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...

Ptt 新版使用者條款的問題...

剛剛登入發現需要同意新版條款 (2.0),但有條文有問題啊...

1-2 的部份:

任何資料一經您上載、傳送、輸入或提供至本站時,除私人信件外,視為您已同意本站為非營利之無償使用、修改、重製、公開播送、散布、發行、公開發表該等資料,並得將前述權利在保留原作者資訊前提下,轉授權為非營利之使用(轉授權部分本站將列舉轉授權之網站並公告於本站 Announce 板,非本站或本站轉授權之網站未經同意使用您之資料,仍為侵權)。您並應保證本站使用、修改、重製、公開播送、散布、發行、公開發表、轉授權該等資料,不致侵害任何第三人之權利,否則應對本站負損害賠償責任(包括但不限於訴訟費用及律師費用等)。

以下資料在本次條文修正時表示站方可以將以下資料公開散佈:

  • 個人訊息 (水球紀錄)
  • 個人資料 (因為是你在註冊時輸入進去的)

後者由於受到「個人資料保護法」的法律保護,這項條文在碰觸這塊時會有很多可以防禦的方法。但前者明顯是漏洞...

然後我以為官方站名中的「BBS」這個詞彙應該大寫?不知道會不會出 2.0.1...

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 計畫關閉在俄羅斯的 Engineering Office

路透社丟出來的新聞:「Google to close engineering office in Russia: WSJ」。

新通過的法案要求俄羅斯人的資料必須存放在俄羅斯境內,這個法案被懷疑是 Google 打算直接關閉俄羅斯的 Engineering Office 的原因:

In July, Russia's parliament passed a law to force Internet sites that store the personal data of Russian citizens to do so inside the country, a move the Kremlin says is for data protection but which critics see as an attack on social networks.

來看看後續發展...

維基百科的使用條款更新,強制揭露利益衝突問題

維基百科昨天的使用條款修訂公告中,提到了「揭露利益衝突」的問題:「Making a change to our Terms of Use: Requirements for disclosure」,這份文件的最後方有簡體中文版的說明,對於看英文比較不通順的人可以先看中文版的說明。

在新版的「Terms of Use」裡面,有一個專門的章節「Paid contributions without disclosure」:

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

  • a statement on your user page,
  • a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
  • a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

這段修正可以從「Difference between revisions of "Terms of Use" - Wikimedia Foundation」這邊看到完整的 diff。

這是對於「付費編輯」的反制:國外甚至有專門收費找人編輯維基百科的公司在運作 (可以參考 2013 年 10 月的「Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner’s response to paid advocacy editing and sockpuppetry」這篇文章),這次在使用條款內直接增訂這一部份,將本來只是社群規範的項目變成直接上法院反制。

早該這麼做了,這件事情意義重大...

加州的手機防竊提案...

由於手機的行竊與搶劫案件已經是美國目前遇到的重大問題,所以有幾位法界人士提案,要立法強制對手機業者實作行動電話的防竊機制:「Proposed California Law Would Mandate Smartphone Kill Switch」,報導在「Proposed California law would mandate smartphone kill switch」。

希望藉由這套防竊機制,讓銷贓變得困難,希望藉此降低手機行竊與搶劫的案件數量...

Kill Switch 的機制並沒有詳細說明,不過應該就是類似目前 Apple 的方式?可以遠端強制對手機下鎖上甚至銷毀的命令...