4 ms·

Can you explain why you would record an infringement before the three day window for counter notices has expired? You have no section for decrementing/annulling

Can you explain why you would record an infringement before the three day window for counter notices has expired? You have no section for decrementing/annulling infringements or re-enabling accounts, so if you follow this process, I can disable your users' accounts simply by filing two bad-faith DMCA notices.

sintaxi 10y ago
...under penalty of perjury.
- sleepychu 10y ago
  Ok, two copyright holders are mistaken about the source of some content and independently raise requests which are later rebutted?
  - SparkyMcUnicorn 10y ago
    Reinstated?
    - sleepychu 10y ago
      which isn't on the flowchart :P
    - lucasgonze 10y ago
      Involve a lawyer in this decision. You can't be a hacker and use an 80/20 rule. I should add a decision path for calling a lawyer.
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  Yeah and I would like to see how often this actually gets enforced. The fact of the matter is that DMCA is being abused all over the Internet to silence people, but I can't say I've heard of a single case of "he abused the DMCA, now he's going to pay a huge fine."
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    In my opinion such a case is bound to come about. The Axl Rose 'meme purge' attempt via DMCA didn't seem to do much legally speaking, only be another Streisand Effect situation. The rights 'representative' though in the Axl case would - I think - be a good test for the legal aspects. Authorized representation makes sense, and if the rep can show tangible proof of assignment (i.e. owner genuinely owns property in question, like the photo rights) then the DMCA looks to be working as intended. Tests are pretty needed though, I agree.
  - lucasgonze 10y ago
    I think the practical way this gets enforced is that sites will sometimes ignore takedown requests, if they think the request is bogus.
- flashman 10y ago
  Interesting argument I heard last week[1]: the "penalty of perjury" applies to the statement "I have the authority to act on behalf of the stated copyright owner", not to the statement "This content belongs to me." Which if true, may give you legal cover for both accidental and malicious claims. [1]https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-our-false-dmca-takedowns-are-not-a-crime-131115/ https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-our-false-dmca-takedown...
lucasgonze 10y ago
Yes, you could do it the other way and wait until the three day window expires. There are two reasons to do it before. 1. It's less bug-prone. If you forget to increment the counter later you have a big problem. But if you forget to decrement the counter later you are only in a little bit of trouble. 2. If you get a flood of notices about a user before the three day window expires, you probably have an obligation to disable the account. About a DOS based on bad-faith notices, this does less business harm to you than a failure to act. That said, I agree that decrementing the counter needs to be covered. I'll treat that as a bug report and look for a fix.

sintaxi 10y ago

...under penalty of perjury.

sleepychu 10y ago
Ok, two copyright holders are mistaken about the source of some content and independently raise requests which are later rebutted?
- SparkyMcUnicorn 10y ago
  Reinstated?
  - sleepychu 10y ago
    which isn't on the flowchart :P
  - lucasgonze 10y ago
    Involve a lawyer in this decision. You can't be a hacker and use an 80/20 rule. I should add a decision path for calling a lawyer.
arca_vorago 10y ago
Yeah and I would like to see how often this actually gets enforced. The fact of the matter is that DMCA is being abused all over the Internet to silence people, but I can't say I've heard of a single case of "he abused the DMCA, now he's going to pay a huge fine."
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  In my opinion such a case is bound to come about. The Axl Rose 'meme purge' attempt via DMCA didn't seem to do much legally speaking, only be another Streisand Effect situation. The rights 'representative' though in the Axl case would - I think - be a good test for the legal aspects. Authorized representation makes sense, and if the rep can show tangible proof of assignment (i.e. owner genuinely owns property in question, like the photo rights) then the DMCA looks to be working as intended. Tests are pretty needed though, I agree.
- lucasgonze 10y ago
  I think the practical way this gets enforced is that sites will sometimes ignore takedown requests, if they think the request is bogus.
flashman 10y ago
Interesting argument I heard last week[1]: the "penalty of perjury" applies to the statement "I have the authority to act on behalf of the stated copyright owner", not to the statement "This content belongs to me." Which if true, may give you legal cover for both accidental and malicious claims. [1]https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-our-false-dmca-takedowns-are-not-a-crime-131115/ https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-our-false-dmca-takedown...

lucasgonze 10y ago

Yes, you could do it the other way and wait until the three day window expires. There are two reasons to do it before. 1. It's less bug-prone. If you forget to increment the counter later you have a big problem. But if you forget to decrement the counter later you are only in a little bit of trouble. 2. If you get a flood of notices about a user before the three day window expires, you probably have an obligation to disable the account. About a DOS based on bad-faith notices, this does less business harm to you than a failure to act. That said, I agree that decrementing the counter needs to be covered. I'll treat that as a bug report and look for a fix.