The Impact of Incentives on Notice and Take-down

  • Tyler Moore
  • Richard Clayton


We consider a number of notice and take-down regimes for Internet content. These differ in the incentives for removal, the legal framework for compelling action, and the speed at which material is removed. By measuring how quickly various types of content are removed, we determine that the requester’s incentives outweigh all other factors, from the penalties available, to the methods used to obstruct take-down.


Forum Shopping Online Pharmacy Brand Owner Median Lifetime Copyright Violation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ahlert, C., Marsden, C., and Yung, C. “How ‘Liberty’ Disappeared from Cyberspace: The Mystery Shopper Tests Internet Content Self-regulation,” 2004, liberty.pdf
  2. Anderson, R., Böhme, R., Clayton, R., and Moore, T. “Security Economics and the Internal Market,” ENISA, January 2008,
  3. Callanan, C., and Frydas, N.P. “2007 Global Internet Trend Report,” INHOPE, September 2007,
  4. Clayton, R. “Judge and Jury? How ‘Notice & Take Down’ Gives ISPs an Unwanted Role in Applying the Law to the Internet,” July 2000, Jury.pdf
  5. Dagon, D., Zou, C.C., and Lee, W. “Modelling BotnetPropagation Using Time Zones,” in 13th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), San Diego, California, February 2006, pp. 235–249.Google Scholar
  6. Enright, B. “Exposing Stormworm,” October 2007, storm.ppt
  7. Franklin, J., Paxson, V., Perrig, A., and Savage, S. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Internet Miscreants,” in 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’07), Alexandria, Virginia, October 2007, pp. 375–388.Google Scholar
  8. Honeynet Project and Research Alliance. “Know Your Enemy: Fast-flux Service Networks, an Ever Changing Enemy,” July 2007,
  9. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. Personal Internet Security, 5th Report of Session 2006–07, The Stationery Office, London, August 2007.Google Scholar
  10. Internet Watch Foundation. 2006 Half-yearly Report, IWF, July 2006,
  11. Internet Watch Foundation. “IWF Reveals 10 Year Statistics on Child Abuse Images Online,” Press Release, IWF, October 2006.
  12. Internet Watch Foundation. “IWF Reports Increased Severity of Online Child Abuse Content,” Press Release, IWF, April 2007,
  13. Internet Watch Foundation. “2007 Annual and Charity Report,” IWF, April 2008.
  14. McMillan, R. “‘Rock Phish’ Blamed for Surge in Phishing,” InfoWorld (12 December), 2006,
  15. Moore, T. “Cooperative Attack and Defense in Distributed Networks,” Tech Report UCAM-CL-TR-718, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, June 2008.Google Scholar
  16. Moore, T., and Clayton, R. “Examining the Impact of Website Take-down on Phishing,” in Anti-Phishing Working Group eCrime Researcher’s Summit (APWG eCrime), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 2007, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, T., and Clayton, R. “Evaluating the Wisdom of Crowds in Assessing PhishingWebsites,” in 12th International Financial Cryptography and Data Security Conference (FC 2008), Tsudik, G. (Ed.), LNCS 5143, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2008, pp. 16–30.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, T., and Clayton, R. “Evil Searching: Compromise and Recompromise of Internet Hosts for Phishing”, in submission, June 2008.Google Scholar
  19. Morland J. “Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited. Case No: 1998-G-No 30,” March 1999.
  20. Nas, S. “The Multatuli Project: ISPNotice & Take Down,” in SANE, October 2004.
  21. Serjantov, A., and Clayton, R. “Modelling Incentives for Email Blocking Strategies,” in 4th Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS), Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 2005.Google Scholar
  22. Spamhaus. “Report on the Criminal ‘Rock Phish’ Domains Registered at,” Press Release, Spamhaus, June 2007.
  23. Thomas, R., and Martin, J. “The Underground Economy: Priceless,” USENIX ;login (31:6), December 2006, pp. 7–16.Google Scholar
  24. United Kingdom Government. “The Government Reply to the Fifth Report from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Session 2006–07 HL Paper 165 Personal Internet Security,” Cm7234, The Stationery Office, London, October 2007.Google Scholar
  25. Weaver, R., and Collins, M. “Fishing for Phishes: Applying Capture-recapture to Phishing,” in Anti-Phishing Working Group eCrime Researcher’s Summit (APWG eCrime), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 2007, pp. 14–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler Moore
    • 1
  • Richard Clayton
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations