Central to the ongoing discussion over content theft is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and specifically Linden Lab's enforcement of its DMCA takedown policy. There have been numerous complaints that LL takes an unreasonably long time to respond to takedown requests, as well as other rumors that DMCA notices are not being responded to at all. Unfortunately, all evidence to support these charges is anecdotal, because there is no hard statistical evidence published by LL about the filing and/or resolution of DMCA notices. This lack of information leads to rumors and speculation about Linden apathy and inaction, hampering effective discussion and resolution of the content theft issue, and leading to Resident discontent.

Presumably, the "respond expeditiously" requirement in the law is a reasonableness-based one. The more DMCA notices LL has to respond to, the more reasonable a long wait before receiving a response might be. If the Lindens were able to show through statistics they are facing a massive tidal wave of DMCA notices, and if Residents were aware of this, the complaints about timely enforcement might be tempered.

It is also important for LL to share statistics on the outcome of DMCA filings. Content creators who suspect theft have a number of legal routes to potentially pursue, including an in-world negotiation with the alleged thief, a DMCA takedown notice, or even a Federal lawsuit. Statistics that provide the number of successful takedown notices - and the number of successful counter-notices - would help content creators weigh their options more effectively and choose the route that makes the most sense in their situation. Without this information, content creators are left to guess as to the likelihood of satisfactory resolution if they file a DMCA notice with LL.

Because the DMCA procedure is content-neutral (meaning LL makes no judgment call about the relative merits of the parties involved - the takedown and reinstatement are automatic) and no personal information about the parties would be released, providing DMCA statistics would not expose any legal judgment on the part of LL, nor should it expose LL to any legal jeopardy. Providing these numbers would be a simple exercise in statistic collection that would take little effort, and would go a long way to increasing the transparency of the DMCA process and increasing Resident goodwill on this issue.

PROPOSAL

Linden Lab should therefore periodically publish, for example on its blog, the following statistics on a recurring basis (monthly is preferred):

• The number of new DMCA notices filed during the period, whether properly formatted or not
• The number of properly formatted DMCA notices that were filed
• The number of notices filed during the period in which the allegedly infringing content was posted by a Resident who has been the subject of previous DMCA takedowns (repeat offenders)
• The number of notices filed during the period in which the allegedly infringing content/UUID had been the subject of a previous DMCA notice (repeat content)

• The number of DMCA notices that are awaiting action by Linden Lab
• The average pendency, in days, of the DMCA notices that are awaiting action

• The number of DMCA takedowns that occurred during the period
• Of the takedowns during the period, the number in which the action by LL was to remove only the in-world instance of the allegedly infringing content
• Of the takedowns during the period, the number in which LL's action was to remove the allegedly infringing content from the servers
• The number of Residents whose accounts were suspended due to a DMCA notice (or repeated notices)

• The number of DMCA counter-notices filed during the period, properly formatted or not
• The number of properly formatted DMCA counter-notices
• The number of DMCA counter-notices that are awaiting action by Linden Lab
• The average pendency of the DMCA counter-notices that are awaiting action
• The number of DMCA takedowns that were reversed (content reinstated due to counter-notice) during the period