nb_cid nb_clickOther -tt-nb this.style.behavior='url(#default#homepage)';this.setHomePage('http://www.aol.com/?mtmhp=acm50ieupgradebanner_112313 network-banner-empty upgradeBanner
14
Search AOL Mail
AOL Mail
Video
Video
AOL Favorites
Favorites
Menu

The key provision in a 1998 law that led to the most recent (and possibly worst) celebrity photo leak scandal in history



SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Imagine what the Internet would be like if most major websites had imposed controls preventing the naked photos stolen from Oscar-winning actress Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities from being posted online.

The Internet would be less sleazy, but pre-screening more content might also mute its role as a megaphone for exposing abuses in government, big companies and other powerful institutions.

To preserve the Internet as a free-wheeling forum, the U.S. Congress included a key provision in a 1998 law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that governs the online distribution of photos, video and text.

A "safe harbor" clause absolves websites of any legal liability for virtually all content posted on their services. The law, known as the DMCA, requires websites and other Internet service providers to remove a piece of content believed to be infringing on a copyright after being notified of a violation by the copyright owner.

Websites have been busily pulling the naked photos of Lawrence and other victims of the high-tech theft presumably because they are being notified of copyright violations or because the images violate the sites' terms of service. The copyright infringements are fairly blatant: The photos were likely taken by either the celebrities themselves or by someone else besides the thieves who hacked into their online accounts to heist copies stored on computers for online backup services such as Apple Inc.'s iCloud.

But the stolen photos weren't removed quickly enough to prevent an unknown number of people from making their own copies on their smartphones, tablets and personal computers.

Although the intrusion into the privacy of Lawrence and other stars probably would have been less rampant if websites weren't protected by the DMCA, most legal experts question whether requiring Internet companies to review content more vigilantly before it's posted would be worth setting precedents that could stifle free expression.

"If there is anything the American public dislikes more than an invasion of privacy, it's censorship," says Bruce Sunstein, a Boston attorney specializing in intellectual property rights.

HOW DID THE DMCA COME ABOUT?

As more people began to surf the Web in the mid-1990s, it became increasingly apparent that the Internet was making it easier for people to acquire and post all kinds of content. This made copyright violations more widespread, but music labels, movie studios and book publishers had to go to court to obtain orders to remove each piece of illegal content.

The DMCA represented Congress' attempt to address the copyright challenges posed by the Internet. Among other things, the legislation gave copyright holders a way to request their content to be removed simply by sending an email. Lawmakers also included the safe harbor provision to protect websites from lawsuits alleging that they should never have allowed the content to be posted in the first place.

Some of the safe-harbor protections have faced legal challenges, including a high-profile lawsuit that entertainment conglomerate Viacom Inc. filed against YouTube after the video site was sold to Google for $1.76 billion in 2006. Viacom alleged that YouTube management allowed copyrighted video to be brazenly uploaded to their site because they knew the material would attract more viewers and drive up the value of their company. Google and YouTube ultimately prevailed in the bitter dispute, largely because of the DMCA's safe harbor.

WHY WAS A SAFE HARBOR NEEDED?

If websites could be held liable for copyright violations, they would be thrust into the position of making judgment calls on a piece of content before it's posted online. That would be a daunting task, given the volume of material that Web surfers share on the Internet today. About 144,000 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube alone each day, while Twitter processes more than 500 million tweets per day and Facebook's 1.3 billion users share billions of photos.

"The platforms that host that content can't readily police all of it the way that a newspaper can carefully select what should go in as a letter to the editor," says Harvard University Law School professor Jonathan Zittrain, who is also co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

Some pre-screening of content is still done. YouTube prevents some video from being posted through a copyright-screening tool that was created after Google took over.

Not all copyright violations are caught, so Google is still inundated with takedown requests. In the past month alone, Google says it received requests to remove more than 31 million links in its search engine index directing traffic to content cited as copyright violations. That number doesn't include content posted on YouTube or its blogging service. Google says it complies with the overwhelming majority of the takedown requests.

It's probably a good thing that websites aren't asked to decide what's legal and what's not, says Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group focused on digital rights. She worries big companies would likely err on the side of caution and block more content than necessary because they wouldn't want to risk being held liable for something that could dent their earnings and stock price. Small startups, meanwhile, would also likely be prone to block a lot more content because they can't afford anything that could drain their finances.

"The Internet, as we know it, would not exist if it were not for the DMCA's safe harbor," McSherry says. "If we are ever in a position where Internet service providers have to monitor their sites, I think Internet users will lose."

DON'T WEBSITES ALREADY BLOCK OR REMOVE MATERIAL THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS?

Yes, but those decisions typically involve violations of a websites own rules. For instance, YouTube and Facebook try to block pornographic images from appearing on their services. Both of those sites, along with Twitter, also forbid graphic violence, such as the recent beheadings of U.S. journalists videotaped by the Islamic State militants that killed them. In many instances, though, the websites still rely on their own users to identify posted content that violates the terms of service.

"The lasting test here is of the ethical moment that users face when they choose to seek out or repost photos they know weren't meant to be public," Zittrain says.

More from AOL.com:
Malaysia airlines scraps 'bucket list' promo name
AP source: US to investigate Ferguson police
Daughter gives latest update on Rivers' health
Bernie Madoff's last surviving son dies at 48
13 injured in 'smoke tornado experiment' at Nevada museum
Biden: We'll follow terrorists to 'gates of hell'
Sotloff family speaks: 'This week we mourn ... but we will emerge'

Join the discussion

1000|Char. 1000  Char.
David Hickey September 04 2014 at 8:38 AM

Hmmm dumb ass takes pictures of herself nude then is upset they reach the internet? How about the Dumb ass Jennifer Lawrence pays the FBI for their investigation she has asked for. But then again in Hollywood there is no such thing as taking responsibility for your own actions especially if your getting free publicity to boot.

Flag Reply +10 rate up
2 replies
erinjanespca David Hickey September 04 2014 at 11:39 AM

It was done privately on a private device, love how all you men (I haven't seen any women yet, anyway) blame the victims for the crime of the thieves and hackers.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
1 reply
leavesbound erinjanespca September 04 2014 at 12:13 PM

If you have a photo album and in that album you keep naked pictures of yourself and you take it to a public library and put it on the shelf with other books you got no business complaining if a library patron copies the photos and mails those copies to his friend. In a nut shell, that is what you do when you take photos with your phone or other internet accessible device. The only illegality that I see here is violation of copyright. I just don't understand why people think they are safe keeping nude photos of themselves where they can easily be found. Another analogy is don't sunbath naked in your front yard and then complain when guys stare and you and whistle. Or here is another one, a girl I dated grabbed my crotch and told me she wanted it badly then when I gave it to her she went to the police and complained I assaulted her. The women who you call "victims" are idiots and got exactly what they deserved.

Flag 0 rate up
siouxmurphy David Hickey September 04 2014 at 12:14 PM

I've seen tons of women blame these starlets for storing nude pics on a public server. And if people do the research behind this they will find that it wasn't really hacked per say...they (stars) used such brilliant passwords such as.... 1234, 4321, Password, ILOVEYOU and Sunshine. Yes by all means, lets get the FBI involved in something REALLY important like self imposed Nudie pics. lol. This isn't a Male vs. Female issue. It's more like Smart vs. Idiot.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
d1anaw September 04 2014 at 9:39 AM

So let's get this straight.... serious breeches of real information have been hacked for decades, but it takes the release of nude photos of a bunch of celebrities to bring the authorities to investigate the way the internet is run? If they had not posed for them, they would not be out there. End of story. They posed, so it sucks to be them.

Flag Reply +10 rate up
1 reply
Tim Walker d1anaw September 04 2014 at 11:49 PM

bingo!!!

Flag Reply 0 rate up
DanD September 04 2014 at 8:08 AM

Nude pictures? Abortions? Racial crimes (black on black crimes).....
It's all the same issue. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for yourself. If you don't want NUDE pictures out there, MAKE SURE THEY can't be "stolen" IF you feel the need to take them... (Don't get pregnant - lots of ways to prevent it- and you won't need an abortion... Black communities need to take responsibility for their own failures that lead to crimes against each other - don't blame everyone else).

Flag Reply +8 rate up
5 replies
barbgre1 September 04 2014 at 8:02 AM

More government regulations aren't the answer. Common sense of things people post is the issue. Once someone posts a nude picture, even on a phone,, they have to realize it's vulnerable.

Flag Reply +6 rate up
3 replies
frogully September 04 2014 at 10:17 AM

Geez, I must be missing something, 'cause I don't understand why so many folks are taking nude pics/sex videos of themselves. If you don't want to risk it being seen by anyone/everyone, then just don't do it!

Flag Reply +6 rate up
1 reply
Camp Bulldog frogully September 04 2014 at 11:19 AM

that is why we have mirrors...better than a picture

Flag Reply 0 rate up
JRGXRay05 September 04 2014 at 9:41 AM

queencelt, this IS the fault of the "victims", they put themselves where ther are by stupidity, vanity and ego. THEY put these images where anyone knows that they could be "hacked". NO place involved with the internet is secure.

Flag Reply +6 rate up
3 replies
tazridesaharley September 04 2014 at 10:45 AM

Why would you take or allow to be taken a naked photo of yourself?Unless you have been living in a cave you know how easy it seems to have personal info hacked.

Flag Reply +5 rate up
1 reply
thescot tazridesaharley September 04 2014 at 11:35 AM

You just can't fix stupid and these hos have the IQ of a bag of hair.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
blackfuzzred September 04 2014 at 8:54 AM

Clearly, they are a bunch of stupid women. It's quite simple - don't take pictures of yourself that you wouldn't show your parents. If you decide to engage in that kind of behavior AND keep photographic souveniers - it's YOUR fault if they end up in a public forum. Smarten up, you're making things difficult for the intelligent females out there!!!

Flag Reply +5 rate up
rthompson1329 September 04 2014 at 8:39 AM

The price you pay for fame.

Flag Reply +4 rate up
1 reply
thescot rthompson1329 September 04 2014 at 11:33 AM

Or shame and they should be ashamed for sure, dumb media hos.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
rgburrill September 04 2014 at 10:33 AM

When are libtards going to realize that making something illegal is not going to stop it from happening. What part of illegal do they not understand?

Flag Reply +3 rate up
aol~~ 1209600

Voting...

More From Our Partners