5 ms·

I don't think that's necessarily true. The current Copyright laws are extremely over-reaching and also incredibly one sided, as user generated content or person

by csydas 10y ago

I don't think that's necessarily true. The current Copyright laws are extremely over-reaching and also incredibly one sided, as user generated content or personal IP is often used by companies without the actual copyright owner's permission. Basically Copyright currently is a one-way street and it's wildly inconsistent and frequently misused. This doesn't really need a government to "create room to tinker, create, share, and learn on the internet", it just needs the government(s) to fairly apply the law and punish businesses who rampantly abuse it. With US DMCA claims, all are made under the penalty of perjury that the claims are valid and true - how many stories do you know of that are about companies being punished for an overreach of copyright claims or for false claims? The answer is likely none because despite there being debate over the copyright misuse in courts, there are just too many damn instances of copyright misuse to even start with. It's a considerable imbalance in US law because it's truly a case of where a wealthy few are able to protect their rights and use the law as a cudgel to get their way, and often their claims have no basis or are not covered by the copyright law as the companies want to interpret it. However, individuals do not have the resources to adequately challenge these claims, and the fraudulent DMCA claims have effects beyond the takedown.

sandworm101 10y ago
Of course copyright laws are one-sided. That's like calling the law against murder one-sided for being too against murderers. Most all laws are one-sided. The other side is found not in the law, but in rights and privileges protected by things like constitutions and charters. Take "fair use" in copyright. The language in the copyright law is a bit of a fiction. Fair use is just a loose description of an underlying constitutional right, freedom of speech. The language used in copyright law doesn't trump the constitution. So while it is one-sided, that side is balanced by the constitution, which is also rather one-sided. A copyright law that attempted to be two-sided would have to define constitutional rights, something that can/should not be done in a law. Its a fools errand. Instead, you write a one-sided law, with some loose nods to constitutional rights, then leave it to the courts to ensure that you haven't trampled too much. If you haven't, then the law stands. If you've gone too far, the law is quashed and you have to start again. That's our system.
- csydas 10y ago
  forgive typos, on phone. While I understand your point there are some major differences in the purpose of murder laws and copyright laws and specifically in how they are carried out. You can't automate murder charges; you can't issue thousands of murder charges a day against someone. The onus is on the accuser to have evidence and they are required to present that in trial before anything legally actionable can happen. There has to be reasonable cause for suspicion to deprive a person of rights over a murder charge. And most importantly perhaps, murder laws can be used by people far more evenly. My issue with copyright claims is that there's no cost to the companies for lying or being wrong. There's no reason to not send out dmca notices if you have no proof or are wrong. Murder is pretty clear cut in whether or not a murder has occurred, it's the "whodunnit" that is on trial. With copyright, whether a crime has actually been committed isn't as clear. When a dmca is sent, it must include an oath, under penalty of perjury, that the information is accurate. If you lie in court, you get punished for perjury. Not so with dcma. An individual cannot win against a corporation as a rights holder -- this has been tested and often nothing happened except the corp eventually stopped the I fringemet after they already profited. Fun aside, iOS Keeps trying to autocorrect dmca to scam.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > iOS Keeps trying to autocorrect dcma to scam. Perhaps that's because the acronym is "DMCA", from "Digital Millennium Copyright Act".
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Murder is the go-to law for comparison because it is simple, old, and the most commonly understood. It is balanced against a host of doctrines that legalize various forms of killing, as copyright is balanced against doctrines that allow copying/taking. And murder charges could be automated like the DMCA. Millions die every year in hospital. We could easily setup a system whereby a wrongful death suit (one of the many civil version of murder) is launched after every death by default. As takedowns are sent on scant evidence, wrongful death actions could start as soon as there is a body. We don't do that because it would be expensive, onerous and silly, which should inform the DMCA takedown process.
ryanlol 10y ago
>With US DMCA claims, all are made under the penalty of perjury that the claims are valid and true No, the claim made under penalty of perjury is one of being authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. An entirely different issue.
Jarwain 10y ago
Isn't the big issue the fact that individuals typically don't have the resources to find copyright infringement and thus issue their own DMCA requests? At least, not on the same scale as companies.

by csydas 10y ago

sandworm101 10y ago

Of course copyright laws are one-sided. That's like calling the law against murder one-sided for being too against murderers. Most all laws are one-sided. The other side is found not in the law, but in rights and privileges protected by things like constitutions and charters. Take "fair use" in copyright. The language in the copyright law is a bit of a fiction. Fair use is just a loose description of an underlying constitutional right, freedom of speech. The language used in copyright law doesn't trump the constitution. So while it is one-sided, that side is balanced by the constitution, which is also rather one-sided. A copyright law that attempted to be two-sided would have to define constitutional rights, something that can/should not be done in a law. Its a fools errand. Instead, you write a one-sided law, with some loose nods to constitutional rights, then leave it to the courts to ensure that you haven't trampled too much. If you haven't, then the law stands. If you've gone too far, the law is quashed and you have to start again. That's our system.

csydas 10y ago
forgive typos, on phone. While I understand your point there are some major differences in the purpose of murder laws and copyright laws and specifically in how they are carried out. You can't automate murder charges; you can't issue thousands of murder charges a day against someone. The onus is on the accuser to have evidence and they are required to present that in trial before anything legally actionable can happen. There has to be reasonable cause for suspicion to deprive a person of rights over a murder charge. And most importantly perhaps, murder laws can be used by people far more evenly. My issue with copyright claims is that there's no cost to the companies for lying or being wrong. There's no reason to not send out dmca notices if you have no proof or are wrong. Murder is pretty clear cut in whether or not a murder has occurred, it's the "whodunnit" that is on trial. With copyright, whether a crime has actually been committed isn't as clear. When a dmca is sent, it must include an oath, under penalty of perjury, that the information is accurate. If you lie in court, you get punished for perjury. Not so with dcma. An individual cannot win against a corporation as a rights holder -- this has been tested and often nothing happened except the corp eventually stopped the I fringemet after they already profited. Fun aside, iOS Keeps trying to autocorrect dmca to scam.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > iOS Keeps trying to autocorrect dcma to scam. Perhaps that's because the acronym is "DMCA", from "Digital Millennium Copyright Act".
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Murder is the go-to law for comparison because it is simple, old, and the most commonly understood. It is balanced against a host of doctrines that legalize various forms of killing, as copyright is balanced against doctrines that allow copying/taking. And murder charges could be automated like the DMCA. Millions die every year in hospital. We could easily setup a system whereby a wrongful death suit (one of the many civil version of murder) is launched after every death by default. As takedowns are sent on scant evidence, wrongful death actions could start as soon as there is a body. We don't do that because it would be expensive, onerous and silly, which should inform the DMCA takedown process.

ryanlol 10y ago

>With US DMCA claims, all are made under the penalty of perjury that the claims are valid and true No, the claim made under penalty of perjury is one of being authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. An entirely different issue.

Jarwain 10y ago

Isn't the big issue the fact that individuals typically don't have the resources to find copyright infringement and thus issue their own DMCA requests? At least, not on the same scale as companies.