Anyone who spends a reasonable amount of time online is probably familiar with copystrikes, the term given to a removal of (allegedly) copyrighted material from an individual’s website for an ostensible violation of copyright. “This media has been removed in response to a request from the copyright holder” isn’t an uncommon to thing while browsing Twitter or other social media sites.
Often, copystrikes are issued automatically by detection systems that sites like YouTube and Instagram use to avoid the ire of copyright holders. The upshot of this system is that uses which would clearly qualify as fair use/dealing to an impartial human observer gets flagged by an algorithm unable to make the distinction. Maybe one of your favourite YouTube videos has disappeared because it used too many clips of the TV show it was reviewing, or you weren’t able to make sense of a viral tweet because the embedded image had been removed–you’ve probably seen this system in action.
Media critics and video essayists on YouTube have long been critical of the seemingly arbitrary nature of that sites copystrike system. But as this article from Vice highlights, the downsides of the copystrike system go beyond just affecting content creators and can in fact be manipulated in an attempt to silence certain voices.
VICE: Is This Beverly Hills Cop Playing Sublime’s ‘Santeria’ to Avoid Being Live-Streamed?
Sennett Devermont is a police accountability advocate based in Los Angeles. Though I hadn’t heard of him before reading this article, he’s well-known in California for livestreaming his interactions with police. Last week, an officer in Beverly Hills apparently took exception to Devermont broadcasting their conversation. After refusing to answer Devermont’s questions, the on-duty officer started loudly playing Sublime’s “Santeria” from his phone, in an apparent attempt to get the video shut down if Devermont tried to share it online. (Just when I thought you couldn’t get must worse than a cop in a Blue Lives Matter mask suppressing access to information, it turns out he’s also a Sublime fan!)
As journalist Cory Doctorow (@doctorow) noted in a Twitter thread on the subject, this isn’t a novel tactic. In the past, it’s actually been used by anti-racist activists to try to stymie the sharing of footage of Neo-Nazi rallies. A noble goal, perhaps, but the potential for such censorship tools to be turned against progressive causes seems pretty clear in hindsight.
Content creators and proponents of fair use and fair dealing have been saying for years that our current copystrike system is fundamentally broken, but it’s an issue that can be too easy to ignore if one is under the misconception that the negative effects are borne solely or primarily by meme-makers and TikTok users. The reality is that the very real dangers of copyright abuse threaten our freedom of expression and the ability of grassroots journalists and activists to effectively hold our authorities accountable.
Full human oversight of alleged copyright infringement may not be feasible. But if that’s the case, we shouldn’t default to accepting an over-broad and abuse-prone automated system as our best option. There are many good reasons to consider installing a less-restrictive copyright regime, but protecting fundamental freedoms is an especially compelling one.
Communications Law