Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
The Tabberone™ Archives|
These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement.
When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position.
Efficient Process or "Chilling Effects"? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
by Jennifer M. Urban
The study aapears to have been made in 2004-2005. Most of the information was provided by Google who shared data. An ideal source of information would have bee eBay but we all know that eBay will not share information. "Everything" in the way of information about eBay, its business, seller, buyers, location of bathrooms, etc, is all proprietary. We guesstimate that the eBay figures for improper takedowns is much higher than 30%. This study only covers copyright infringement and not trademark or patent infringment claims.
According to the study:
The study observed a surprisingly high incidence of flawed takedowns:
Thirty percent of notices demanded takedown for claims that presented an obvious question for a court (a clear fair use argument, complaints about uncopyrightable material, and the like);
In addition, we found some interesting patterns that do not, by themselves, indicate concern, but which are of concern when combined with the fact that one third of the notices depended on questionable claims:
Over half-57%-of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors;
On page 5, "We have found little evidence of either counternotice use or putback."
Page 5 continued:
On page 9:
On page 10
Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions