3 ms·

big players are either their own ISPs, hosting provides or most likely have SLAs in place that absolve their ISPs from liability and allow the companies to hand

big players are either their own ISPs, hosting provides or most likely have SLAs in place that absolve their ISPs from liability and allow the companies to handle DMCA claims directly by dedicated departments. smaller players are subject to dealing with DMCA claims by proxy via their hosting providers. also, it would be easy for Amazon to prove bad faith by having many examples from a single claimant. smaller companies may only have to deal with a few claims per year from different claimants (still incredibly disruptive) and not have strong enough evidence to demonstrate bad faith.

strogonoff 7y ago
So a BigCo tells their ISP “feel free to keep the content up and break DMCA regulations, we’ll deal with it”, just like that? Doesn’t it mean one or both of them violate a federal law?
- incompatible 7y ago
  I think there's a difference between running a website vs being a user on somebody else's site. A website must publish its registered agent address if it wants to take advantage of the DMCA system (i.e., receiving take down demands instead of lawsuits). E.g., Wikimedia receives take down demands as described at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:DMCA https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:DMCA. I'm unclear what the difference is between how Wikimedia is set up and the situation with the Guardian and Mail. That link above doesn't seem to contain everything that Wikimedia receives on its various sites, e.g., there's also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DM...
- sharpneli 7y ago
  It doesn’t break the law. It just means if the content was in fact infringing then the ISP is also guilty of copyright violation. They simply lose the safe harbor protection. So if they are sure it’s a false claim they can just ignore it.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  The DMCA takedown provisions don't introduce liability for actions, they remove it, under a specific set of circumstances, given specific responses to infringement claims. You don't "violate the DMCA takedown law" by failing to take down content. You simply lose protections offered by it. The federal law in question that might be violated would be exclusive rights under copyright, 17 USC 106 For these there are both civil and (in certain cases) criminal remedies possible. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

strogonoff 7y ago

So a BigCo tells their ISP “feel free to keep the content up and break DMCA regulations, we’ll deal with it”, just like that? Doesn’t it mean one or both of them violate a federal law?

incompatible 7y ago
I think there's a difference between running a website vs being a user on somebody else's site. A website must publish its registered agent address if it wants to take advantage of the DMCA system (i.e., receiving take down demands instead of lawsuits). E.g., Wikimedia receives take down demands as described at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:DMCA https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:DMCA. I'm unclear what the difference is between how Wikimedia is set up and the situation with the Guardian and Mail. That link above doesn't seem to contain everything that Wikimedia receives on its various sites, e.g., there's also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DM...
sharpneli 7y ago
It doesn’t break the law. It just means if the content was in fact infringing then the ISP is also guilty of copyright violation. They simply lose the safe harbor protection. So if they are sure it’s a false claim they can just ignore it.
dredmorbius 7y ago
The DMCA takedown provisions don't introduce liability for actions, they remove it, under a specific set of circumstances, given specific responses to infringement claims. You don't "violate the DMCA takedown law" by failing to take down content. You simply lose protections offered by it. The federal law in question that might be violated would be exclusive rights under copyright, 17 USC 106 For these there are both civil and (in certain cases) criminal remedies possible. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106