A Content-Linking-Context Model for Automatic Assessment of Web Resources in “Notice-and-take-down†Procedures


  • Pei Zhang School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton
  • Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon School of Law, University of Southampton
  • Lester Gilbert School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton




The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 adopted a notice-and-take-down procedure to help tackle alleged online infringements through online service providers’ actions. The European Directive 2000/31/EC (e-Commerce Directive) introduced similar liability exemptions, but did not specify any take-down procedure. Many intermediary (host, and online search engine) service providers even in Europe have followed this notice-and-take-down procedure to enable copyright owners to issue notices to take down allegedly infringing Web resources. However, the accuracy of take-down is not known, and notice receivers do not reveal clear information about how they check the legitimacy of these requests, about whether and how they check the lawfulness of allegedly infringing content, or what criteria they use for these actions. In this paper, we use Google’s Transparency Report as the benchmark to investigate the information content of take-down notices and the accuracy of the resulting take-downs of allegedly infringing Web resources. The analysis of copyright infringement is limited to the five scenarios most frequently encountered in our study of Web resources. Based on our investigation, we propose a Content-Linking-Context (CLC) model of the criteria to be considered by intermediary service providers to achieve more accurate take-down, and investigate technical issues applying the CLC Model to automatically assess web resources and output a ‘likelihood of infringement’ score.


Digital Millennium Copyright Act, H.R. 2281, 105th Congress. 1998.

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (June 8, 2000), OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16. .

N. Elkin-Koren, “After Twenty Years: Copyright Liability of Online Intermediaries,†Evol. Equilib. Copyr. Digit. Age (Susy Frankel Daniel J Gervais eds.)(2014 Forthcoming), 2014.

S. Stalla-Bourdillon, “Online monitoring, filtering, blocking... what is the difference? Where to draw the line?,†in International Association of IT Lawyers, Copenhagen,DK: International Association of IT Lawyers, 2012.

“First Report on the application of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market,†2003.

J. M. Urban and L. Quilter, “Efficient Process or Chilling Effects-Takedown Notices under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,†St. Cl. Comput. High Tech. LJ, vol. 22, p. 621, 2005.

J. H. Reichman, G. B. Dinwoodie, and P. Samuelson, “Reverse Notice and Takedown Regime to Enable Pubic Interest Uses of Technically Protected Copyrighted Works, A,†Berkeley Tech. LJ, vol. 22, p. 981, 2007.

J. Cobia, “Digital Millennium Copyright Act Takedown Notice Procedure: Misuses, Abuses, and Shortcomings of the Process, The,†Minn. JL Sci. Tech., vol. 10, p. 387, 2008.

S. Stalla-Bourdillon, “Sometimes one is not enough! Securing freedom of expression, encouraging private regulation, or subsidizing Internet intermediaries or all three at the same time: the dilemma of Internet intermediaries’ liability,†J. Int. Commer. Law Technol., vol. 7, no. 2, 2012.

T. Lauinger, M. Szydlowski, K. Onarlioglu, G. Wondracek, E. Kirda, and C. Kruegel, “Clickonomics: Determining the Effect of Anti-Piracy Measures for One-Click Hosting.,†in NDSS, 2013.

Google, “How Google Fights Piracy,†2013.

R. Tushnet, “PTO/NTIA: notice and takedown- Improving the Operation of the Notice and Takedown System,†2013. [Online]. Available: http://tushnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/ptontia-notice-and-takedown.html.

M. Leiser, “The copyright issue and censorship threat buried within Google’s transparency report,†2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.thedrum. com/news/2013/12/23/copyright-issue-and-censorship-threat-buried-within-googles-transparency-report.

D. Seng, “The State of the Discordant Union: An Empirical Analysis of DMCA Takedown Notices,†Virginia J. Law Technol. Forthcom., 2014.

IPL, “A report by IPL for Google - Modelling the takedown process,†2013.

J. M. Urban, J. Karaganis, and B. L. Schofield, “Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice,†Available SSRN 2755628, 2016.

H. A. Deveci, “Hyperlinks Oscillating at the Crossroads,†CTLR-OXFORD-, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 82–94, 2004.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. and A9.com Inc. and Google Inc. 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007). 2006.

CJEU C-466/12 Nils Svensson et al v Retriever Sverige AB, 13 February 2014 ECLI:EU:C:2014:76. .

E. Arezzo, “Hyperlinks and Making Available Right in the European Union--What Future for the Internet After Svensson?,†IIC-International Rev. Intellect. Prop. Compet. Law, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 524–555, 2014.

CJEU C-348/13 BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch of 21 October 2014 ECLI:EU:C:2014:2315. .

E. Rosati and O. Löffel, “That BestWater order: it’s up to the rightholders to monitor online use of their works,†2014. [Online]. Available: http://ipkitten.blogspot.fr/2014/10/that-bestwater-order-its-up-to.html. [Accessed: 12-Dec-2015].

CJEU C-160/15 GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekker, 8 September 2016 ECLI:EU:C:2016:644. .

CJEU C-128/11 Usedsoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp, 3 July 2012 ECLI:EU:C:2012:407. .

A. Field, Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 4th ed. Sage, 2013.