4 ms·

To be honest I believe DCMA is a entirely negative law. Even the legitimate strike claims were used in ways that help noone, sometimes hurting even the person d

To be honest I believe DCMA is a entirely negative law. Even the legitimate strike claims were used in ways that help noone, sometimes hurting even the person doing the claim in first place, for example Nintendo been so agressive on YouTube, taking down for example videos of conventions that happened to have a Nintendo trailer or game playing somewhere on camera, that journalist stopped covering Nintendo because doing do cause strikes against you.

sneak 8y ago
DMCA notices are required to be sworn statements under penalty of perjury. It sounds like that that isn’t being enforced at all by DoJ. Just another example of how a corrupt government can selectively enforce laws to give its crony friends a leg up.
- Natsu 8y ago
  Normally, DMCA notices for non-infringing works can't trigger the perjury clause, because the lawyers really do represent the owner of the copyrighted work that's allegedly infringed, it's just the infringement claim itself that's bogus. Here, if the article is correct, they're actually claiming to own works they do not own at all. So if they get called on it, they actually could end up having to answer perjury charges. The real question is who gets to enforce that? I'm not sure if it's the DoJ, you might have to bring a civil suit for slander to title first to get a criminal referral or something. I really don't know how that's supposed to play out because I think I've only seen one case where someone complained under the perjury clause and they settled, so it was never a criminal matter.
- codedokode 8y ago
  What if the company that have sent the notice is outside of US?
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    In my experience, what happens is the company hires a representative inside the United States to file on their behalf. There is an organization inside Belgium that hired a law firm in New York to file claims against a web site I once owned in Texas to remove people’s vacation photographs taken in Belgium, under threat of legal action. (This was pre-DMCA. The web site was sold long ago and is now defunct.)
WillPostForFood 8y ago
It would be worse without it. Google would be liable for copyrighted material, and likely would preemptively ban suspected material to avoid liability.
- izacus 8y ago
  What exactly are you basing that on? The previous law said nothing about hosters being liable for any copyright.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    There was no previous law with respect to the internet. The specific purpose of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA was to exempt ISPs and content providers from liability for hosting copyright infringing material. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
    - jijji 8y ago
      The law previous to DMCA was "common carrier" regulations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchap...
      - icebraining 8y ago
        I don't think that applied to most services, though, including Google.
0x00000000 8y ago
They really need a reverse three strikes. Once you make three blatantly fraudulent claims, you are banned from making any more claims. Automated claims should not be allowed ever, they should all be verified by a human. Alternatively, if you want to go full accelerationism, people should start abusing the system more and spamming fake takedowns on anything they don't like completely flooding it and getting legitimate content of important people taken down. There is probably no other way anything will change
- andybak 8y ago
  Isn't a false DMCA claim a criminal offence? The question is whether it's realistic that someone will be prosecuted over this.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
    Only if you can't claim it to be a mistake, unfortunately.
reaperducer 8y ago
To be honest I believe DCMA is a entirely negative law I’m not a huge fan of DMCA, but it’s not entirely negative. Without DMCA, there would be no YouTube, Imgur, Twitter, or pretty much any other site that allows the public to upload content. It’s an ugly compromise, but one that allowed a significant portion of the web to exist and grow. Hopefully it will eventually be replaced with something more nuanced.
- chii 8y ago
  > there would be no YouTube, Imgur, Twitter, or pretty much any other site that allows the public to upload content. why?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Because they themselves would be liable for copyright infringement instead. Servicing DMCA lets them run safely, as long as they respond to takedown notices quickly, and the complaining party usually won't bother going after the individual that posted the infringing work.

sneak 8y ago

DMCA notices are required to be sworn statements under penalty of perjury. It sounds like that that isn’t being enforced at all by DoJ. Just another example of how a corrupt government can selectively enforce laws to give its crony friends a leg up.

Natsu 8y ago
Normally, DMCA notices for non-infringing works can't trigger the perjury clause, because the lawyers really do represent the owner of the copyrighted work that's allegedly infringed, it's just the infringement claim itself that's bogus. Here, if the article is correct, they're actually claiming to own works they do not own at all. So if they get called on it, they actually could end up having to answer perjury charges. The real question is who gets to enforce that? I'm not sure if it's the DoJ, you might have to bring a civil suit for slander to title first to get a criminal referral or something. I really don't know how that's supposed to play out because I think I've only seen one case where someone complained under the perjury clause and they settled, so it was never a criminal matter.
codedokode 8y ago
What if the company that have sent the notice is outside of US?
- reaperducer 8y ago
  In my experience, what happens is the company hires a representative inside the United States to file on their behalf. There is an organization inside Belgium that hired a law firm in New York to file claims against a web site I once owned in Texas to remove people’s vacation photographs taken in Belgium, under threat of legal action. (This was pre-DMCA. The web site was sold long ago and is now defunct.)

WillPostForFood 8y ago

It would be worse without it. Google would be liable for copyrighted material, and likely would preemptively ban suspected material to avoid liability.

izacus 8y ago
What exactly are you basing that on? The previous law said nothing about hosters being liable for any copyright.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  There was no previous law with respect to the internet. The specific purpose of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA was to exempt ISPs and content providers from liability for hosting copyright infringing material. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
  - jijji 8y ago
    The law previous to DMCA was "common carrier" regulations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchap...
    - icebraining 8y ago
      I don't think that applied to most services, though, including Google.

0x00000000 8y ago

They really need a reverse three strikes. Once you make three blatantly fraudulent claims, you are banned from making any more claims. Automated claims should not be allowed ever, they should all be verified by a human. Alternatively, if you want to go full accelerationism, people should start abusing the system more and spamming fake takedowns on anything they don't like completely flooding it and getting legitimate content of important people taken down. There is probably no other way anything will change

andybak 8y ago
Isn't a false DMCA claim a criminal offence? The question is whether it's realistic that someone will be prosecuted over this.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
  Only if you can't claim it to be a mistake, unfortunately.

reaperducer 8y ago

To be honest I believe DCMA is a entirely negative law I’m not a huge fan of DMCA, but it’s not entirely negative. Without DMCA, there would be no YouTube, Imgur, Twitter, or pretty much any other site that allows the public to upload content. It’s an ugly compromise, but one that allowed a significant portion of the web to exist and grow. Hopefully it will eventually be replaced with something more nuanced.

chii 8y ago
> there would be no YouTube, Imgur, Twitter, or pretty much any other site that allows the public to upload content. why?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Because they themselves would be liable for copyright infringement instead. Servicing DMCA lets them run safely, as long as they respond to takedown notices quickly, and the complaining party usually won't bother going after the individual that posted the infringing work.