want easy posting and a free service. Use my server for my board, my files, and whatever... cost to me? $5/mo and bandwidth to spare (thanks hostgator!).

    Oh, and wordpress, if I remember correctly, didn't have easy font size options?? =P
  • .We have received a DMCA complaint for your blog, Mojophenia - Mind Over Music. An e-mail with the details of the complaint was sent to you on Sep 4, 2009 , and we reset the post status to "Draft"; you can edit it. You may republish the post with the offending content and/or link(s) removed. If you believe you have the rights to post this content, you can file a counter-claim with us. For more on our DMCA policy, please click here. Thank you for your prompt attention.



    The system seems to be up and running
  • Ummm... yeah... so I just got a post deleted.

    No warning. No email. No draft status.

    Just no post...

    I know what the offending track was because I got an email from box.net earlier today... but I removed the link from the post. It was no longer active.
  • what artists are you guys posting on?
  • It can be for an mp3, an image, text, or anything that someone deems to belong to their copyright, beyond fair use. JC, over at the Vinyl Villain, had one reverted to draft status this week, a post with links by the band, Magazine, from 1980. http://thevinylvillain.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-recent-spending-spree-part-5.html
  • stop stealing!!!! (exclude me from that statement)
  • Posted by: Tsuruwhat artists are you guys posting on?

     


    The Postmarks `My Lucky Charm` , sent to me by promo`s.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!