5 ms·

20 years later, the DMCA in the US actually seems pretty decent. It's not perfect but it strikes a pretty good balance between the interests of copyright holder

20 years later, the DMCA in the US actually seems pretty decent. It's not perfect but it strikes a pretty good balance between the interests of copyright holders and allowing for innovation.

kosievdmerwe 8y ago
Only issue I have is that there's not enough penalty for false reports or none that I've ever seen applied.
confounded 8y ago
Really? Jail time for circumventing DRM?
saagarjha 8y ago
In my experience, it's been used to threaten people who reverse engineer software to find bugs and take down content that is not remotely infringing. Not a "pretty good balance" in my book.
- williamscales 8y ago
  It's true that it does not contain adequate protection for reverse engineering, however, I think the underlying premise of offering a safe harbor predicated on responding to abuse complaints is an effective one.
- rhino369 8y ago
  That is a downside. But it also makes it very difficult to sue a website/service for the actions of its users.
zjaffee 8y ago
Because no one would make music, movies, or television anymore if DCMA didn't exist? I just don't believe that to be true.
joering2 8y ago
How many complains did you file?? Few companies I work for have their stuff stolen and posted on youtube constantly. It took 3 months to get any response from Youtube. That times goes down to 3 weeks IF you have attorney representing you. Over 70 vidoes I have worked with lawyers to get removed, we always been looked at as the real criminals; we have to upload and prove all sorts of things just to get pass by the submit form. Longest case took us 5 months and $3,000 to remove a 45 seconds of stolen material. Yes, DMCA works pretty decent; for lawyers that charge per hour.
- wtallis 8y ago
  It sounds like you weren't using the real DMCA takedown notice procedure. If you sent Youtube's designated agent a proper takedown notice with all the information required by law (which you certainly should have been able to do correctly on the first try), then three months of non-response or heel-dragging from Youtube would give you an open and shut case for suing Youtube directly for the copyright damages. On the other hand, the 45 seconds of stolen material you refer to sounds like you may be going after uses that may fall under fair use, in which case you should absolutely expect to have a fight on your hands, though only after going through the DMCA takedown notice and counter-notice dance.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Considering you could trivially compose a DMCA notice via cut and paste and search and replace in minutes and google I sense we aren't getting the whole story. Can you explain what 45 seconds of video was worth $1 to get off the internet. 45 seconds isn't a song length let alone a video of note. Here is a random guess here. The 45 seconds was damaging in some way to the client and they really wanted to bury something.
r00fus 8y ago
It was was the on ramp to the highway to hell. Just because it looks tame in comparison to what we have, remember we likely wouldn't be where we are, legislatively, without it having showed the politicians the way.
betterunix2 8y ago
"allowing for innovation." Only innovations that neatly fit the copyright industries' business models. Innovations that totally break business models based on centralized distributors selling to consumers -- P2P filesharing systems, for example -- have been stifled. If you want to build your own DVR using an HDMI capture device, get ready to do business with some Chinese electronics makers, because nobody in the US can innovate in the market for that sort of hardware. Just because the EU is doing something worse does not mean the DMCA is "decent." It is still a terrible law even if the EU manages to create something worse.

20 years later, the DMCA in the US actually seems pretty decent. It's not perfect but it strikes a pretty good balance between the interests of copyright holders and allowing for innovation.

kosievdmerwe 8y ago

Only issue I have is that there's not enough penalty for false reports or none that I've ever seen applied.

confounded 8y ago

Really? Jail time for circumventing DRM?

saagarjha 8y ago

In my experience, it's been used to threaten people who reverse engineer software to find bugs and take down content that is not remotely infringing. Not a "pretty good balance" in my book.

williamscales 8y ago
It's true that it does not contain adequate protection for reverse engineering, however, I think the underlying premise of offering a safe harbor predicated on responding to abuse complaints is an effective one.
rhino369 8y ago
That is a downside. But it also makes it very difficult to sue a website/service for the actions of its users.

zjaffee 8y ago

Because no one would make music, movies, or television anymore if DCMA didn't exist? I just don't believe that to be true.

joering2 8y ago

How many complains did you file?? Few companies I work for have their stuff stolen and posted on youtube constantly. It took 3 months to get any response from Youtube. That times goes down to 3 weeks IF you have attorney representing you. Over 70 vidoes I have worked with lawyers to get removed, we always been looked at as the real criminals; we have to upload and prove all sorts of things just to get pass by the submit form. Longest case took us 5 months and $3,000 to remove a 45 seconds of stolen material. Yes, DMCA works pretty decent; for lawyers that charge per hour.

wtallis 8y ago
It sounds like you weren't using the real DMCA takedown notice procedure. If you sent Youtube's designated agent a proper takedown notice with all the information required by law (which you certainly should have been able to do correctly on the first try), then three months of non-response or heel-dragging from Youtube would give you an open and shut case for suing Youtube directly for the copyright damages. On the other hand, the 45 seconds of stolen material you refer to sounds like you may be going after uses that may fall under fair use, in which case you should absolutely expect to have a fight on your hands, though only after going through the DMCA takedown notice and counter-notice dance.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Considering you could trivially compose a DMCA notice via cut and paste and search and replace in minutes and google I sense we aren't getting the whole story. Can you explain what 45 seconds of video was worth $1 to get off the internet. 45 seconds isn't a song length let alone a video of note. Here is a random guess here. The 45 seconds was damaging in some way to the client and they really wanted to bury something.

r00fus 8y ago

It was was the on ramp to the highway to hell. Just because it looks tame in comparison to what we have, remember we likely wouldn't be where we are, legislatively, without it having showed the politicians the way.

betterunix2 8y ago

"allowing for innovation." Only innovations that neatly fit the copyright industries' business models. Innovations that totally break business models based on centralized distributors selling to consumers -- P2P filesharing systems, for example -- have been stifled. If you want to build your own DVR using an HDMI capture device, get ready to do business with some Chinese electronics makers, because nobody in the US can innovate in the market for that sort of hardware. Just because the EU is doing something worse does not mean the DMCA is "decent." It is still a terrible law even if the EU manages to create something worse.