4 ms·

I don't think that would satisfy the requirements of the directive: > Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be s

by AnssiH 8y ago

I don't think that would satisfy the requirements of the directive: > Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review. Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. It also requires Member States to ensure "that users have access to an independent body for the resolution of disputes as well as to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright rules". (source PDF http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2018-0337+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//... )

zaroth 8y ago
So damned if you do and damned if you don’t? How does this right here not destroy the prospect of any small company trying to scale operations in this space? From the company’s perspective, it’s like a DDoS attack that is illegal to defend yourself against.
- IanCal 8y ago
  Small companies have lower requirements for what they need to do under the directive. About the measures taken, for example: > The measures should be proportionate in order to avoid imposing disproportionately complicated or costly obligations on certain online content sharing service providers, taking into account notably their small size. For small/micro enterprises this then means that for the DDoS attack you'd need the rightsholders to invalidly notify of large amounts of content that needs removing (each one specifically) which must be done with the intent of killing off the platform. Would that be legal? To submit false claims deliberately to hurt the company?
  - zaroth 8y ago
    You are aware this is exactly what happens under DMCA?
    - krageon 8y ago
      Yes, and that is ok in the US. We're talking about Europe, where the legislators at least pretend to care about the people they're making laws for.
gray_-_wolf 8y ago
> Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. Isn't "not wanting to take the legal risk" reasonable justification?

by AnssiH 8y ago

zaroth 8y ago

So damned if you do and damned if you don’t? How does this right here not destroy the prospect of any small company trying to scale operations in this space? From the company’s perspective, it’s like a DDoS attack that is illegal to defend yourself against.

IanCal 8y ago
Small companies have lower requirements for what they need to do under the directive. About the measures taken, for example: > The measures should be proportionate in order to avoid imposing disproportionately complicated or costly obligations on certain online content sharing service providers, taking into account notably their small size. For small/micro enterprises this then means that for the DDoS attack you'd need the rightsholders to invalidly notify of large amounts of content that needs removing (each one specifically) which must be done with the intent of killing off the platform. Would that be legal? To submit false claims deliberately to hurt the company?
- zaroth 8y ago
  You are aware this is exactly what happens under DMCA?
  - krageon 8y ago
    Yes, and that is ok in the US. We're talking about Europe, where the legislators at least pretend to care about the people they're making laws for.

gray_-_wolf 8y ago

> Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. Isn't "not wanting to take the legal risk" reasonable justification?