5 ms·

If someone wants that document taken down another time, then they should send take down requests each and every time. As someone who has actually spent several

If someone wants that document taken down another time, then they should send take down requests each and every time. As someone who has actually spent several days sleeping in shifts with a co-founder so we could keep sending takedown notices when the same group of people repeatedly uploaded our material to YouTube and Google apparently didn't care, I think we can safely assume that your proposal is not a viable general solution to this sort of problem.

stale2002 8y ago
To be perfectly honest, I don't care. Sucks to be you. Takedown requests should be difficult. If you have to work in shifts, and spend days out of your life to enforce this, my opinion is that this is a good thing. This has worked perfectly fine for most of America, and if people like you get screwed, well, that's not my problem, and I dont care about your suffering. If anything, I hope that people like you have to suffer even more to enforce these laws.
- eridius 8y ago
  Why should they be difficult? We absolutely want to discourage (ideally prevent) incorrect takedown requests, but correct takedown requests are a good thing. Beyond the fact that IP owners have the legal right to prevent unlicensed distribution of their IP, the only way a platform like Scribd can avoid becoming a haven for piracy is by handling takedown notices. If Scribd did not handle takedown notices and became rife with copyrighted content, they'd end up getting sued out of existence. The fact that they respect takedown notices is what keeps them immune from the lawsuits.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    > but correct takedown requests are a good thing Not really, no. Anything that makes enforcement of copyright law harder is good in my book. > If Scribd did not handle takedown notices and became rife with copyrighted content Awesome. That sounds like it will undermine the copyright system. Also, this has nothing to do with them refusing to handle takedown notices. They are handling them. They don't need a bog. > they'd end up getting sued out of existence. False. That's not how DMCA works. DMCA gives complete copyright immunity to platforms, as long as they respond to take down requests. > The fact that they respect takedown notices is what keeps them immune from the lawsuits Correct. That's why they don't need a takedown bot. The copyright owner hhas to spend the significant time and effort to send the notices themselves.
    - eridius 8y ago
      > That sounds like it will undermine the copyright system. That's not a good thing. Copyright has been abused and copyright lifetimes dramatically extended past what should be reasonable. But the fundamental goal of copyright is laudable, and the current copyright system is better than no system. Perhaps you're confusing copyright with software patents? There are many arguments against the latter, but the arguments against software patents don't apply to the general case of copyrights. > DMCA gives complete copyright immunity to platforms, as long as they respond to take down requests. If a platform makes it hard to file a takedown, and easy to simply re-upload a new infringing copy of the copyrighted work, then I'm absolutely certain IP holders would sue the platform and claim that they're violating the DMCA. By providing a safe haven for piracy they'd be encouraging infringing activity on their systems, which would then cause them to fail the "red flag" test. I don't know if the IP holders would necessarily succeed in their lawsuit, but you can bet they'd try, and surely the platform doesn't want to spend the time and effort to try and defend against that.
      - stale2002 8y ago
        > If a platform makes it hard to file a takedown This is already how the world works right now. I am merely describing the current state of the world. There is no required automatic filtering. No required AI bots. Instead, if you want something taken down, in the USA, you have to go through a difficult process of filing a DMCA takedown notice. Thats the currently law, and is how most of the major US platform works. Its difficult to enforce this stuff, and I like it that way. > But the fundamental goal of copyright is laudable Nah. Copying stuff is free. Unless someone breaks into your house, and steals a physical item, I don't care about your ownership "rights" of digital information that is free to copy. Anything that makes it more difficult, in any way at all, to enforce laws on digital free to copy stuff, is good. > I don't know if the IP holders would necessarily succeed in their lawsuit They've tried and they've failed. DMCA laws are very clear cut. Send in the notice, engages in the super difficult process, and if someone reuploads it, well sucks to be you, go spend the effort to make another DMCA takedown request. It is how most of the US platforms work.
amanaplanacanal 8y ago
"viable solution" and "what the law requires" in this case are not necessarily the same thing.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  The law required that the operators of YouTube take stronger action against repeat offenders. They didn't. We were actually starting to line up the evidence to demonstrate beyond any doubt that they had been clearly informed about the repeated infringement and that DMCA-compliant takedown notices had been properly filed in each case, which would have set up a lawsuit against YouTube if we'd been inclined to pursue them. In practice, we never did, but not because of anything YouTube changed. The offending party slipped up so we could identify them, and then they stopped misbehaving after we contacted them directly and made clear that we were preparing to take legal action against them personally.

stale2002 8y ago

To be perfectly honest, I don't care. Sucks to be you. Takedown requests should be difficult. If you have to work in shifts, and spend days out of your life to enforce this, my opinion is that this is a good thing. This has worked perfectly fine for most of America, and if people like you get screwed, well, that's not my problem, and I dont care about your suffering. If anything, I hope that people like you have to suffer even more to enforce these laws.

eridius 8y ago
Why should they be difficult? We absolutely want to discourage (ideally prevent) incorrect takedown requests, but correct takedown requests are a good thing. Beyond the fact that IP owners have the legal right to prevent unlicensed distribution of their IP, the only way a platform like Scribd can avoid becoming a haven for piracy is by handling takedown notices. If Scribd did not handle takedown notices and became rife with copyrighted content, they'd end up getting sued out of existence. The fact that they respect takedown notices is what keeps them immune from the lawsuits.
- stale2002 8y ago
  > but correct takedown requests are a good thing Not really, no. Anything that makes enforcement of copyright law harder is good in my book. > If Scribd did not handle takedown notices and became rife with copyrighted content Awesome. That sounds like it will undermine the copyright system. Also, this has nothing to do with them refusing to handle takedown notices. They are handling them. They don't need a bog. > they'd end up getting sued out of existence. False. That's not how DMCA works. DMCA gives complete copyright immunity to platforms, as long as they respond to take down requests. > The fact that they respect takedown notices is what keeps them immune from the lawsuits Correct. That's why they don't need a takedown bot. The copyright owner hhas to spend the significant time and effort to send the notices themselves.
  - eridius 8y ago
    > That sounds like it will undermine the copyright system. That's not a good thing. Copyright has been abused and copyright lifetimes dramatically extended past what should be reasonable. But the fundamental goal of copyright is laudable, and the current copyright system is better than no system. Perhaps you're confusing copyright with software patents? There are many arguments against the latter, but the arguments against software patents don't apply to the general case of copyrights. > DMCA gives complete copyright immunity to platforms, as long as they respond to take down requests. If a platform makes it hard to file a takedown, and easy to simply re-upload a new infringing copy of the copyrighted work, then I'm absolutely certain IP holders would sue the platform and claim that they're violating the DMCA. By providing a safe haven for piracy they'd be encouraging infringing activity on their systems, which would then cause them to fail the "red flag" test. I don't know if the IP holders would necessarily succeed in their lawsuit, but you can bet they'd try, and surely the platform doesn't want to spend the time and effort to try and defend against that.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      > If a platform makes it hard to file a takedown This is already how the world works right now. I am merely describing the current state of the world. There is no required automatic filtering. No required AI bots. Instead, if you want something taken down, in the USA, you have to go through a difficult process of filing a DMCA takedown notice. Thats the currently law, and is how most of the major US platform works. Its difficult to enforce this stuff, and I like it that way. > But the fundamental goal of copyright is laudable Nah. Copying stuff is free. Unless someone breaks into your house, and steals a physical item, I don't care about your ownership "rights" of digital information that is free to copy. Anything that makes it more difficult, in any way at all, to enforce laws on digital free to copy stuff, is good. > I don't know if the IP holders would necessarily succeed in their lawsuit They've tried and they've failed. DMCA laws are very clear cut. Send in the notice, engages in the super difficult process, and if someone reuploads it, well sucks to be you, go spend the effort to make another DMCA takedown request. It is how most of the US platforms work.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago

"viable solution" and "what the law requires" in this case are not necessarily the same thing.

Silhouette 8y ago
The law required that the operators of YouTube take stronger action against repeat offenders. They didn't. We were actually starting to line up the evidence to demonstrate beyond any doubt that they had been clearly informed about the repeated infringement and that DMCA-compliant takedown notices had been properly filed in each case, which would have set up a lawsuit against YouTube if we'd been inclined to pursue them. In practice, we never did, but not because of anything YouTube changed. The offending party slipped up so we could identify them, and then they stopped misbehaving after we contacted them directly and made clear that we were preparing to take legal action against them personally.