DMCA could be defined as the following: It provides a process for a copyright owner to give notification to an online service provider concerning alleged copyright infringement. When a valid DMCA notification is received, the service provider responds under this process by taking down the offending content. On taking down content under the DMCA, reasonable steps must be taken to contact the owner of the removed content so that a counter-notification may be filled. On receiving a valid counter-notification, the content in question will be restored, unless a noticed received from the notification provider that a legal action has been filled seeking a court order to restrain the alleged infringer from engaging in the violation activity.
Within these two subjects we can see if Twitter act reasonably or not. We can judge after we demonstrate the first and second of Twitter's reports. Twitter has re-unveiling its first Transparency report. Inspired by the great work done by Twitter peers @Google, the primary goal of this report is to shed more light on:
•government requests received for user information,
•government requests received to withhold content, and
•DMCA takedown notices received from copyright holders.
The report also provides insight into whether or not Twitter takes action on these requests.
One of the goals is to grow Twitter in a way that makes it proud. These ideals inform many of Twitter policies and guide it in making difficult decisions. One example is Twitter long-standing policy to proactively notify users of requests for their account information unless Twitter re-prohibited by law; another example is transmitting DMCA takedown notices and requests to withhold content to Chilling Effects. These policies help to inform people, increase the awareness and hold all involved parties––including Twitter––more accountable; the release of the first Transparency Report aims to further these ambitions.
Twitter received more government requests in the first half of 2012 than in the entirety of 2011. Moving forward, Twitter will be publishing an updated version of this information twice a year.
Along with publishing Twitter Transparency Report, Twitter is also partnering with Herdict, which “collects and disseminates real-time, crowd sourced information about Internet filtering, denial of service attacks, and other blockages.” This new partnership aims to drive more traffic and exposure to Herdict, while also empowering the web community at large to help keep an eye on whether users can access Twitter around the world.
These two new initiatives—the Twitter Transparency Report and the partnership with Herdict—are an important part of keeping the Tweets flowing. Twitter Transparency Report shows DMCA and government actions: US is biggest busybody Alt.
Twitter dispatched its first biannual Transparency Report -- revealing government requests for user info and content holdback along with DMCA takedown notices -- which spotlights the US as the most active by far. The company claimed it was aroused to action by Google, which has been doing it for the last two years and recently added copyright takedowns to its own reports. So far, Twitter says that while most nations requested user data 10 times or fewer, the US government made 679 such appeals, more than the entire rest of the world combined. It also showed how often it obeyed – 75 percent of the time in the US; much less elsewhere -- and said that affected users are always notified unless the company is prohibited from doing so. As we also noted with Google's reports, DMCA takedowns were by far the most numerous requests, with 3,378 total affecting 5,874 users, and 599 offending items actually pulled (38 percent). The US government was responsible for 815 of the 1,009 information requests in the second half of 2012.
Government requests for Twitter users' data rose by 20 percent in the second half of 2012, the social network said on Monday. The requests came from 30 countries around the world, but the vast majorities was from the US and were usually linked to criminal investigations.
Updated figures on what government and rights holders have been asking of the social network were revealed in the second of its transparency reports and posted on a new site, transparency.twitter.com.
Twitter complied with requests by the US government 69 percent of the time, according to the report. The US government was responsible for 815 of the 1,009 information requests in the second half of 2012, it found. Most requests were coming from the US because Twitter is based in San Francisco. Twitter said that its transparency report hoped to "raise awareness about these invasive requests."
Twitter's legal policy manager, Jeremy Kessel, said in blogpost, "We believe the open exchange of information can have a positive global impact," celebrating what activists have dubbed Data Privacy Day.
"To that end, it is vital for us and other internet services to be transparent about government requests for user information and government requests to withhold content from the internet; these growing inquiries can have a serious chilling effect on free expression – and real privacy implications." "All of our actions are in the interest of an open and safe internet."
The report, Twitter's second for 2012, provided more detailed statistics on US government requests for information than the first. The majority – 60 percent – of US requests were comprised of subpoenas from authorities, while the rest were made up of court orders and search warrants, it said. Twitter said it notifies users of the requests except when prohibited from doing so by a court order, which happened in 20 percent of cases.
Twitter's transparency report also noted an increase in requests for content removal, up from 6 in the first half of 2012 to 48, and a decrease in copyright notices, from 3,378 to 3,268.
In November, Twitter announced a new policy for dealing with copyright infringement claims in tweets. A statement from Google on Monday, setting out its approach to government requests for information, said it was pushing for updating laws such as the US Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect online documents.
It said: "It's important for law enforcement agencies to pursue illegal activity and keep the public safe. We're a law-abiding company, and we don't want our services to be used in harmful ways. But it's just as important that laws protect you against overly broad requests for your personal information. "
Twitter released its first transparency report Monday — but the takeaway may not have been exactly what the company hoped for. The report focused on several matters relating to users' freedom to post what they want: how frequently governments around the world ask for Twitter users' account details; how often Twitter complies with those requests; and how many copyright complaints it receives and grants to content-owning companies.
Twitter has responded to requests for 1,181 users' information thus far in 2012, the report reveals. The vast majority of those were inside the U.S. Overall, in 63 percent of cases, some form of user info was handed over. (In U.S. cases, that rose to 75 percent.)
The company was at pains to point out that it informs users when they've been asked to hand over details, except where prohibited by law. It also trumpeted the fact that it has acceded to no government requests for outright censorship of tweets. (Law enforcement in five countries asked for that.)
Part of Twitter's reason for posting this information now? Such official inquiries are on the rise. "We’ve received more government requests in the first half of 2012 than in the entirety of 2011," writes Jeremy Kessel, Twitter's manager of legal policy, in the transparency blog post. "Moving forward, we’ll be publishing an updated version of this information twice a year."
Twitter reaffirmed that users owned their content, and said it was "considering our options" when it came to a legal response. The timing is especially ironic, as that case — which is being closely watched as a barometer of Twitter's commitment to user privacy — is a criminal investigation. Twitter attempted to mitigate the number of government requests it acceded to by pointing out, in this Help Center article, that those requests were "typically in connection with criminal investigations or cases." So which side of the ledger will the Occupy protestor's case fall on? We should know by the time Twitter releases its second transparency report.
Is Twitter doing enough to protect user privacy? What data should the company offer in its next report? Whatever Twitter is done to preserve privacy, it will not succeed. The reasons are, because there are many pressures from governments, Courts, and Intruders to violate privacy. We have to put rules and systems to protect privacy. Twitter must inform users that their information may be violated due to one of the above reasons. There is a vital reason for why user's information will be violated, because Twitter is a social network and it depends on its user's Ethics.