4 ms·

It's a really tough problem to solve for everyone. You don't want to introduce a fee to file takedown notices, as then the people the law was arguably meant to

It's a really tough problem to solve for everyone. You don't want to introduce a fee to file takedown notices, as then the people the law was arguably meant to protect (the small content creators) will not be able to make requests as easily, and you don't want to just allow people to abuse the system and use it like a "i want this gone" button.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
I'm so glad that we have a congress that makes laws specifically to protect small content creators (at the behest of the largest corporations and their lobbies).
pjc50 10y ago
Just like the patent system, the small beneficiaries are used as a political human shield for a system that overwhelmingly benefits the large incumbents. Often against other small creators.
ska 10y ago
The system is completely abused currently. Far better would be a small fee, or even a mostly manual hoop to jump through for demonstrating ownership & infringement. This scales properly, so the small producers aren't hurt much by it and the bit content owners can't run roughshod over everyone with a few scripts.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  But the "scaling" here isn't only based on the number of things you create, but also the number of people that try to violate the copyright, and the number of times they do it. If I make one thing, and it costs $10 to file a takedown, then the "copyright violators" can bleed me dry by just re-uploading it hundreds or thousands of times. It's already a massive time sink to make the takedowns, in my opinion adding a monetary cost will just swing the pendulum the complete opposite direction.
  - ska 10y ago
    I was unclear - I think the cost should be put on demonstrating ownership, but given that takedowns could be easier to manage so long as fair use is protected.
    - piaste 10y ago
      You could have no fee for the first X intellectual properties you defend or the first Y DMCA requests you file every year (whichever is lower), and then introduce fees when you go past the limit. It feels odd to price a public legal request like it were a commercial service, but it might be the most fair solution.

jsprogrammer 10y ago

I'm so glad that we have a congress that makes laws specifically to protect small content creators (at the behest of the largest corporations and their lobbies).

pjc50 10y ago

Just like the patent system, the small beneficiaries are used as a political human shield for a system that overwhelmingly benefits the large incumbents. Often against other small creators.

ska 10y ago

The system is completely abused currently. Far better would be a small fee, or even a mostly manual hoop to jump through for demonstrating ownership & infringement. This scales properly, so the small producers aren't hurt much by it and the bit content owners can't run roughshod over everyone with a few scripts.

Klathmon 10y ago
But the "scaling" here isn't only based on the number of things you create, but also the number of people that try to violate the copyright, and the number of times they do it. If I make one thing, and it costs $10 to file a takedown, then the "copyright violators" can bleed me dry by just re-uploading it hundreds or thousands of times. It's already a massive time sink to make the takedowns, in my opinion adding a monetary cost will just swing the pendulum the complete opposite direction.
- ska 10y ago
  I was unclear - I think the cost should be put on demonstrating ownership, but given that takedowns could be easier to manage so long as fair use is protected.
  - piaste 10y ago
    You could have no fee for the first X intellectual properties you defend or the first Y DMCA requests you file every year (whichever is lower), and then introduce fees when you go past the limit. It feels odd to price a public legal request like it were a commercial service, but it might be the most fair solution.