June 16th, 2008

Overly restrictive A.P. quoting guidelines risk winning battles at the war’s expense

Posted by Denise Howell @ 9:44 am

Categories: Blogging, Copyright, Licenses, Video, Mashups

Tags: A.P., Blogging, Saul Hansell, Media Bloggers Association, Denise Howell

Saul Hansell reports today that the Associated Press "will, for the first time, attempt to define clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt without infringing on The A.P.’s copyright."

The problem with “clear standards” is that as Tim Wu (quoted in the article) correctly points out, the legal standard is unclear, and subject to interpretation on a case by case basis. There are instances when reproducing the entire work (or large portions thereof — “Fisking” we used to call it, seems like eons ago) with sufficient commentary is fair use. The A.P.’s vague statement that it wants to police what appears to be reproduction for reproduction’s sake as opposed to commentary, thus is a fair representation of what it’s entitled to do by law; anything more specific might not hold up.

Given this, it’ll be interesting to see what the A.P. cobbles together with the Media Bloggers Association, which of course does not act for and can’t bind the whole blogosphere and Web. If, as the statements to Hansell suggest, it’s as restrictive as purporting to make brief direct quotations against A.P. policy, the A.P. will either have to backtrack or try to get judicial buy-in on a policy that in all likelihood would be deemed overbroad.

(Image by SideLong, CC Attribution-2.0)

Related: Mike Arrington, Here’s Our New Policy On A.P. stories: They’re Banned, and all stories and posts linked from there; Techmeme re same.

December 24th, 2007

Christmas is a time for mashups

Posted by Denise Howell @ 10:54 am

Categories: Copyright, Licenses, Mashups

Tags: Apple iTunes, Mashup, Christmas, Digital Music, Digital Media, Personal Technology, Consumer Electronics, Denise Howell

As I inevitably download "new" holiday music each year, it’s painfully apparent we wouldn’t *have* much new holiday music if it weren’t for sampling, remixes, remakes, and mashups. The iTunes List of 44 Holiday Songs for 2007 is testament to this fact, as are the many Christmas remixes and dubs dotting the ‘Net and the digital download inventory.

But all this Christmas cheer does not come cheap, especially for those who mix, mash, clip, and copy without jumping through Byzantine (if not impossible) licensing hurdles. Such artists may find their stockings stuffed only with costly lawsuits and astronomical damages liability. As Professor Patry wrote of the Bridgeport decision, "[I]n the end, it is creators of new sound recordings who build, transformatively on the works of predecessors who will suffer the most, and thereby all of us."

Even the likes of Disney are not necessarily immune. Do you hear what I hear? Namely, "War is Over" making a guest appearance in this Disney/Hannah Montana remake of "Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree." (Starting at 1:50.)

Katie Wedell was kind enough to free "The List: 44 Holiday Songs for 2007" (whence Hannah/Ms. Cyrus wound up on my stereo) from the iTunes Store, should you care to browse. Keith Richards’ Run Rudolph Run is a must-have:

1. The First Noel - Josh Groban and Faith Hill

2. Mistletoe - Colbie Caillat

3. Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree - Hannah Montana

4. Happy Xmas (War is Over) - Maroon 5

5. Run Rudolph Run - Keith Richards

6. Santa Baby - Kellie Pickler

7. Frosty the Snowman - Toby Keith

8. Season’s Greetings - Robbers on High Street

9. Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas - Emmy Rossum

10. Let it Snow - Michael Bolton

11. All I Want for Christmas - Keith Sweat

12. Don’t Shoot Me Santa - The Killers

13. Run Rudolph Run - Billy Ray Cyrus

14. O Come All Ye Faithful - Katharine McPhee

15. Oh Come Oh Come Emmanuel - Joshua James

16. O Holy Night - Mandisa

17. God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen / Feliz Navidad - Chanticleer

18. It Came Upon the Midnight Clear - Mannheim Steamroller

19. Silent Night - Lifehouse

20. On Christmas Day - Nazanin

21. What Child Is This - Michael W. Smith

22. Sleigh Ride - Relient k

23. Marshmallow World - Raul Malo

24. Jingle Bells - The Puppini Sisters

25. Do You Hear What I Hear - Yolanda Adams

26. Silver Bells - Mindy Smith

27. Wonderful Christmastime - Jars of Clay

28. The Dreidel Song - Sister Hazel

29. My Grown-Up Christmas List - Clay Aiken

30. Last Christmas - CASCADA

31. Santa Baby - Carter’s Chord

32. We Need a Little Christmas - Kimberley Locke

33. The Best Christmas - Christopher Cross

34. Ding Dong! Merrily On High - The American Boychoir

35. Santa Claus is Coming to Town - Bucky Covington

36. Here Comes Santa Claus - Tracy Lawrence

37. Silent Night - Sinéad O’Connor

38. Bring Me Love - Marié Digby

39. Christmas in Dixie - Trent Tomlinson

40. Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas - Bebo Norman

41. I Saw Three Ships - Rick Springfield

42. Please Come Home for Christmas - Josh Gracin

43. Chanukah, Oh Chanukah - Tor Hyams and JKidz

44. Holiday Bounce - Yo Yo Yo Kids

October 8th, 2007

In the trenches with Live Web law at EFF’s Bootcamp

Posted by Denise Howell @ 10:56 am

Categories: Blogging, Copyright, DMCA, Free speech, Licenses, Live Web, MGM v. Grokster, Podcasting, Social networking, Social news, User generated content, Video, Syndication, Collaboration, Mashups, Compliance, Defamation, Lawsuits

Tags: Electronic Frontier Foundation, Web 2.0, Fred von Lohmann, Bootcamp, Fenwick & West, Denise Howell

If you’re doing business on the Live Web, get thee this Wednesday, October 10, to EFF’s Bootcamp, “a one-day session for Web 2.0 workers on user generated content:”

Does your interactive company have to contend with the maze of laws dealing with user privacy and publishing user content? Want to do the right thing by the online community that gives your business value, and still fulfill your legal obligations?

EFF is hosting a one-day session for Web 2.0 workers who handle issues arising from users and user-generated content. From DMCA to CDA to ECPA, the law surrounding internet content can be confusing, especially for the folks who have to decide on the fly whether to let something stay up or take it down, or whether to give their customer’s name to the FBI agent on the phone. Let us help.

This is an incredible and cheap (between $100 - $200) opportunity to learn how to spot and avoid trouble from the best of the best in this field: EFF’s staff attorneys. (If the registration fee is still too rich for your blood, then apply for one of the 20 available Google-sponsored scholarships, explained here.)

I am hard pressed to conceive of a Web-based communication platform, community, or business model that doesn’t need this kind of overview. For nine examples of why, check out Rafe Needleman’s 9 fun ways Web 2.0 startups can commit legal suicide, gleaned from an interview with Fred von Lohmann in conjunction with the upcoming event:

Von Lohmann’s two big takeaways: First, be sure you know when you’re stepping into a danger zone. Music? Financial data? Private information? Kids? Don’t let yourself think you’re more clever than another industry’s legal machine. Second, realize that no matter how hard you try to stay clean, ‘You’re probably doing something wrong already. For the most part it doesn’t matter, but something just might.’

For yet more examples of the legal minefields Web businesses must daily navigate, you might want to eavesdrop on Fred von Lohmann’s IP and Innovation Policy class at Stanford by way of its blog. Bring your Aleve; plenty of brain teasers there.

Bootcamp starts at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday at Fenwick & West in Mountain View. (Brilliant move by the firm, hosting this. I’m sure plenty of Fenwick’s existing clients are thrilled for the opportunity, and once EFF’s staff has had the chance to terrify educate all the non-client attendees, the stampede to sign the firm’s retainer letter will leave some wondering how they wound up in Pamplona.)

(Image by A. www.viajar24h.com, CC Attribution-2.0)

September 17th, 2007

IP and the user generated economy at TechCrunch40

Posted by Denise Howell @ 5:07 pm

Categories: Conferences, Copyright, DMCA, Licenses, Live Web, MGM v. Grokster, User generated content, Video, Mashups

Tags: TechCrunch40, Creative Commons, IP, Copyright, Video, User Generated Content, Music, Denise Howell

Some very competitively interesting Web companies are being launched and/or featured today and tomorrow at TechCrunch40. In the wrap-up portion of the Community Collaboration session, former Napster executive Don Dodge was quick to note that many of these companies depend on user submissions and uploads to populate their services, and they need to be managing the IP considerations on the front end.

StoryBlender (a project from the creators of Cyworld) provides an online editing tool for collaborative video production. When pressed on the related IP issues, the presenters said they have learned from YouTube’s experiences and will have rigid policies (and presumably technology) in place to block uploading of copyrighted, unlicensed works.

It will be interesting to see whether AOL’s BlueString, which launched today at the conference and offers storage and sharing for photos, videos, and music, will take a similar approach. Its terms unsurprisingly put the copyright compliance obligations on the individual users. It invites users to upload their photos, their videos, and “their music” — though of course, as the ’80’s mix cd graphic now on the homepage suggests, BlueString users are unlikely to have created “their music” themselves, thus putting the service in the likely and unenviable line of fire of the major record labels.

Probably the biggest crowd favorite today was musicshake, a company that aims to change the assumption that a user’s “own music” was not created (at least in part) by the user her/himself. It’s a slick online music creation site, like GarageBand moved to the Web and made very user-friendly. The clips forming the foundation of musicshake creations are all licensed, and the company plans to let users sell their creations, keeping some of the proceeds themselves and kicking some to those providing the clips on which the finished work is built. It would be nice to see musicshake include Creative Commons licensing, but there was no mention of this today.

Two companies who either are or are contemplating offering Creative Commons licensing are docstoc and AOL’s BlueString (mentioned above). docstoc, which blends document storage with sharing and social networking, bakes in Creative Commons licensing à la Flickr, and BlueString’s terms advise users that they “may” have the option to apply a Creative Commons license to what they put on the site.

June 20th, 2007

Viacom and YouTube lawyers and others are in violent agreement: intellectual property won’t kill social media

Posted by Denise Howell @ 5:36 pm

Categories: Conferences, Copyright, DMCA, Licenses, Live Web, MGM v. Grokster, Social networking, Social news, User generated content, Video, Mashups, Lawsuits

Tags: Intellectual Property, Social Media, YouTube Inc., Viacom Inc., Mary Hodder, Ron Dreben, Fred von Lohmann, Zahavah Levine, Mark Morill, Denise Howell

There has been a good deal of violent agreement thus far here at Supernova, but I was pretty surprised at the degree of it we had on the panel I moderated this morning, captioned Will Intellectual Property Kill Social Media? The answer was resoundingly “no,” and the converse also held true: social media won’t kill IP, either. Instead, they’ll find a way to productively co-exist, or so we all seemed to think. In addition to me, “we all” consisted of:

• EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann
• Dabble Founder and CTO Mary Hodder
• Viacom Senior Vice President and General Counsel Mark Morril
• YouTube General Counsel Zahavah Levine
• Morgan Lewis IP partner Ron Dreben

Despite her protestations to the contrary, the BBC’s Alice Taylor took excellent notes of the session so I encourage you to check them out.

I realized about midway through I’ve been in sessions that sounded like this one before — but not at a conference, at a mediation. There was a stunning amount of agreement between Zahavah, Mark, and Fred about things like what should be done about non-transformative, verbatim copies of unlicensed works posted by users simply to make them accessible or more accessible (i.e., rightsholders should have streamlined and effective ways of policing them), and the social importance of the broad-based creativity and communication unleashed by social media tools (i.e., they must be preserved and encouraged to flourish). With all the consensus we had, if I hadn’t known there was a $1 billion lawsuit pending over these issues, if you’d tried to convince me of this afterward I’d have had to laugh in your face.

All of which leads me to shift my personal take on the likely outcome of Viacom v. YouTube: I’m now in the camp of folks convinced this is headed for a business, out-of-court solution. It felt like if we’d had a bit more time and one of those “lawsuit whisperer” mediators, we could have had one today. (Of course, Mark and Zahavah were speaking in their personal capacities, not as official company representatives; yada yada.) Such an outcome might not have the imprimatur of judicial precedent, but might nevertheless have the same kind of domino-tipping impact on similar future disputes.

[tags: supernova2007; viacomvyoutube; intellectualproperty; copyright; socialmedia]

April 23rd, 2007

Supernova: will intellectual property kill social media?

Posted by Denise Howell @ 11:26 pm

Categories: Conferences, Copyright, DMCA, Licenses, Live Web, MGM v. Grokster, Social networking, Social news, User generated content, Video, Mashups, Lawsuits

Tags:

Kevin Werbach just posted the draft agenda for the upcoming Supernova conference.  I'll be moderating a session at the Challenge Day on June 20 titled "Will Intellectual Property Kill Social Media?," and we've confirmed the following stellar panel to take on this topic:

• EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann
• Dabble Founder and Chairman Mary Hodder
• Viacom Senior Vice President and General Counsel Mark Morril
• YouTube General Counsel Zahavah Levine
• Morgan Lewis IP partner Ron Dreben 

I'm kind of beside myself about that lineup.  Here's the description of our session from the conference site:

The promise of social networks, video sharing, and online communities goes hand-in-hand with the challenge of unauthorized use.  Yet some see the legal and technical responses to that challenge doing more harm than good.  Can we find an accommodation between the explosive creativity of social media and the constraints of intellectual property law? 

If you have thoughts, suggestions, questions, or provocations you'd like to put to the panel, I'm all ears. 

March 23rd, 2007

Got user created content plus an API? Be sure to plug your copyright hole.

Posted by Denise Howell @ 11:11 pm

Categories: Blogging, Conferences, Copyright, MGM v. Grokster, Social networking, Tags, User generated content, Syndication, Collaboration, Mashups, Attention

Tags:

Yesterday, I was extolling the policy virtues of automation at VON 2007.  Today I was reflecting that until super-intelligent agents arrive and do it for us, humans need to be sure to actually read the documentation attached to the APIs enabling some of the most compelling automated transactions and interactions we see today.

I spent the day at Under the Radar, which lived up to its reputation as a very cool event.  Dan Farber blogged much of the coolness, and I Twittered some as well.  But one thing caught my attention as a slumbering yet big issue for Live Web companies:  if you offer an API, and well you should, people are going to use it.  However, they might not be all that careful about reading and following your API's terms of service — assuming, and let's hope it does, your API has terms of service.  This is true even when the people using your API are in another part of your very own company.  (See:  OUTRAGEOUS: Yahoo!™ STEALS copyrighted photos from Flickr users!)

Consider this scenario: 

1. Site 1 provides a platform for submission and sharing of user generated material.
2. Site 1 offers APIs enabling third party mashups of Site 1's user submitted material in heretofore unimagined, creative ways. 
3. Site 1 neglects to give users the means to affirmatively license their submitted material for third party use; or, a large number of users decline to license, even though given the chance.
4. Site 1 fails to warn Site 2 (and Sites 3 - infinity) that some or all of its users' submissions are not licensed for third party use.
5. Site 2 develops an application, using Site 1's API to make Site 1's user submitted materials available for use or viewing by Site 2's users.
6. Mayhem, outrage, rioting in the streets, denial of service attacks, etc. ensue, instigated by Site 1's ticked off users.

There's a twofold lesson here.  First, if you're going to make user submitted material (ex)portable and mashable through an API, provide a licensing mechanism for your users.  While you're on the right track when you "encourage users to contribute their creations to the public domain or consider progressive licensing terms," Ev and Biz, as a practical matter without a convenient and automated means to apply such terms everything users submit will be "all rights reserved."  Flickr's incorporation of Creative Commons licensing means developers using the Flickr API can readily incorporate tens of millions of Creative Commons licensed works into their products and services.  I'm not sure developers using, for example, the Twitter API (checked out Twittervision yet?  mesmerizing) can incorporate any Creative Commons licensed works — and that's not because Twitter users don't want to license their work.

Second, API terms of service should alert developers to this napping but particularly grumpy grizzly.  Flickr's does this nicely:

1. Licensed Uses and Restrictions.

The Flickr APIs are owned by Flickr and its parent company Yahoo! Inc. (hereinafter "Flickr") and are licensed to you on a worldwide (except as limited below), non-exclusive, non-sublicenseable basis on the terms and conditions set forth herein. These terms define legal use of the Flickr APIs, all updates, revisions, substitutions, and any copies of the Flickr APIs made by or for you. Flickr user photos are owned by the users (the photographers) and not by Flickr. All rights not expressly granted to you are reserved by Flickr.

a. You shall:

1. Comply with the Flickr Community Guidelines at www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne, the Flickr Terms of Use at http://www.flickr.com/terms.gne, and the Yahoo! Terms of Service at http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/.
2. Comply with any requirements or restrictions imposed on usage of the photos by their respective owners. Remember, Flickr doesn't own the images - Flickr users do. Although the Flickr APIs can be used to provide you with access to Flickr user photos, neither Flickr's provision of the Flickr APIs to you nor your use of the Flickr APIs override the photo owners' requirements and restrictions, which may include "all rights reserved" notices (attached to each photo by default when uploaded to Flickr), Creative Commons licenses or other terms and conditions that may be agreed upon between you and the owners. In ALL cases, you are solely responsible for making use of Flickr photos in compliance with the photo owners' requirements or restrictions. If you use Flickr photos for a commercial purpose, the photos must be marked with a Creative Commons license that allows for such use, unless otherwise agreed upon between you and the owner. You can read more about this here: www.creativecommons.org or www.flickr.com/creativecommons.
3. Comply with any other terms and conditions a user has attached to his or her photo. For example, if a user marks a photo as "private" after using your service, your application must reflect those changes as soon as reasonably possible. If your application has any cached copies of photos that have become "private," you must remove as soon as reasonably possible.
4. Remove from your application within 24 hours any Flickr user's photos or other information that the owner of the photo asks you to remove.
5. If you use the Authentication APIs, insert a standard header that we will provide into pages you build that access the Flickr API. It's important to us that users have an easy way to return to Flickr if they wish, and have some reference point (the logo) to show them that they're still connected to Flickrland. http://www.flickr.com/services/partners/.
6. Disclose in your application through a privacy policy or otherwise displayed in the footer of each page, how you collect, use, store, and disclose data collected from visitors, including, where applicable, that third parties (including advertisers) may serve content and/or advertisements and collect information directly from visitors and may place or recognize cookies on visitors' browsers.

These terms, by the way, are right in line with the principles of the Attention Trust; bravo, Flickr.   

"Flying and virtual" contracts like machine readable licenses are absolutely fantastic.  Please just make sure that in our exuberance to encourage uptake and creativity through APIs, we don't make the mistake of forgetting about such licenses altogether, or of remembering them when it comes to user submissions but forgetting when it comes to API documentation and use.

February 26th, 2007

Courts continue to immunize community sites under CDA Section 230, but what about the Live Web?

Posted by Denise Howell @ 6:20 pm

Categories: Anonymity, Blogging, Copyright, Free speech, Live Web, Podcasting, User generated content, Mashups, Defamation

Tags:

Hard on the heels of a Texas district court's recent decision to dismiss claims against MySpace, Howard Bashman spotted a recent Section 230 decision out of the First Circuit that continues in this vein, and emphasizes the clear judicial trend of applying Section 230's protections to Web sites acting as neutral hosts of a third party's wrongful acts (excluding infringement, which is the province of a specific provision of the DMCA).  Courts seem to have little trouble reaching this conclusion when dealing with text based communications, but I'm curious to see what will happen when a case involving a podcast or videocast commenter comes up.  Per its language, Section 230 immunizes providers and users of "interactive computer services," defined as:

any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

The provision most of these cases turn on provides that:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(Emphasis added.)  An "information content provider" is "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service."  I emphasized "provided by" in the language above because if a site exercises a sufficient amount of editorial control over the third party material, this can lead a court to conclude it is no longer wholly a third party contribution and render Section 230 inapplicable.

My take is that all manner of Live Web phenomena should constitute "interactive computer services" for purposes of this statute, but I wonder what wrinkles will flow from things like:

• site and/or user direction of what submissions get priority display or distribution (e.g., digg; current.tv),
• defendants that otherwise would not be eligible for Section 230's protections (e.g., radio stations) but trigger the statute's application by adding (almost as an afterthought) a Web-based component to their otherwise non-Web dependent offerings, and
• mashups that build on user submissions.

November 20th, 2006

UMG sues MySpace in a no-lose proposition, draws Grokster judge

Posted by Denise Howell @ 6:20 pm

Categories: Copyright, DMCA, Licenses, Live Web, MGM v. Grokster, Social networking, User generated content, Video, Mashups

Tags:

Last Friday, Universal Music Group filed copyright infringement claims against MySpace, claiming that MySpace and News Corp. are "liable for the direct infringement of [UMG's] copyrights, and for aiding, facilitating, and inducing the infringement of [UMG's] copyrights by countless MySpace users."

Steve O'Hear provides terrific context in the form of a timeline, to which I would add one key footnote:  when filed last week, UMG's complaint was assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson:  the trial judge in the MGM v. Grokster litigation.  In September, Judge Wilson applied the Supreme Court's decision in that case to grant summary judgment against defendant StreamCast on theories quite similar to those now being asserted by UMG against MySpace.  (More on Judge Wilson's recent decision from Ars Technica and Cathy Kirkman.)  I think it's safe to say UMG and its lawyers could not be more thrilled with their draw of a judge.

It's a sad reflection on our judicial system and the state of U.S. copyright law — which many of you feel should be rewritten — that there was no strategic downside to UMG filing this action.  In the wake of MGM v. Grokster, it is extraordinarily unlikely these claims would ever be considered purely tactical and frivolous, so as to subject the plaintiffs and their lawyers to Rule 11 sanctions.  Nevertheless, there is no denying the tactical value of the claims to UMG vis à vis MySpace/News Corp.  And virtually all of the potential outcomes are rosy for UMG.  Consider:

• the lawsuit lets UMG strong-arm the deal it wants = it wins;
• UMG wins the lawsuit = it wins; or
• in the unlikely event UMG decides the tide has turned against it in court and it may wind up creating bad (for UMG) precedent concerning the impact of the DMCA safe harbor, or that the marketing/promotional impact of MySpace is too great to try to squelch, it negotiates a dismissal with partial payment of the defendants' attorneys' fees = it wins.

Under any of the foregoing scenarios, this case is little more than a game of high stakes poker.  The way it stands to get really interesting is if UMG ultimately has the hubris and confidence to go to mat on the inevitable DMCA defense.

November 15th, 2006

In Second Life, those on ‘Candid Copybot’ aren’t smiling

Posted by Denise Howell @ 2:17 pm

Categories: DMCA, DRM, Licenses, Social networking, User generated content, Virtual worlds, Mashups, Machinima

Tags:

Marty Schwimmer tipped me to the controversy swirling about use of a CopyBot tool in Second Life.  (Go read Marty's terrifically headlined post: CopyBot Terrorizing Residents Of SecondLife, Caught On Video.)  Marty thinks this is an indication Linden Labs will have to bake more protective measures into its virtual world if it hopes to preserve and foster the economy:

[T]o the extent that it wishes to continue to be the host to an exchange, it will find that successful exchanges must offer security not only to buyers but to sellers. If copyrightable material is going to be bought and sold on Second Life, then I'm not sure that the real world copyright regime is fast enough to solve problems like CopyBot. I think that SecondLife is going to have to get into the copyright enforcement business.

I disagree.  Marty emphasizes the potentially disruptive nature of this copying technology on the still relatively nascent virtual world, but the fact is all copying technologies are and have been disruptive, in part by making it easier to infringe intellectual property rights:  cameras, photocopiers, audio and video recording devices, and all manner of digital media fall into this category.  In the real world, economies thrive in part because copying technologies exist — in other words, because those technologies themselves are economic engines.  Deciding that such technologies are bad per se and must be squelched or hobbled isn't good policy in the real world, and I'm not sure why Second Life, which is in the enviable position of creating in-world copyright policies from scratch, should adopt a different approach.  As Linden Labs CTO Cory Ondrejka pointed out in his related blog post, there is one aspect of the real world copyright regime that is literally built for speed:  the notice and takedown provisions of the DMCA.  I think my CNET colleague Daniel Terdiman, who wrote about this in his piece 'Second Life' faces threat to its virtual economy, missed the thrust of Cory's DMCA point.  It's not necessary "to file a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint — in the real world — against offenders" to achieve the removal of infringing material; it's only necessary to notify Linden Labs that you contend something is infringing and the removal process proceeds rapidly from there.  The asserted infringer has to make his or her case to Linden Labs in order to keep up the activity, before the question of real-world litigation necessarily even comes into play.

For now, Linden Labs has chosen to appease concerned users and police the technology by making use of CopyBot a terms of service violation.  But they've also, I think wisely, indicated that "using the Terms of Service is not a permanent solution," and that tracking and licensing services and data are keys to the approach-in-progress.  As in the real world, I think the smart and appropriate policy will be to find a way to let the analogs of snapshots and copy machines continue to exist, and let legal code rather than machine code primarily govern infringement situations.

[Update, 11/21/06 2:40 a.m.]  Jennifer Granick, Second Life will Save Copyright:  "The idea that innovation can flourish in the absence of copyright enforcement is not as heretical as it might seem."