Google 的書本掃描服務被認定為「合理使用」

Google 的書本掃描服務被認定為合理使用:「Google's Book-Scanning Project Ruled to Be Legal `Fair Use'」。

“Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses,” U.S. Circuit Judge Pierre Leval wrote on behalf of the court. “The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals.”

看起來是一路打到第二巡迴上訴法院了?(負責紐約地區)

第九巡迴上訴法院:DMCA takedown notification 必須先確認是否為合理使用 (Fair Use)

出自 EFF 的「Takedown Senders Must Consider Fair Use, Ninth Circuit Rules」這篇,案件可以參考「Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.」這篇,或是 EFF 整理的「Lenz v. Universal」這篇,由 EFF 發起訴訟控告環球侵犯合理使用權:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) asking a federal court to protect the fair use and free speech rights of a mother who posted a short video of her toddler son dancing to a Prince song on the Internet.

起因在於 Stephanie Lenz 上傳了一段 29 秒的影片,背景有 Let's Go Crazy 這首歌的音樂,而被環球發 DMCA takedown notification 下架:

Stephanie Lenz's 29-second recording shows her son bouncing along to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy " which is heard playing in the background. Lenz uploaded the home video to YouTube in February to share it with her family and friends.

後來 Stephanie Lenz 發出 counter notification 並且控告環球濫用 DMCA notification:

In late June 2007, Lenz sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. According to the DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), the copyright holder must consider whether use of the material was allowed by the copyright owner or the law.

而環球直接挑明不在意 fair use:

In September 2007, Prince released statements that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet." In October 2007, Universal released a statement amounting to the fact that Prince and Universal intended to remove all user-generated content involving Prince from the internet as a matter of principle.

於是雙方就從 2007 年開始一路打官司,首先的判決是地方法院認為 DMCA takedown 必須確認侵權事實才能發,這包括了要確認 fair use:

The district court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the district court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claims, and declined to dismiss Lenz's misrepresentation claim as a matter of law.

同時認為環球濫用 DMCA takedown notification:

The district court believed that Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is sufficient defense against misrepresentation. The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in an important part of the balance in the DMCA.

然後就是一路往上打,打到前幾天第九巡迴上訴法院宣佈維持原來判決定案。這是官方放出的 PDF:「UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (PDF)」。Summary 的部份提到這次判決的結論:

The panel held that the DMCA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law.

這個判決使得目前使用機器自動無條件送 takedown notification 的程式也會受到規範,後續看 EFF 怎麼出招了...

GNU GPLv2 的判例

OSNews 上看到 GNU GPLv2 在美國的判例:「The GNU GPL to be tested in court」。

引用的報導在「GPLv2 goes to court: More decisions from the Versata tarpit」這篇,裡面有幾個角色:

  • Ximpleware:撰寫了一套 XML parser,同時以 GPLv2 與商用版權釋出。
  • Versata:在自家產品 DCM software 使用了 Ximpleware 的 XML parser,依照後面的訴訟,看起來是沒有付錢買商用版本。而 DCM software 裡面沒有引用 GPLv2 條款,同時也當然沒有公開程式碼。
  • Ameriprise:付錢給 Versata 購買 DCM software 使用權的公司,另外取得 Versata 的授權,可以找外包商修改 Versata 的 DCM software。
  • Infosys:Ameriprise 的外包商。

起因在於 Versata 不爽 Infosys 拿他們的軟體開發同性質的軟體,結果告下去後這件事情牽扯到 GPLv2 的授權問題。

然後 Ximpleware 也跳出來告了所有人,還因為專利關係,告了 Versata 的其他客戶。

問題分成兩塊討論,一塊是 copyright,另外一塊是 patent。看了一下文章的說明,案子似乎還沒結束,但已經有些結論出來了。

在 copyright 的部份,法院要求明年二月底前必須上 patch 修正問題。也就是 GPLv2 的感染力是有效的,如果你不打算服從就要賠錢,然後把 GPLv2 程式碼拔乾淨。

而 patent 的部份有點複雜啊... Ximpleware 的控訴都不成立,不過理由沒有看懂 @_@

等有更多時間再來看其他的說明研究...

Google 收到的 DMCA Takedown 在六個月內爆增為原來的十倍...

出自「DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months」與 Google 公開的資料「資訊公開報告 - 移除要求 - 版權」。

六個月前是每週 250k 份,現在是 2500k 份。不知道是不是人工三班 (或是四班) 處理,如果每份算一分鐘,代表現在是千人以上的團隊處理 DMCA 問題。

DMCA 最大的問題慢慢浮現出來了:濫用 Takedown Notice 的人極少會受到處罰,所以就濫發。

前陣子 NASA 在 YouTube 上放好奇號登陸成功並傳回第一張照片的影片也被電視台 Takedown 過,最後仍然不了了之:「NASA's Own Video of Curiosity Landing Crashes Into a DMCA Takedown」。

也許要等數量再多十倍時 Google 會爆氣想辦法修法?

YouTube (Google) 允許環球唱片 (Universal Music Group,UMG) 直接移除非 UMG 所擁有版權的影片

依照環球唱片 (Universal Music Group,UMG) 提供給法院的文件中,YouTube (也就是 Google) 允許 UMG 透過 YouTube 的 CMS (Content Management System) 移除「不屬於 UMG 的影片」:「Google Deal Allegedly Lets UMG Wipe YouTube Videos It Doesn't Own」,文件 (PDF) 在:「gov.uscourts.cand.248875.14.0.pdf」這邊可以下載取得。

重點在於這份文件中第四頁的這段:

The UMG-YouTube agreement grants UMG rights to effect the removal of user-posted videos through YouTube’s Content Management System (“CMS”), based on a number of contractually specified criteria that are not limited to the infringements of copyrights owned or controlled by UMG. Klaus Decl., Ex. 4 (Klaus to Kavanaugh letter, Dec. 14, 2011). Dotcom speculates in his declaration that Universal must have sent a so-called “DMCA notification form,” such as the one he printed and attached at Ex. E to his declaration, to YouTube. Doctcom Decl. ¶ 11. But UMG (which interacts with YouTube) does not use that form when requesting the removal of material pursuant to UMG’s contract with YouTube. UMG uses YouTube’s automated CMS system.

繼續來看後續吧...