Intuitively, if you use the Internet even sparingly as a means of connecting you to the broader world, you'll recognize that much of the activity that takes place on the internet involves humans (and automated search engines and other services) filtering and aggregating basic facts and information.  This is so fundamental to our daily Internet use it largely goes unnoticed.  A link from search engine, a tweet, or a status update from a social media service are just a few examples.  There is huge value in helping citizens sift through the wonderful oversaturation of information the Internet offers.

There are, however, real threats to our ability to find content and navigate in our vast information ocean.  This very cornerstone of the Internet is threatened by fear, misunderstanding, and overreaching from some traditional content owners.

New Media Rights recently heard from a blogger who received notification that a takedown notice was sent to their service provider, a website that hosts individuals blogs, and that the user’s content was removed.  However, the blogging service didn't

1) Identify the individual who requested the information be taken down OR

2) Specifically identify the infringing material

What's the problem?  This essentially destroys a users right to counternotify, allowing overreaching large content companies to control and remove Internet speech at will. 

Learn about the problem here, and learn how to fight back if you have content removed by a DMCA takedown notice.

It is uncertain whether Veoh will be a major player in the future of online video. There is little doubt, however, that it has had a significant role in defining the boundaries of social media liability.

Veoh's victories against IoGroup and Universal Music have helped provide a model for social media and web 2.0 services in protecting themselves from liability.

Veoh's newest triumph is getting the district court to grant summary judgement that it is "entitled to the section 512(c) safe harbor."

Recently I got a call from a reporter at the local ABC affiliate in San Diego to interview for a story about juicycampus.com. The questions hinted that the story the reporter was looking for was one of how awful and hurtful some of the anonymous posts on the site are for students. I spent 30 minutes telling the reporter what I thought, particularly how similar, at least from a free speech perspective, gossip sites like juicycampus.com are to more widely accepted sites, such as wikipedia, craigslist, and wikilinks, which also allow anonymous posting, editing, or comments.

The resulting story was a disappointment, noticeably lacking any mention of free speech. While this was not unexpected, I figured I'd share my thoughts, and a bit of dismay for the old media, here in the new media world.