However, there are still many thriving communities on the Web that use message boards to communicate. They are still popular with those in literature, role playing and sports communities among others. Its ability to offer niche communities targeted forums for their conversation and discussion has given the message board an ongoing place on the Web.

But message board hosts often take a very distant attitude when it comes to copyright on their service. Though they are technically protected by the DMCA, they often rely on the admins and moderators of their individual forums to do the heavy lifting on these issues.

While that sounds great in theory, it does nothing to stop cases where the admin either refuses to delete the infringing material or is the one actually doing in the infringing. For those cases, the host is needed to step up and step in, but how willing are such hosts to handle such matters? Let’s take a look and find out.

Format: Email
Email Address: sdemello at ezboard dot com
Location of Policy: Submit Legal Complaint Page
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: An industry leader and one of the most popular message board hosts, ezboard takes legal issues very seriously. Their Submit Legal Complaint Page reads like a syllabus for a mass media law class. However, their DMCA policy leaves a great deal to be desired. They don’t repeat their contact information, as required by the law, they make no mention of repeat infringers and offer no guidance on how to be DMCA compliant. All you get is a form, much to small for the purpose, and a check box to mark that you are reporting copyright infringement. Fortunately, they are registered with the USCO so you can get their “real” information there, but its clear from looking at their online policy that they do not place high value on these copyright issues.
Grade: D+

Format: Form
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Terms of Service
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: A big name not just in the message board hosting field, but in hosting Web sites, blogs and photo galleries, Bravenet’s copyright policy is a major disappointment. Though, under 8f of their terms of service they take a very strong stand against copyright infringement, there is no DMCA information on their site, no registration with the USCO and no other mention about how to handle such matters. All that you get is a form to file your complaint with no instruction about how to do it. Though I’ve heard that Bravenet responds quickly to such complaints, the fact is there is nothing on their site about it, at least nothing that I’ve found.
Grade: F

Format: Form
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Terms of Service
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Pro is supposed to be short for “professional” but there is little professional about the way this site handles abuse. Their terms of use is terminally short. There is no mention of copyright at all in their TOS, just a brief mention that “User’s content must comply in a manner consistent with any and all applicable laws of the State of California and the US Federal Government.” There is no DMCA information on the site, no registration with the USCO and their form to report violations of the TOS doesn’t even have an option to report infringement of text, just images. Where they could have simply said “Using Copyrighted Material” they said “Using Copyrighted Images”. I find that somewhat insulting considering message boards are still one of the top places I find my literature being plagiarized. All in all, there’s nothing here, just a lot of legal holes left to fill.
Grade: F

Format: Email
Email Address: agent at invisionfree dot com
Location of Policy: Legal Page
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Finally, a message board host that gets it right and does it well! Their DMCA policy is very robust, has all of the needed information and is located easily under the “Legal” link at the bottom of every page they control. Though they don’t have it in the footer of the actual forums, all you have to do is visit their home page and you’ll find it there easily. They’ve registered their site with the USCO and have done an all around thorough job here. The one minor omission is that they do not have a stated policy on repeat infringers. An easy oversight and not a major deal by itself. All in all, their policy is complete, easy to find and profession. A model for others in the field.
Grade: B

Format: Email
Email Address: tos at hyperboards dot com
Location of Policy: Terms of Service
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: If you’re looking for someone to report a TOS violation to at Hyperboards, you’ll be looking for a while. To find the email, you have to first visit their support forum, you then go to the FAQ board and, from there, click on “Other Information“. Only then do you get the option of “Reporting a TOS Violation“. If you’re counting, that’s four clicks to find the information to report ANY abuse, including copyright infringement. Hyperboards has no DMCA policy, no DMCA agent, and their terms of service makes no explicit mention of copyright, just a more generic “You agree not to use Hyperboards for any unlawful purpose.” There’s nothing here but headaches when it comes to copyright issues.
Side Note: I don’t usually do this kind of commentary when I do a DMCA Seven review, but a line in their TOS really drew my attention:

“You agree to refrain from using ‘ad-blockers’ such as ‘pop-up blockers’ and the use of ‘scripts’ or html in order to disable or hide any and all advertisements found on any and all Hyperboards forums. If you are using a browser with a built in ‘pop-up blocker’ you agree to disable the ‘ad-blocking’ feature on your browser.”

They are saying, essentially, that by visiting the site with Safari, which has built-in popup blocking, that I was violating their TOS. Good thing I’m not a member, otherwise they might have “terminated” my account. At least that’s what they say in the TOS.
Grade: F

Format: Fax
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Terms of Service Violations & Legal Issues
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Sparklit is actually a Canadian company meaning that they are not technically bound by the DMCA. However, one look at their copyright policy and it is clear that they reference it and require a DMCA notice to act. But even though they expect submitters to follow the DMCA, they don’t themselves. There is no email address for the DMCA agent, no registration with the USCO and their Legal Issue Support Form is just a PDF that needs to be faxed or mailed in. It is like Google’s policy, only much worse. What is especially unnerving is that this is the method used to deal with all abuse complaints, including some which may have urgent needs such as privacy and direct linking issues. But, as bad as it is, they at least have a policy and have made it clear.
Grade: D-

Format: Email
Email Address: tos at delphiforums dot com
Location of Policy: Terms of Service
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Delphi is one of the most popular forum sites on the Web. However, their forums look and feel different than almost anything else on the Web. However, when it comes to their copyright and DMCA policy, they are pretty much par for the course in this field. Their TOS makes it pretty clear they don’t tolerate copyright infringement and they offer an email address to report all violations, but that is about it. There is no DMCA agent, no USCO registration, nothing. If you’ve never sent a DMCA notice before, this site would be a nightmare to try it out on.
Grade: D-

Conclusions

When I decided on this topic, I knew that it wouldn’t go well. However, I had no idea that it would go quite this badly.

Of the seven reviewed, six got a D+ or below. Only one, Invisionfree, got above a C.

These services are often called dinosaurs and, looking around these sites, I can see why. I saw home pages not updated in more than five years, TOSs not updated in at least as long and almost none of the DMCA compliance we see and expect form other online service provides.

This is a service area where the hosts have clearly fallen behind in more ways than one and that age is now not only risking their business, but their legal protections. The DMCA is there specifically to protect OSPs such as message board hosts and to ignore or otherwise not follow it essentially turns down free protection from certain legal risks.

They’re foolish for doing it and they are endangering the rest of the Web. By having such lax policies they risk making their sites havens for all kinds of unseemly activity. That, of course, will only further sink the reputation of the message board as a community format and could be a nail in the coffin of what is already seen as a struggling industry.

What the Ratings Mean

A – A complete policy that goes well above and beyond what is required. Often shows real innovation.
B – A solid policy that is well-thought out and is very complete. Shows consideration for submitters and users.
C – An average policy, follows the law to the letter but doesn’t go out of its way to help those submitting a notice or its users.
D – A policy that, while mostly complete, still raises severe ethical and/or legal questions.
F – An incomplete policy that fails to follow the DMCA or local laws in a severe way.

Pluses or minuses are used to indicate how the where a host fits in relationship to other hosts in that that tier.

The print on demand publishing industry has exploded in recent years, giving thousands of authors an opportunity that they would not have had otherwise.

However, it has also given plagiarists a way to make a quick buck. They can take someone else’s work, package it in their own book and sell it over the Web earning a free royalty for every copy sold. I have had this happen to my works and I’ve talked with several other authors that have had similar experiences.

Unfortunately, the DMCA does not directly apply to these services. Since much of the plagiarism takes place off of the Web and the publisher profits directly from the infringement, these services do not fit neatly within the bounds of DMCA protection. Still much as with advertising networks, many use the DMCA as a touchstone for how to handle such matters as it is familiar and relatively easy to follow.

But how do these services fare when it comes to protecting the copyright at other rightsholders? Let’s take a look at their policies and find out.

Format: Form
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Member Agreement
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: An industry leader and a poster child for the print-on-demand industry on the Web, Lulu’s policy is strong in words but awkward in execution. Though their member agreement makes it absolutely clear they do not tolerate copyright infringement, their reporting method is little more than a small textbox with a submit button. Though finding the form is simple enough, achieved by clicking the “Help” tab and then the “Report Abuse” link, there is no way to input your name or email address and, in most browsers I tried, the box is too small to easily type in. You have type your report up in another application, for which there is no guidance from Lulu, and then paste it into the textbox. Though Lulu has a great reputation of dealing with such complaints, the process is very frustrating to use and seems to hamstring efforts to notify the site of plagiarism or other infringements. All in all, it gets the job done, but it doesn’t do anyone any favors.
Grade: C-

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at CreateSpace dot com (booksurge dot com)
Location of Policy: Intellectual Property Rights Page
Registered with USCO: No (May not be posted) Yes (Booksurge)
Comments: The new kid on the block, CreateSpace has made quite a name for itself through its affiliation with Amazon. It is, for most authors, the fastest and easiest way to get your book into some of the major channels including the Amazon bookstore. However, when it comes to copyright issues, CreateSpace, much like its sister company BookSurge, behaves as if it were any other host, albeit a very good one. Their IP policy, linked above, is both very robust, containing all of the needed information to file a notice, and very easy to locate. You can find it both on the “Contact Us” page and the “Terms of Use” among other pages. The policy even includes a courier address, which is something of an oddity among DMCA policies. All in all, though they don’t go too far out of their way for rightsholders, I can find little wrong with their setup. It will be interesting to see how well it is enforced.
Grade: B-

Format: Email
Email Address: trademark at cafepress dot com
Location of Policy: Intellectual Property Rights Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Originally famous for its custom t-shirts, mugs and other printed items, CafePress has in more recent years started offering print on demand books and CDs. Fortunately, their intellectual property policy is very robust and operates in a way similar to a very concerned traditional host. They provide the link to their policy at the footer of every page on their site, including their stores, and the policy is complete and contains of the needed information to file any form of intellectual property complaint. The one oddity is that the policy was clearly drafted initially to deal with trademark issues, no doubt due to the nature of their first products, but it seems to have expanded neatly to cover copyright and other issues as well. However, that explains the odd choice of email address for filing a copyright complaint.
Grade: B

Format: Form
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: See Below
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: A more traditional print on demand service, iUniverse charges up to $1,400 for submitting and preparing a manuscript, compared to Lulu, CreateSpace and CafePress, all of which are free. iUniverse has partnerships with Barnes & Noble as well as other distributors, provide editorial services, some assistance with marketing and offer flexible royalty plans. However, one thing they don’t offer is a copyright policy or means to report infringement. In order to find their policy, you have to go through the process of purchasing a package until the next to the last step, at which point you are given the chance to look at your author agreement. That is where you would certify yourself the copyright holder in the work and the sole author. But in the unlikely event someone takes your work and publishes it using iUniverse, reporting that infringement could be tricky. Their contact page, linked above, offers many places to send your letter, but none that are clearly right for this purpose. Your best bet, it would seem, would be to send your complaint to the legal contact, even though it is designated for “Publishing Contracts”, and hope for the best. This is hardly what one would call an ideal solution. Fortunately, due to the upfront fees, plagiarism or severe copyright issues are unlikely with iUniverse. That is probably the best news to report with this site when it comes to copyright.
Grade: D-

Format: Email
Email Address: webmaster at trafford dot com
Location of Policy: Item Seven, Terms of Use
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Another traditional print on demand service, Trafford takes a stronger stand against copyright infringement than most of its counterparts in the field. Not only are copyright issues the first item in their author agreement (PDF), but they offer a direct channel to contact the company about copyright infringement on their site. Though the use of the Webmaster account is a bit unusual, the choice, as I see it, is up to them. However, despite all that they do right in this area, there are still issues to be found. They offer no specific instructions for filing a notice and it is unclear what action they would take upon receipt of such a complaint. Still, when compared to other traditional print on demand outfits, Trafford is looking very good in this area.
Grade: C

Format: Email?
Email Address: info at outskirtspress dot com
Location of Policy: None
Registered with USCO:No
Comments: Similar in many ways to iUniverse, including the up front fees, Outskirts Press takes a bad situation and makes it all the worse. Locating the actual agreement is almost impossible, I found it buried in the Help page and, as with iUniverse, it only seeks to cover itself. There is no means provided anywhere on the site to get in touch with some about a copyright issue. You can email their info account, call their number or write to their address, but that is all. If the company is small enough, that might be all that is necessary, but it would still be nice to have at least some kind of contact to report abuse, similar to what Trafford does. Once again though, it is highly unlikely that a plagiarist would choose this service due to the fees, but if someone did it would be a potentially very ugly mess.
Grade: D-

Format: Form?
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Submission Form
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Finally, another traditional print on demand publisher and this one also seems to fall into the same pitfalls as its companions. They require that those uploading content certify that they are not uploading infringing material, however, they say almost nothing else on the subject in the rest of their site. They have a contact form, linked above, as well as a phone number and a street address, but no other easy means of contact. As with other print on demand publishers that charge an up front fee, the chances of a problem are fairly slim, but if something does go wrong, it may be time to consider contacting an attorney.
Grade: D-

Conclusions

There is a clear divide in this industry between new and traditional publishers. The new outfits, Lulu, CreateSpace, BookSurge and Cafepress, all make some effort to address these issues and most do so by following the DMCA, even though it doesn’t directly apply.

The older publishers, however, mostly rely on the more antiquated system developed by mainstream publishers, a system that does not work well over the Internet. Of them, only Trafford showed any interest in accepting copyright complaints over their site and the others only paid attention to the issue in their contracts.

If I weren’t discouraged with print on demand before researching this article, I am now. That is especially true for the “up front fee” publishers.

However, this is an area where the DMCA policy is more than just a reflection on how good of a neighbor the site is. These companies make their living selling copies of copyrighted works, their respect for the law is also an indication, albeit a small one, of how good they are at their jobs.

The difference between an “author mill” and a “partner” is a slim margin in this field. But one clear indication of where a company falls is in how it treats copyright holders.

If that is to be believed, then these results are a very sad testament indeed.

What the Ratings Mean

A – A complete policy that goes well above and beyond what is required. Often shows real innovation.
B – A solid policy that is well-thought out and is very complete. Shows consideration for submitters and users.
C – An average policy, follows the law to the letter but doesn’t go out of its way to help those submitting a notice or its users.
D – A policy that, while mostly complete, still raises severe ethical and/or legal questions.
F – An incomplete policy that fails to follow the DMCA or local laws in a severe way.

Pluses or minuses are used to indicate how the where a host fits in relationship to other hosts in that that tier.

However, advertising networks are not covered by the DMCA. Since they are not hosts and are not information location tools, such as search engines, they don’t fit neatly within the paradigm of the law. Their liability for infringement is, at best, untested.

Despite that, many advertising networks do accept DMCA notices and rely on the notice and takedown provision for handling complaints of copyright infringement. However, since the legal status of these networks is different, we are bending the rules a bit and judging the sites on their general abuse reporting procedure if one specifically for copyright does not exist.

Show how do they fare? Let’s find out.

Format: Fax
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Google’s DMCA Policy
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Yet another industry lead by a Google product and thus backed by their shoddy and questionable DMCA system. However, things get even worse when looking at Adsense. Where Google’s other services are clearly registered with the USCO, Adsense is not. Though not a legal requirement, it seems odd considering that Adsense actually has a separate DMCA policy from the rest of Google’s products. Though you might be able to use Google’s regular DMCA agent, I have not tested that since all of the other contact information has also changed including both the fax number and the department. Google makes it a habit of rejecting copyright complaints that don’t meet its standards, even if the site is obviously a spam blog or violates another element of the Adsense TOS. It seems likely that their policy in this area is one of the reasons that Adsense remains so popular with spammers, even after several crackdowns.
Grade: D-

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at yahoo-inc dot com
Location of Policy: Yahoo’s Copyright and IP Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: If you’ve read my previous reviews of Yahoo!, you know that I’m very fond of their policies in this area and their sense of responsibility. As with their other products, the copyright policy is linked at the footer of each page, is very complete and offers a very pain-free means of getting in touch with Yahoo. All in all, they are a leader in this area and, for once, the recycling of a copyright policy is actually a very good thing.
Grade: B

Format: Email
Email Address: jkweston at microsoft dot com
Location of Policy: Microsoft’s Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: We’ve covered the shell game that MSN plays with its DMCA contact information before. The non-clickable link, the unsearchable policy and the buried information. Unfortunately, Microsoft simply rehashes the same policy for their advertising network, currently in beta. In fact, clicking the “legal” link at the footer of the adCenter site will simply take you to the same terms of use that all of live.com uses. Though the policy seems to be robust and well-written, the efforts taken to hide it worry me and frustrate many who have legitimate need to file a complaint.
Grade: C-

Format: None
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Terms and COnditions
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: This line from their T&C really bothers me: “In order to avoid associations with copyright claims, website publishers may not show Paid Listings in areas such as MP3, Video, News Groups, and Image Results.” Of course, the other thing they do to avoid any association is not have any abuse information anywhere on their site. Even their “Contact Us” page simply leads to their support trouble ticket system, not really appropriate for this. The only email addresses I found are the ones in th left-hand column of the site that go to the support team and sales. There is no obvious way to send in an abuse complaint, copyright or otherwise, and it seems that is very much on purpose. Of course, their above limitations don’t stop spammers and won’t stop most content theft. It just keeps the Viacom’s of the world at bay and shows exactly what role Chitika is willing to play.
Grade: F

Format: Fax
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Copyright Dispute Policy
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: If finding Easter eggs or completing scavenger hunts is too easy for your kids, have them track down AdBrite’s Copyright Dispute Policy. To find it, you first have to act as if you’re registering for an account on the site, then select all of the text in their terms and conditions, because you can’t read it in their tiny textbox, and then paste it into another program. From there, you’ll find the URL buried deep within. Needless to say, the process could be a lot easier and, worse yet, the policy itself doesn’t even include an email address to contact, just a fax number. As bad as the Microsoft shell game with this information is, AdBrite is much worse and the lack of an email address is downright obstructionist. Though the policy seems to be otherwise complete, I simply can not support such an sneaky effort to hide this critical information.
Grade: D-

Format: Email?
Email Address: service at burstdirect dot com
Location of Policy: Terms of Agreement
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Burst Media is yet another Web site without any abuse reporting procedures on their site. Though they seem to have a pretty extensive registration process, there’s no way for a visitor to report a site that might have gotten through their inspection process. Though their terms forbid the posting of copyrighted material, there is no clear means of reporting an infringer and the above information is purely guesswork. However, it is the account they filter all other contact through so it seems likely that it would work for this purpose. As discouraging as lack of a policy and general distance from the issue is, it seems to be pretty typical for sites in this field.
Grade: F

Format: Form
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: None
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Finally, though TLA may be controversial among SEO gurus for its link purchasing system, it is also worrisome for me due to its lack of an abuse system. Though their user agreement does forbid the posting of infringing material, it is merely one word in a list of general things that a member can not do. It is not backed up with any meaningful abuse reporting method and the best approach I could find is to contact “Other” using the form. That is hardly ideal for a network that has the potential to attract seedy elements from time to time. All in all, TLA’s policy, or lack thereof, borders on irresponsible and reckless.
Grade: F

Conclusions

If you’ve ever wondered what good the DMCA does, consider these sites. Looking over the results you see that there are three Fs and two D minuses. Five of the seven sites either have no policies or have extremely flawed ones.

Only two, Microsoft and Yahoo, have have decent reporting procedures and when Microsoft is nearly at the top of the pile in this area, there is something very wrong.

What is also clear is that large advertising networks with other hosting products typically just recycle their old policies, for better or worse, and and those without such preexisting policies didn’t bother to create a new one.

It appears as if most of these networks want to distance themselves as far as they can go from these complaints, both by indemnifying themselves from all such infringements and by not easily accepting complaints. This will, without a doubt, only feed the plague of scraping and content theft by making it easy for spammers to stay in business.

All in all, once you get an account with one of these services, unless you commit click fraud or some other crime against the network itself, it would seem to be very difficult to get your account cut.

I’m sure that many spammers will be happy to hear that.

What the Ratings Mean

A – A complete policy that goes well above and beyond what is required. Often shows real innovation.
B – A solid policy that is well-thought out and is very complete. Shows consideration for submitters and users.
C – An average policy, follows the law to the letter but doesn’t go out of its way to help those submitting a notice or its users.
D – A policy that, while mostly complete, still raises severe ethical and/or legal questions.
F – An incomplete policy that fails to follow the DMCA or local laws in a severe way.

Pluses or minuses are used to indicate how the where a host fits in relationship to other hosts in that that tier.

Ideally, one would only send a DMCA to a search engine after other steps, such as cease and desist letters and DMCAs to Web hosts, have failed. However, since much of the plagiarism and scraping going on today is aimed at getting better search rankings, it is important to look at the various search engines and see how they are enforcing the law.

After all, the DMCA has an entire section dedicated to search engines and other “information location tools” (Section 512(d)) and their central role on the Web means that, if a plagiarist is bumped from the search engines, it is almost as if the site doesn’t exist at all.

While search engines aren’t a perfect solution, it is a better answer than none at all and, in many cases, is all that can be done.

So how do the search engines apply the DMCA? Let’s find out.

Format: Email
Email Address: amac at google dot com
Location of Policy: Google’s DMCA Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: If it seems as if we’ve been down this road before, it is because we have. We’ve reviewed Google’s DMCA policy both when dealing with blog hosts and social networks. The same complaints still stand. Google’s policy is obstructionist, likely in violation of established laws, such as the ESIGN act, and makes it difficult for small Webmasters to file notices. With over 50% of the search engine market, this makes Google an important, but dangerous, ally in this fight. No other host or search engine requires a handwritten signature but Google doesn’t seem to be letting up. Still, as stated before, with that one snafu aside, Google’s policy is complete and I do wholeheartedly approve of their sending DMCA notices to Chilling Effects. However, in addition to their signature requirement, they work hard to bury their DMCA policy. Finding the policy on their home page requires you to first cllick “About Google” and then visit their “Terms of Service” page and then locate it under item sixteen. Google clearly does not want people notifying them of copyright issues and it shows in every aspect of their policy.
Grade: D

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at yahoo-inc dot com
Location of Policy: Yahoo’s Copyright and IP Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Though some may think of Yahoo! as a second place search engine, it comes out on top of the heap when it comes to respecting rights holders. Yahoo!’s DMCA policy is well-written, linked directly from the footer of most pages on the site, including the home page, and is backed by a friendly, responsive staff. Yahoo! has always been a good ally and looking at their DMCA procedures versus Google’s is a matter of night and day. I can not say enough good things about Yahoo!.
Grade: B

Format: Email
Email Address: jkweston at microsoft dot com
Location of Policy: Microsoft’s Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: If Yahoo at the top and Google is at the bottom, MSN falls somewhere in between. Their policy is easier to locate from their search page than from their blog service home page. It requires a trip to the “Legal” page in the footer but, once again, the link is not clickable. Rather, you have to copy and paste it into your address bar. While not a major obstacle, it is still very annoying and it seems to prevent the policy from being indexed in other search engines. The policy itself is complete though I’ve had trouble with MSN responding to copyright complaints in the past. Overall, their policy is enough to get by, but they seem to go out of their way to make this policy hard to find and difficult to use. Despite that, it doesn’t seem to raise any serious legal issues, it’s just plain sneaky.
Grade: C-

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at ask dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright & Trademark Notices | Copyright Claims
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Ask claims to have “The Algorithm”, which is good because you practically need it to find their DMCA policy. Though the shell game Ask plays with its DMCA policy isn’t nearly as bad as Microsoft’s, it’s still a struggle locating their actual copyright policy. To find their policy, you have to first visit their home page, click the “About” page and then click on “Site Policies“. Oddly enough, their contact us link has no mention of their DMCA agent and is a dead end when searching for their policy. However, the policy itself is solid. It’s a robust policy with a good description on how to file a notice and no other obstructions to filing with them. Their information is up to date with the USCO and everything seems to be in order. I just wish I didn’t have so much trouble finding what I was looking for.
Grade: C

Format: None
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: None
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Gigablast claims to have “one of the largest and freshest indexes in the world” it doesn’t have anything when it comes to the DMCA, copyright or even privacy. This site not only completely lacks a copyright policy, but there are no obvious opt out tools and no other policies or information. The contact information gives you access to press contacts, customer support and marketing but nothing about abuse. It is a great thing that this site isn’t bigger than it is, otherwise, it could be a real nightmare for Webmasters looking to get their content out of its index, especially if they can’t edit robots.txt files or meta tags. In their defense, they seem to be a one-person operation, however, it seems foolish to ignore laws that were written, in part, to protect search engines.
Grade: F

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at mahalo dot com
Location of Policy: Terms of Service
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Mahalo is a human-powered search engines that relies on editors to build the actual results page. This means that it is less likely than with other search engines that plagiarized or otherwise infringing content will seep into the results, making it less of a worry in this area. Furthermore, they’ve taken some great steps to prevent the problem from happening in the first place. However, their policy is difficult to find, from their home page, you first have to go to another page on their site to find the terms of service link. Though virtually any page will do as the home page is the only one without that footer, it is a strange and somewhat backwards approach. The policy itself, though buried in the TOS, is reasonably complete and covers all of the needed bases. One strange thing is that it doesn’t mention banning repeat infringers, which is a possibility with their site since it is human powered. Also, the site has not registered with the USCO and that, combined with other missing elements, may raise legal issues. Though it kills me to give this site a bad grade due to their work and preventing abuse in the first place, the issues with the policy itself can not be ignored.
Update: Mahalo responded in the comments breaking something of a comment-speed record on this site. They’ve prepared the USO registration and are looking into dealing with the repeat infringers issue. So, I’m taking them at their word, since they have proved to be honest in this area, and changing the grade from a D+ to a C+.
Grade: C+

Format: Form/Email
Email Address: aolcopyright at aol dot com
Location of Policy: AOL’s Copyright Infringement Policy
Registered with USCO: No (Registered as AOL)
Comments: This might make your head spin. Dmoz is owned and operated by AOL/Netscape. AOL, however, gets their search results from Google, meaning that dmoz is, in a strange way, AOL’s only search engine. Dmoz itself has a special place with the other search engines and, because of that, sites that are listed in the directory tend to do well in the other indexes. This makes dmoz’s role in the search engine market especially important, even if very few humans look through its directory. However, finding’ dmoz’s DMCA policy is tricky, you first have to visit the “About” page and then visit their terms of use. From there, you will be taken to AOL’s DMCA policy, which has been reviewed here before. The policy itself is still sound but the hoops one has to jump through to find it makes me less excited about it here than on AOL itself. Still, the easy-to-use form is a great asset, though it would be nice if they also included an email address, and it does show a great deal of commitment from AOL to help smaller Webmasters get things right. Still, on dmoz, I feel as if the policy could both easier to find and more clear since there is no warning about the jump to AOL’s site. Frankly, the whole thing seems thrown together in this aspect.
Grade: B-

Conclusions

Looking over these scores and comments, what becomes clear is simple, search engines hate receiving DMCA notices.

Nearly every site played some kind of shell game with their DMCA policy, with Yahoo being the exception, and many threw up additional barriers to making the DMCA work. Whether it was Google’s requirement of a written signature, Microsoft’s non-working link or Ask’s game of redirection, finding and using the DMCA on these sites is a terrible pain.

With three sites scoring a D or below and only two Bs, I can safely say that I expected much more out of the search engines. The law targeted them directly and they’ve responded by dragging their feet as much as possible.

While I am not fond of turning the search engines into the copyright police, their prominent role in the Web makes them important allies in this fight. Sadly, none of them but Yahoo seem to be willing to step into the light.

In fact, they all seem to sneak back into the shadows as far as they can legally go.

What the Ratings Mean

A – A complete policy that goes well above and beyond what is required. Often shows real innovation.
B – A solid policy that is well-thought out and is very complete. Shows consideration for submitters and users.
C – An average policy, follows the law to the letter but doesn’t go out of its way to help those submitting a notice or its users.
D – A policy that, while mostly complete, still raises severe ethical and/or legal questions.
F – An incomplete policy that fails to follow the DMCA or local laws in a severe way.

Pluses or minuses are used to indicate how the where a host fits in relationship to other hosts in that that tier.

These differ from most of the other hosts we’ve covered in that they are not free services, but rather, paid hosts that earn monthly or yearly fees from their subscribers.

Despite the apparent conflict of interest, these were also the hosts that the notice and takedown provisions of the DMCA were largely targeted at. However, what remains to be seen is exactly if and how they have implimented the DMCA on their sites and if they are taking advantage of the protections the law provides them.

To find out for ourselves, let’s take a look at the DMCA policies of seven of the largest and best-known domain hosts.

Format: Email
Email Address: CopyrightClaims at godaddy dot com (or wildwestdomains dot com)
Location of Policy: Trademark and/or Copyright Infringement Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes and Yes
Comments: On paper, Godaddy, along with its sister company Wild West Domains, is the largest Web host in the world. Between sites hosted/parked at GoDaddy and companies that resell services from Wild West Domains, they make up an estimated 14% of the entire hosting market. With so many sites on their servers, their DMCA policy is of critical imortance. Fortunately, it is fairly solid. Both sites display it as a single link off of their “legal” pages and the policies, which are almost identical, have all of the needed information for filing both a notice and a counternotice as well as a simple but effective policy on repeat infringers. Other than some minor inconsistencies between the email for Wild West Domains when comparing their site and their USCO registration, the policies are very strong and, in my experience, seem to be enforced very well.
Grade: B

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at demandmedia dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Short, sweet but complete is how I would describe Enom’s policy. Though you have to click through their terms of use to find the policy, it does have its own page and it has all of the required information to file a notice with them. However, there is no mention of a counter-notice, which is a minor quibble over all. The information is consistent between the the Web site and the USCO filing, which was updated earlier this year. They certainly don’t go far out of the way to help with copyright issues but do a good job following the law and making the information available.
Grade: B-

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at yahoo-inc dot com
Location of Policy: Yahoo’s Copyright and IP Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Popular with small businesses, Yahoo’s Web hosting service has a solid reputation among its users and an equally solid DMCA policy. Their copyright policy is linked at the footer of nearly every page under Yahoo’s control and is very robust, though still short and easy to read. They have a great reputation for acting on such complaints and, all in all, are one of the most compliant companies out there. They could easily set the bar for other companies in this field, as they already have for photo sharing services.
Grade: B

Format: Email
Email Address: dmca at networksolutions dot com
Location of Policy: Legal Notice and DMCA Claims
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: The oldest domain registrar already has a site that is tough to navigate, but finding the copyright policy on it might be a nearly impossible task. Located at the top of the footer in dark gray on gray type, it is easy to overlook the “Legal Documents” link of one isn’t paying close attention. Once you get there, the actual DMCA policy is buried underneath information about their own copyrights, patent issues and trademark information related to the company itself. Once you actually find the policy, you see that it is fairly complete but the phone information does not match what is in the USCO database. Also, the USCO form has not been updated since 2004 and, thus, doesn’t have an email address listed. Fortunately, Network Solution’s site does provide the email above. All in all, the policy seems to follow the law, but the trickery on the link itself how buried the policy is leads me to think that this site really doesn’t want people visiting that page, even if they have a legitimate need to.
Grade: C-

Format: Email
Email Address: Legal at 1and1 dot com
Location of Policy: Subpeona and Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: The location of this policy boggles the mind. If you visit their terms and conditions page, you won’t find any mention of the DMCA in their 24 part TOS. If you look at the table of contents to the left of the header, you won’t see any mention of copyright at all. Instead, the policy is located in their “Subpoena Policy” link, which is mind-blowing considering a DMCA has nothing to do with a subpoena. Once you find the policy at the bottom of that page, you’ll find that it is fairly complete, though missing counter notice information, and has everything that’s needed. It also matches up well with the information on file with the USCO and all information points to an outside law firm to handle all of these notices. Overall, the policy itself is bare bones but compliant. However, the shell game that’s played with finding it makes me wish I had another grade between C- and D+.
Grade: C-

Format: Email
Email Address: abuse at dreamhost dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Infringement
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Dreamhost is a company that has found itself at the center of a DMCA controversy before. Its policy is a sharp reflection of that and it makes their policy hard to grade. To find their policy you have to first find the link to their abuse center in their terms of service. From there you visit their Copyright Infringement page and scroll to the bottom for information about filing a DMCA notice. Unfortunately, their policy is woefully incomplete. There is no information about how to file a notice, just a strong recommendation to contact a lawyer. The entire policy seems written solely to intimidate people away from filing notices, even if they have a legitimate complaint, and comes complete with a picture of Michael Crook. There is no contact information for the DMCA agent other than the email, which is repeated on the contact page and, since Section 512(c)(2) requires that the host make available on its site “the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent” there are serious legal issues with this policy. Despite these concerns, I am still very pleased with how they have handled things on the backend, unfortunately, this review only deals with the frontend and how useful a relative layperson would find the site.
Grade: D

Format: Email
Email Address: legal at ipowerweb dot com
Location of Policy: DMCA Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: iPowerWeb is a site that has been widely criticized for how it handles DMCA notices. I’ve received reports of sites going down on the service without iPowerWeb forwarding on the information to the customer, making it impossible to file a counternotice. However, their written policy is, by itself at least, very solid. It gets its own page under the terms and conditions and has all of the information needed to file a notice and a counternotice as well we information on repeat infringers and the dangers of filing a false notice. It is not the easiest policy to find, but it gets the job done. Though I have never had a problem with iPowerWeb taking down infringing works, I worry about their customers and hope that they are being treated better today than they have been in the past.
Grade: C+

Conclusions

My overall impression of these sites can be summed up in one word: mediocre.

All of the sites above fell in the B to D range, none really are doing anything exceptional in this area to be proactive and throw their support behind this issue. However, none truly fall flat on their face either.

All of the polices, with the exception of Dreamhost, are about what you would expect from large hosting firms, lawyer-written, bare bones and to the letter of the law while going no farther than needed.

There were no major surprises, pleasant or unpleasant here. All in all, these sites are just businesses trying to follow the law. Though it would be nice to see more cooperation and forward thinking, these hosts have less motivation to do so than YouTube and other hosts that are under constant copyright fire.

In general, expect cooperation but don’t expect any helping hands.

Many of these hosts have been copyright headaches for Webmasters. They are prime targets for spam blogs and scrapers and some have played a huge role in rise of the “splogosphere”.

Without the help of these hosts, the copyrights of bloggers will be almost impossible to protect, especially for smaller rightsholders that can not afford attorneys to go after plagiarists. That makes the DMCA/copyright policies of these hosts a matter of critical importance to the rest of us on the Web.

So how do they mneasure up? Let’s take a look at seven of the leaders and find out.

Format: Email
Email Address: amac at google dot com
Location of Policy: Google’s DMCA Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Every time I do one of these articles, it seems that Google owns one of the seven leading properties and I’m forced to cover them again and rehash the same complaints. To summarize, their requirement of a handwritten signature needlessly complicates the process of filing a DMCA complaint and, most likely, does not comply with the law, in particular the ESIGN Act. Until they are able to accept email complaints without PDF trickery, they will be a major thorn in Webmaster’s sides and, in this case, a great target for spam bloggers/scrapers.
Grade: D

Format: Email
Email Address: jkweston at microsoft dot com
Location of Policy: Microsoft’s Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Be grateful you read this site and be sure to bookmark this article. Otherwise, the odds of you quickly finding the copyright policy for MSN Live Spaces are slim to one. Their report abuse page gives you a drop down to report copyright infringement. However, sending a report there, even with a full DMCA notice, only results in an autoreply directing you to follow the guide above (as reported by visitors of this site). You can also find a mention of the policy on their legal page, but the link to the actual policy isn’t even clickable. You have to literally copy and paste the URL to use it. The policy itself is fairly complete, containing all of the necessary information, but finding it is a pain. You can’t even do a Google search for it. It is as if Microsoft is deliberately hiding this page. It may not be illegal, but it is some of the worst service I have ever seen.
Grade: C-

Format: Form/Email
Email Address: aolcopyright at aol dot com
Location of Policy: AOL’s Copyright Infringement Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: AOL may be considered a dinosaur on the Web, but they do exhibit some forward thinking in this area. They provide a very convinient from (linked above) for filing complaints of copyright infringement that takes care of most of the dirty work for you. It’s definitely one of the easiest ways to report an infringement I’ve seen. The only problem with AOL’s policy is that it is also very hard to find. To get to that form you have to find a link buried in their terms of use to get to their infringement policy and, from there, click their “Copyright Notice” link to get to the form itself. They also don’t provide an email address, save on their USCO registration but otherwise is complete, giving all of the necessary information to file a notice. Though I am irked by the location of the policy and the roadblocks in finding it, it is overall a solid way to handle such matters.
Grade: B+

Format: Email
Email Address: dmca at automattic dot com
Location of Policy: Automattic’s DMCA Policy
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Though Automattic is definitely on the offensive against spam, their DMCA policy leaves a lot to be desired. While the actual policy is very complete, though omitting a fax number, finding it is a pain. The link to it is buried in the terms of service and they have not registered with the USCO meaning that there is no alternative way to look up the information. Though they have a great reputation for handling such issues once notified, their front end and user-friendliness could definitely use some work. Though the policy is likely within the bounds of the law, the lack of USCO registration and the difficult location discourage me greatly and raise some potential legal issues.
Grade: D+

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at typepad dot com
Location of Policy: Typepad’s Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: One of two SixApart services we’re going to cover, Typepad is a breath of fresh air when stacked up to its competitors. The copyright policy is well-written, robust and complete. It is linked at the bottom of most SixApart-controlled pages, including the home page, and is very easy to find. They are also registered with the USCO and their information there is up to date. Though some issues exist on the backend, in particular with other SixApart services, they definitely understand how to comply with the DMCA and make the process as painless as possible for the end user.
Grade: B+

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at livejournal dot com
Location of Policy: LiveJournalal’s Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: The other SixApart service shares its policy with its brother. In fact, at first glance, the text of the two policies appear to be identical. As with TypePad, the copyright policy is linked at the footer of nearly every LiveJournal-controlled page, including the home page, and offers the same level of completeness. Though I would prefer the policy, along with other abuse information, be available on all pages, including individual blogs, the benefit of that would be minimal as most people will simply visit the home page.
Grade: B+

Format: Email?
Email Address: legal at blogsome dot com?
Location of Policy: Blogsome Terms of Service
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Blogsome talks one of the toughest games when it comes to copyright infringement. Their modest-lengthed terms of service uses the word “copyright” ten times. However, there’s no teeth to this policy. There is no address given to contact about copyright infringement. Though they are an Irish site and do not have to follow the DMCA, there are EU regulations at play and, without a clear means of contact for reporting abuses, I am very worried about how this site might be misused. Hopefully, they will update their policies soon to make it more clear where they should take such matters, the address above is the only account I could find used in relation to the terms of service in any way, shape or form.
Grade: F

Wrap Up

It is an Alice in Wonderland moment for me. SixApart, who has drawn criticism for their copyright polices elsewhere, has the best public DMCA policies of all the services listed. WordPress, the dedicated spam fighter, has one of the worst.

Equally strange, the big companies, Microsoft and Google, both have obstructionist policies while the dinosaur AOL and small business SixApart have much more effective and open ones.

Over all though, I was very disappointed in the policies of the major blog hosts. Most have shown little interest working with rightsholders and some are downright uncooperative. With one F, two Ds, a C- and three B+s, two belonging to SixApart, this is easily one of the worst genres I have reviewed.

Conclusions

In the end, none of the blogging companies earned an A. They all had at least some issues with their policy and, despite being some of the largest, most important hosts on the Web, only one showed any kind of evolution or forward-thinking in this area.

When stacked against the video sharing sites, it becomes clear what a difference the threat of lawsuits has on a company. Where the video sharing sites have taken great care in crafting their policies, the blog hosts have largely just thrown theirs together, working only to meet the minimum standards they feel they should be held up to.

Looking at these policies and going back over my personal experiences with many of these hosts, there is no wonder why and how the spam blog problem grew to the proportions that it did.

These sites, many of which have been sued or are operating under the constant threat of being sued, have their very livelihood centered around whether or not they qualify for DMCA safe harbor protection. They have more motivation than any other kind of host to ensure that their DMCA/copyright policies are up to code as even a minor slip up could become a mortal wound in the hands of an aggressive corporate lawyer.

So how do they hold up? Well, let’s take a look at seven of the top sites and find out.

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at youtube dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Notices Page
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Though purchased by Google some time ago, YouTube has operated as its own company and has maintained a separate policy when it comes to DMCA Notices. Overall, their copyright policy is a model for other sites like it. Not only do they provide the link to their policy on every page, but it is a well-written policy with detailed instructions for filing a notice and a link to instructions for filing a counter-notice. They also have a Content Verification Program, which is clearly targeted at large companies, that expedites the sending of multiple notices by giving rightsholders access to an online tool that can remove infringing works. Though such a tool might be ripe for abuse, and has been on some occasions, it is practically a necessity when dealing with large media companies, such as Viacom (see below).
Grade: A-

Format: Email
Email Address: amac at google dot com
Location of Policy: Google’s DMCA Policy
Registered with USCO: No (registered as Google)
Comments: Google’s other video site, Google Video, is definitely a part of the traditional Google structure, including their flawed and excessively difficult DMCA policy. Unfortunately, there is not much that I can say about Google’s policy that has not been said before. As with their other services, their requirement of a handwritten signature not only goes against the intent of the ESIGN Act, but throws up unnecessary and frustrating roadblocks to individuals seeking to file DMCA notices with Google. This may be one of the reasons why infringing material seems to stay up significantly longer on Google Video than other video sharing sites.
Grade: D

Format: Email
Email Address: CR-agent at metacafe dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Metacafe keeps it simple. Their policy is clean, simple and covers all of the bases. It offers all of the needed information, save details on filing a counter-notice, and is offered as a link at the footer of every single page. The only thing that is exceptional about their policy is that you are directed to send notices to the VP of Content and Marketing, Daniel Sevitt, rather than to either the counsel or their abuse team. Perhaps they do not get as many notices as other video sharing sites. Regardless though, their policy seems to be in order and hits all of the right notes. There is very little not to like about it.
Grade: B+

Format: Email
Email Address: support at break-inc dot com
Location of Policy: Item Seventeen, Terms of Use
Registered with USCO: Yes (outdated)
Comments: Inconsistency is a major problem with Break. Their USCO registration has users email their notices to jeff at jsuto dot com where their terms of service, the most up to date information, has it going to the address above. They’ve also buried their policy deep within their terms of use, literally making it one of the last items covered. Other than the odd location, the policy is complete, providing good instructions on filing a notice and, though it lacks any information on a counter-notice, it seems to follow the letter of the law.
Grade: C

Format: Email
Email Address: US-notification at dailymotion dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Notification Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: As a French site, Dailymotion is not necessarily bound by the DMCA. That is why it is so interesting that they do so and do it very closely, putting their policy proudly at the footer of every page. Their copyright policy is straight to the point, covering all of the basics, though omitting information about a counter-notice, and offering an easy email address to send in complaints too. Strangely missing from the Web version of their policy is any physical address, however, a glance at the USCO registration shows why, their physical address is in Paris and their fax number is also international. All in all, they took what could have been a difficult copyright situation and made it very simple. However, with the rules for notice and takedown the in EU being so relaxed, one might say that Dailymotion is actually setting the bar too high. However, I would argue they strike a good balance, using a system that should already be familiar with most American rightsholders while protecting their users from frivolous complaints.
Grade: B

Format: Email
Email Address: copyrightnotice at ifilm dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Compliance Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Having already looked at YouTube’s DMCA policy, we now get to look at how this Viacom-owned video sharing site follows the law itself. The policy itself is robust to a fault. Clearly written by attorneys it is the lengthiest of the DMCA policies in this section and can best be described as wordy. However, it is very complete, containing detailed information on filing a notice, counter notice and a lengthy policy for dealing with repeat infringers. Though weak in organization and hard to read, it more than gets the job done. Viacom is also generous enough to place the link to the policy on every page in the footer, and offer all of the major forms of contact to reach the host, email, fax and postal mail. However, not much in this policy goes above and beyond what is required by the law itself. It gets the job done, but other than its convenient location, does not do a great deal to help copyright holders out.
Grade: B-

Format: Email/Form
Email Address: steven at revver dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Information
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Revver’s DMCA policy is so short that, on first read, you think you missed it. It’s a few short sentences about how Revver supports copyright all followed by an invitation and address to postal mail your DMCA complaint in. There is no instruction on filing a notice, no email address, no fax, no counter-notice information, just a lengthy explanation about Creative Commons Licensing, fair use and remix culture. Important information, to be certain, but not helpful to someone seeking to stop non-transformative use of their work. With a little more digging, you find you can use their contact form to send a DMCA notice, but it is not a form designed for the purpose, instead, it is just a regular email form, the same used to send help requests and feedback. To find more practical information, you have to look at their USCO filing, which has their email address and fax number. Does this policy follow the law? Probably. But it seems openly hostile toward copyright notices and gives me an overall uncooperative feeling.
Grade: C-

Conclusions

Compared to the social news sites, the video sharing sites are a breath of fresh air. It is clear that the difficult legal climate they operate in has, for the most part, pushed them to follow the DMCA very closely and encouraged them to work with copyright holders in good faith.

Of the seven reviewed, none failed, Google was the only “D” and the others were varying degrees of acceptable.

One interesting twist in this evaluation was that Youtube’s DMCA policy is much more forward-thinking than the policy on Viacom’s iFilm site. Though Viacom’s policy is more than complete, its complexity and lack of rightsholder-friendly tools put it far behind YouTube. As a rightsholder, I would much rather work with YouTube.

Though YouTube as well as sites like it might have their DMCA safe harbor protections called into question for other reasons, there is little doubt on most of these sites, save Google Video, comply with the intent of the law and have good, ethical practices for working with copyright holders.

After seeing how poorly other sites perform in this area, any problems or complaints I have about their policies is mere nitpicks.

What the Ratings Mean

A – A complete policy that goes well above and beyond what is required. Often shows real innovation.
B – A solid policy that is well-thought out and is very complete. Shows consideration for submitters and users.
C – An average policy, follows the law to the letter but doesn’t go out of its way to help those submitting a notice or its users.
D – A policy that, while mostly complete, still raises severe ethical and/or legal questions.
F – An incomplete policy that fails to follow the DMCA or local laws in a severe way.

Pluses or minuses are used to indicate how the where a host fits in relationship to other hosts in that that tier.

Up Next: Blog Hosting Companies (Note: I know that the blog hosting article was scheduled to run this week, it will be running next week instead. I am sorry for the confusion but I am working to compile more information for the blog hosting article.)

In each case we will evaluate their policy, look for weaknesses and, as necessary, recommend steps for improvement.

However, as you can see below, for most of these sites, there is a lot of room for improvement. Worse yet, some have very critical issues that make it almost impossible to report copyright infringement, or other abuse problems, to the host.

Format: Email
Email Address: copyrightagent at myspace dot com
Location of Policy: Item Nine, Terms & Conditions
Registered with USCO: Yes (outdated)
Comments: Inconsistency is the word of choice for the Myspace policy. There are actually three different versions of it on the Web. First is their USCO submission, linked above, which is no longer valid. Second is the one provided in their terms and conditions, which provides the email address listed above. The third is the information provided under their “Contact” page, which directs you to yet another policy and a form to send your notice. Though the email address above works best, there is clearly room for confusion here. All in all though, the policy itself is the bare minimum and strives do enough to get by and not much else, a practice reflected by how they handle claims on the back end. Their policy provides only the basics for filing a DMCA notice with no mention of a counter-notice and does so in a very bare-bones way. The bottom line is that MySpace needs to clean up, update and unify its DMCA policy before serious problems emerge.
Grade: C-

Format: Email
Email Address: amac at google dot com
Location of Policy: Google’s DMCA Policy
Registered with USCO: No (registered as Google)
Comments: Orkut is Google’s social networking site and it shares its DMCA policy with the rest of Google’s services. Unfortunately, as I’ve commented before, that is not a good thing. Google’s DMCA policy is notoriously obstructionist and roundly criticized no the Web. Its requirement of a physical signature does not mesh with the law, in particular the ESIGN act, and makes it nearly impossible to email a notice in. You can get around these requirements by scanning in your signature, placing it in a PDF (I recommend OpenOffice) and emailing that, but it is a huge hassle that is unnecessary and adds work for both the submitter and the processor. That issue aside, Google’s policy is very robust, containing the necessary information to file a notice and a counter-notice. It also provides links to several relevant sites and I do agree with their submitting notices to Chilling Effects. However, the policy is difficult to find from the Orkut Web site, buried in the terms of use, and the actual Google policy is more targeted at the search engine, not the hosting services such as Orkut and Blogspot.
Grade: D

Format: Email/Form
Email Address: copyright at facebook dot com
Location of Policy: Facebook’s Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Facebook is a trend setter in so many ways, hopefully it can be one here as well. Facebook’s copyright policy is amazingly robust, including both notice and counter-notice information as well as well-worded cautions against sending false notices and providing a useful Copyright FAQ that can answer many of a member’s or a copyright holder’s questions. Best of all, Facebook provides a very easy-to-use form for submitting either a DMCA notice or a counter-notice. The form automatically checks that the notice is valid and aids inexperienced rightsholders in sending a notice in. All in all, it is almost the perfect policy with the perfect method for receiving notices, either via email or form. The only complaint I have about the policy is that the link to it is buried in the terms of use, under “Copyright Complaints” but, beyond that, Facebook sets the bar up to which other social networking sites will be held.
Grade: A

Format: Email
Email Address: ??? (help at friendster dot com?)
Location of Policy: Item Eight, Terms of Service
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: I’d love to talk more about Friendster’s DMCA/Copyright policy but there isn’t much to say. The site denotes one meager paragraph to the issue in their terms of service, of which but one sentence is targeted as those wishing to file a DMCA notice. However, following the “Contact Us” link provided takes you to a page with no clear contact information to report such an infringement. The policy is woefully incomplete, buried in their terms of service, does not provide adequate contact information and offers no guidance on filing a notice at all. Worst of all, the site is not registered with the USCO, so it is impossible to obtain the information through that database. This policy is effective non-existent.
Grade: F

Format: Postal Mail
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: User Conduct, User Agreement
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: As bad as the Friendster policy is, this one is much worse. Not only do the only denote one sentence to copyright issues, but they do not provide information to contact a DMCA agent anywhere on their site or with the USCO. Worst of all, the only means of contact they provide for handling abuse complaints, all abuse complaints, is a postal address in California. Though LinkedIn’s structure makes it slightly less of a copyright danger, there are still many potential problems and their policy is beyond reckless. It is a shame that the social network targeted at business users has such a sloppy policy. Most likely, I’ll be removing my own LinkedIn profile in the coming days/weeks after now that I am aware of this issue. I am officially taking suggestions on where to move to.
Grade: F

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at bebo dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Policy, Terms of Service
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Previously derided on this site, Bebo has taken some solid steps to deal with these issues more appropriately. They have done away with the registration requirement, have posted a full DMCA policy in their terms of use and have designated an agent to handle all such claims. The policy itself is very robust, if a bit hidden, containing all of the necessary elements to file a notice and a counter-notice. However, I do find it a bit strange that the notice and counter-notice go to the same person, but to different email addresses. It is a complete policy that, for whatever reason, is not supplemented by an actual registration with the USCO. Still, the progress has been impressive and I hope that the site will continue to push forward in this area, perhaps bringing it to full safe harbor compliance.
Grade: C-

Format: Email
Email Address: help-dmca at xanga dot com
Location of Policy: Xanga’s DMCA Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: In the past, I have been very hard on Xanga. Initially there was no DMCA information on their site and no registration with the USCO. After letters, calls and emails, I was able to get in touch with Xanga and, at least in a small way, push them toward becoming DMCA compliant. Now their policy is a model for other sites in the field to look at. Though not as practical as Facebook’s they have a well-written and robust policy that details both notice and counter-notice procedures. Their policy provides full contact information, including fax, email and snail mail as well as reasonable cautions on filing a false notice and links to relevant pages. They’ve also registered with the USCO and all of their information is consistent. My only complaint is that their DMCA policy is buried as a link in their terms of use, under “Copyright Infringement” and can be a little bit hard to find. The only other place the policy appears is as a link under “Legal” in the “Help” section. All in all, it is a very robust and very effective policy that, since the initial problems were resolved, has worked very well.
Grade: B+

Conclusions

When it was all said and done, I was very disappointed in how the social networking sites followed the DMCA. Two, Friendster and LinkedIn, outright failed, having incomplete and inadequate policies, one was barely passable, another was below average and only Xanga and Facebook were real standouts.

Given the importance of social networking sites on the Web, it is a great shame that they seem to struggle so dearly in this area. I am going to open up a dialog with both Friendster and LinkedIn to see about addressing these issues, previous attempts to speak with Google have been failed.

But as the Web becomes more and more reliant on social networking sites, their DMCA/copyright policies will become more and more important. We simple can not allow these sites to have weak or ineffective policies, lest they become homes to plagiarists, spammers and others that want to misuse content.

The time to act is now and I intend to start working on it today.

What the Ratings Mean

A – A complete policy that goes well above and beyond what is required. Often shows real innovation.
B – A solid policy that is well-thought out and is very complete. Shows consideration for submitters and users.
C – An average policy, follows the law to the letter but doesn’t go out of its way to help those submitting a notice or its users.
D – A policy that, while mostly complete, still raises severe ethical and/or legal questions.
F – An incomplete policy that fails to follow the DMCA or local laws in a severe way.

Pluses or minuses are used to indicate how the where a host fits in relationship to other hosts in that that tier.

Up Next: Blog Hosting Companies

Differences between the sites became clear as sites with more money, and thus better access to legal advice, had much more complete policies than those with more humble means.

However, social news is not the only growing segment of the Web. As digital photography and online artwork has become easier and more accessible, photo sharing and image hosting services have also grown rapidly in size.

However, the boon in online image hosting has also given birth to a sharp rise in image theft. Now, anyone with a Flickr account can trivially download an image and post it to the Web. There’s no need to have a Web site at all and the image can be embedded anywhere desired, including on social networking sites.

This has made the copyright enforcement policies of these image sharing sites especially important because, without cooperation from the major players, this type of plagiarism can go unchallenged.

So, I’ve decided to continue my analysis of DMCA policies on various sites by reviewing the policies of seven of the top photo sharing sites including Photobucket, ImageShack, Flickr and more. Here is what I found.

Format: Email
Email Address: abuse at photobucket dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright and IP Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Robust and to the letter of the law, Photobucket sets a very high bar for its competitors. Not only is its DMCA policy complete, including counter-notice information, but the site also offers similar policies for violations of trademark and privacy. The only complaint I can offer about their policy is that it is difficult to find. It is not included in their contact information, but rather, in the footer of their terms of service. A link to the policy, as well as information on reporting other abuse, should probably be located in an easier to find place. Still, the policy itself is very sound and offers great information for anyone looking to file a notice or counter-notice with the company.

Format: Form
Email Address: See Form
Location of Policy: None
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: In stark contrast to Photobucket, ImageShack completely lacks a formal DMCA policy. Though they provide a Web form to report infringing images, there is no other contact information (fax, email, address, etc.) and no guidance on filing a notice. Reports from others who have filed DMCA notices with Imageshack have indicated a spotty record on acting on infringing material when notified by this means. Worse, the default template of the abuse form is woefully inadequate to report copyright infringement in accordance with the law and, as of this writing, ImageShack has not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Though their relatively short terms of service mentions copyright three different times, their overall policy shows a general lack of planning.

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at yahoo-inc dot com
Location of Policy: Yahoo’s Copyright and IP Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Owned by Yahoo, Flickr shares its DMCA policy with the search giant. Yahoo has had a strong and robust policy for as long as I can remember for both its search and other hosting properties. Flickr benefits greatly from that experience. The information provided is short but complete, the policy is easy to find, located in the footer on every page, and provides all of the necessary information. Though the lack of counter-notice information is somewhat worrisome, that is likely something they handle when communicating directly with individuals that have been served with DMCA notices. All in all, it is a well-rounded and simple DMCA policy that is more or less what you would expect from Yahoo.

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at webshots dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Violation Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Owned by CNET, Webshots has a very simple but effective DMCA policy. Located in the footer of each page, the policy goes through the basics of providing a DMCA notice to the site and offers up all of the necessary information to get in touch with the designated agent. The site is also registered with the USCO. The only concern I have with Webshots is that they repeat the information in their terms of use but provide different contact information (the TOU says “General Counsel” while both the USCO filing and the IP policy directs it to the agent). Also, the IP policy in the TOU omits the email address. However, that is likely an oversight and, in general, their DMCA policy is very complete and well done.

Format: Email
Email Address: copyrightagent at smugmug dot com
Location of Policy: “Copyright Complaints”, Terms of Use
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: The only paid service on this list, SmugMug has one of the most unusual copyright/DMCA policies. Buried in the terms of service, where it is very difficult to find, the policy can be best described as “short but sweet”. It covers the basics including the agent’s contact information and the required elements of the notice but doesn’t offer much else. Strangest of all, the terms of use do not make any mention about copyright infringement being a violation of their terms and, outside of the policy, the only mention of copyright at all revolves around the protection of their own works. Perhaps even more disheartening is that they place their own copyright warning above their DMCA policy, thus highlighting their own protections before discussing their DMCA information. This site is not registered with the USCO and, though the policy is complete, it seems, in general, to be more of an afterthought.
Update: I spoke with the general manager of SmugMug. He was very grateful for this review and has already sent off his application for USCO registration in response to it. Also, he pointed out that their terms of service does make mention of copyright under their “License Granted by Users” section. They were planning on reworking their terms before this article and will likely rearrange it to make it more clear. Still, not seeing that was my mistake and I apologize.

Format: Email
Email Address: infringement at snapfish dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Infringement Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: A very basic policy. Provides the information required including the contact information for the agent and the required elements for notification but doesn’t go out of its way to help either those submitting notices or those seeking put-back. There is no counter-notice information and the policy itself is buried as link in their terms and conditions. The site has registered with the USCO and, by all appearances, has done everything required to comply with the letter of the law. All in all, Snapfish’s policy is unimpressive in every regard.

Format: Email
Email Address: abuse at bbridgetech dot com
Location of Policy: Last Item, Terms of Service
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: The cool photo sharing site with a funny name has a less than cool DMCA policy with a less than serious approach to the matter. Though their DMCA policy provides the email address to contact their abuse department and the basics for submitting a complaint. It does not offer much else. Zooomr has not registered with the USCO as of this writing and provides no other means of contact such as snail mail, fax or phone. However, these limitations are representative of their entire terms of service, limited, unprofessional and done with haste. It seems that their entire abuse system lags well behind most other Web sites in this field.

Conclusions

All in all, of these sites, only ImageShack was truly lacking in its policy. All of the other sites have policies in place and provide the necessary information to file a notice. Though three, ImageShack, Zooomr and SmugMug had not registered with the USCO as of this writing, the other four had.

It appears that, while many of these sites have flaws and concerns, that most of them are interested in at least following the law as it is written and working with copyright holders.

However, this is not a complete list of photo sharing sites by any stretch. I can think of at least a dozen others that are not on this list. I will likely return in a few weeks to create a part two of this series, where I will cover seven more photo sharing sites.

Also, in a bid to make this a regular “Thursday” event, I will also be posting on the DMCA/Copyright policies of top social networking sites as well as video sharing sites.

If you have any suggestions for this series or know of any sites that you want covered, please leave a comment below. I would love your input on this.

The article detailed a case involving the site Celebrity Hack, a celebrity gossip blog. The site had one of its articles, entitled “37 Famously Stupid Celebrity Quotes” submitted to Digg only to be buried for unknown reasons. Then, a few weeks later, a lower quality copy was submitted to the site and reached the front page without being buried at all.

It is obvious that, in that case, the traditional notion of social news failed. The usual means of preventing duplicate failed to stop the advancement of the plagiarized story. It would seem that, in that light, there is very little that a site such as Celebrity Hack can do to prevent scraped and plagiarized content from being promoted on social news sites. If the crowd fails to see the duplication and pushes a duplicate article forward, there is little a lone Webmaster or blogger can do.

However, the DMCA may provide the answer to that problem. It gives individuals who have had their content ripped off and posted to social news sites the ability to have those links removed. It can help webmasters mitigate against the damage that such plagiarism can do and even stop thieves before they see any benefit from the stolen work.

Why Digg has a DMCA Policy

The DMCA carves out safe harbor protection for many kinds of online service providers. One of those service providers, found under section 512(d) in Title 17, is what is called an “Information Location Tool”.

The law goes on to define an “information location tool” as one that is:

referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link

That section covers search engines such as Google, directories such as DMOZ and any other site that links to Web pages where infringing material may be found.

The law grants those sites safe harbor, meaning they are not liable for the infringement, so long as they have no knowledge of the infringement, remove access to the material once notified and register a DMCA agent with the United States Copyright Office (USCO).

This is one area where the DMCA has done a great deal to assist the development of the Web. By eliminating most of the gray area that existed before the law was passed, the DMCA made sites like Digg easier to found without the fear of being held liable for linking to infringing material. In short, it removed a great risk factor from starting this kind of site.

However, because of this, social news sites have had to develop copyright policies and work to comply with the DMCA. Most larger social news sites have designated DMCA agents and processes in place to handle complaints of copyright infringement.

Here are just a few examples of that.

Digg

Format: Email
Email Address: abuse at digg dot com
Location of Policy: Item Five, Terms of Use
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Overall, Digg’s DMCA policy seems very well-rounded. It offers the necessary links to information for filing both a notice and a counter-notice under the DMCA. However, Digg’s contact information is somewhat lacking. Digg handles all DMCA-related matters through their abuse email address, which is normally the best way to handle such matters, but offers no additional contact information including name, phone number, fax number or physical address. Sites that list their DMCA agents with the United States Copyright Office have to include such information. Digg may need to see about expanding their policy to include this information and formally registering with the USCO.

Reddit

Format: Email, Fax, Snail Mail
Email Address: copyright at sbandg dot com
Location of Policy: Item Four, User Agreement
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Reddit apparently has taken on the services of the NY law firm Sabin, Bermant & Gould to handle their DMCA notices. It seems likely that the policy was written by them as well. The policy is both succinct and thorough, covering all of the required elements of a DMCA notice and offering multiple means of contact to get in touch with the agents. However, the policy completely lacks any mention of a counter-notice, which is relatively unusual. However, that information may be included in the contacts sent to users that have had DMCA notices filed against them.

Slashdot

Format: Email, Snail Mail
Email Address: dmca at ostg dot com
Location of Policy: Item Thirteen, Terms of Use
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: DMCA complaints to Slashdot are handled by their parent company, the Open Source Technology Group. Their policy is very lengthy and covers all of the information needed to both submit a DMCA notice and file a counter-notice. The contact information is complete, though it is unclear if the number listed is a phone or fax number, and the policy itself spells out the steps needed, without referencing other sites. Users unfamiliar with the DMCA will likely find this policy very helpful.

Netscape

Format: Email, Snail Mail
Email Address: See Form
Location of Policy: Own Page
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Netscape’s policy, which is handled by their parent AOL, is probably the most mature out of all of the copyright policies. Not only do they have a well-written policy that provides all of the needed information to file a DMCA notice, they even provide an easy form to submit it. Lacking from their site is any information about filing a counter-notice, once again, information likely included when notifying a user that has been the subject of a DMCA notice, and a fax number for sending in complaints that way. Still, they have the easiest and most robust policy overall and, in my experience with their Web host, have a very respectable reputation for handling infringing material.

Fark

Format: Email?
Email Address: See Form
Location of Policy: None
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Of all the social networks I looked at, Fark is the only one completely lacking a formal DMCA policy. Though the contact form can be used to ask a “legal question” or report a bad headline, there is no clear place to file an abuse report nor is there an actual policy for receiving DMCA notices on the site. This isn’t the first time Fark’s copyright policy has been questioned, but the first time was easily explained by poor writing and it seems likely that this is also an issue with a poorly-written terms of use. Hopefully, as Fark works on their copyright policy, they will also work on their DMCA policy as well. Otherwise, they risk losing protection under the DMCA safe harbor act.
Update From Fark: I heard back from Drew earlier today, he said that he is going to work with his new attorney on this matter shortly after correcting the current copyright policy, which is now in final draft stage. Hopefully, this matter too will be cleared up easily.

Conclusions

Of all of the DMCA policies I reviewed, Netscape’s procedure was far and away the most robust and the most user-friendly. However, this is understandable as AOL has been a Web host for over a decade and has a lot of experience working with the DMCA. Also, they probably have the largest volume of complaints.

After Netscape, Slashdot and Reddit both have very solid policies, both are registered with the USCO and both provide all of the needed information. They are definitely both excellent role models in this area. Digg is also more than acceptable, however, their lack of registration with the USCO is worrisome since it is a requirement of the DMCA and their safe harbor status may be in jeopardy because of that. However, these are all easy things to fix.

At the bottom, right now, is Fark. Their lack of a formal policy not only puts their safe harbor status at risk, but also, can confuse and hinder anyone reporting links to any infringing material.

However, since I have not worked with any of these companies personally, save AOL, I can not make any judgments on them for the host report, all of this is based purely upon my evaluation of their stated policies and information I have heard from others.

The bottom line, however, is that social news is supposed to be about rewarding people who produce high-quality content. That can’t happen as long as plagiarists are able to steal that content and promote it as their own.

When the crowd fails to catch a thief in time, as will happen sometimes, it is important for a site to have an effective and copyright policy and a strong will to enforce it.

Otherwise, social news sites risk becoming an even darker element of the “echo chamber” that some feel blogs already are.

Note: All of the above networks were contacted for this article and, as of this writing, had not responded. I will update this article should any reply after it is published.

Note 2: This story is in no way related to the HD-DVD story that has consumed Digg over the past 24 hours or so. That story, apparently, did not involve a DMCA notice, but rather a cease and desist letter, and this story was underway well before the HD-DVD controversy began to draw much attention. This was intended to be a follow up to the story mentioned above.