About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

10 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 387 (2009)

handle is hein.journals/mipr10 and id is 391 raw text is: 2009] DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT must be removed.25 The notification letter must comply with a number of statutory requirements; otherwise, it is void.26 The service provider must notify the user who uploaded the material after taking it down.27 If the user chooses to send a counter notification, the service provider must: replace[] the removed material and cease[] disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter-notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification ... that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material .... 28 In practice, takedown notifications are often sent to service providers, counter notifications are rarely sent, and, to date, there have been only a few lawsuits filed after this initial procedure.29 There are three current abuses of the DMCA. First, takedown notices often supersede the fair use doctrine. In one case, for example, the National Football League (NFL) sent a takedown notice to YouTube over a video posted by Wendy Seltzer, a law professor. The video in question was a short clip of the NFL's copyright and broadcast policy. The takedown was almost certainly illegitimate because the video was posted for criticism, comment, and research.30 The second abuse is more complicated because it involves a situation where the person sending the takedown notice is not actually the copyright holder of the material. In this case, the 25. See id. § 512(c)(3). 26. See id. 27. Id. § 512(g)(2)(A). 28. Id. § 512(g)(2)(C). 29. See JENNIFER M. URBAN & LAURA QUILTER, EFFICIENT PROCESS OR CHILLING EFFECTS? TAKEDOWN NOTICES UNDER SECTION 512 OF THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT (2005), available at http://mylaw.usc.edu/documents/512Rep-ExecSum-out.pdf. The suit is a high profile case between two large Internet and copyright industry players: Viacom and YouTube. See Posting of Peter Lattman to Law Blog-WSJ.com, Google Answers Viacom Lawsuit and Won't Back Down, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/01/google-answers-viacom-lawsuit-and-wont- back-down (May 1, 2007, 11:31 EST). 30. See Wendy.Seltzer.org: Legal Tags, The Blog, NFL Clip Down Again, http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/03/18/nfl-clip-down-again.html (Mar. 18, 2007, 10:38 EST); see also Jacqui Cheng, NFL Fumbles DMCA Takedown Battle, Could Face Sanctions, ARS TECHNICA, Mar. 20, 2007, http ://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070320-nfl-fumbles-dmca-takedown- battle-could-face-sanctions.html; Posting of Peter Lattman to Law Blog- WSJ.com, Law Professor Wendy Seltzer Takes on the NFL, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/03/21/law-professor-wendy-seltzer-takes-on-the- nfl (Mar. 21, 2007 12:27 EST).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most