The Promises of Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement: Takedown or Staydown? Which is Superior? And Why?

32 Pages Posted: 23 Sep 2018 Last revised: 13 Dec 2018

See all articles by Martin Husovec

Martin Husovec

Tilburg Law and Economics Center (TILEC); Tilburg University - Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT); Stanford University - Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society

Date Written: August 26, 2018

Abstract

Under the prevailing model of copyright liability for user-generated content, right holders and intermediaries are both involved in the enforcement of exclusive rights on the internet. While right holders are expected to identify and notify the infringing content that they wish to remove, the intermediaries have to react by assessing the received notices and taking appropriate action, including to take the information ‘down’ from the service in case it is infringing. This ‘notice and takedown’ system, championed by the DMCA, became a model for many countries around the world. However, in the last few years, the right holders started advocating for the fundamental re-design of the system. According to the number of initiatives, some of the right holders would prefer that intermediaries not only take down the notified content but also prevent its re-appearance in the future. This alternative model, often dubbed ‘notice and staydown’, is now being proposed by the European Commission within its upcoming copyright reform. If successful, it will constitute a huge change for the existing global online environment.

The article scrutinizes the potential switch from notice and takedown policy (NTD) to notice and staydown policy (NSD) in order to answer two important questions: (A) What are the (economic) costs and benefits of two policy options and how do they compare? (B) Is NSD really superior in delivering better tools for automation?

The article concludes that algorithmic enforcement is inevitable and, under some conditions, socially desirable. (1) High-quality automation of copyright enforcement that produces negligible enforcement errors offers many opportunities and therefore should be embraced and incentivized. (2) To make such automation a reality, we need to push innovation in the right direction by conditioning acceptance of algorithmically generated notices upon their quality. (3) Enhanced notice and takedown (NTD) framework can promote such automation better than notice and staydown (NSD). It provides for stronger market incentives for the development of new filtering technologies and allows area-by-area deployment as the technologies improve. (4) As a consequence, enhanced NTD can become a superior policy option from a social perspective. However, in order to realize these benefits, some changes to the NTD framework are required too. These could take the form of standardized submission formats or interfaces for robo-notices that come with quality conditions and effective sanctions to enforce them.

Keywords: DMCA, Notice and Takedown, Notice and Staydown, Algorithmic Enforcement, Robonotices, Filtering

Suggested Citation

Husovec, Martin, The Promises of Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement: Takedown or Staydown? Which is Superior? And Why? (August 26, 2018). Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Forthcoming; Tilburg Law School Research Paper Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3239040

Martin Husovec (Contact Author)

Tilburg Law and Economics Center (TILEC) ( email )

Warandelaan 2
Tilburg, 5000 LE
Netherlands

Tilburg University - Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT) ( email )

P.O.Box 90153
Prof. Cobbenhagenlaan 221
Tilburg, 5037
Netherlands

Stanford University - Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society ( email )

559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
183
Abstract Views
1,037
rank
163,833
PlumX Metrics