3 ms·

They probably just send you a counter claim without bothering to take anything down. Perhaps also a nasty note from their lawyers?

strogonoff 7y ago
Wouldn’t it put them in violation of a federal law? If they send a counter-claim without taking the content down, can’t they be sued for DMCA non-compliance? The law appears to mandate immediate takedown for certain period of time regardless of counter-claim status. Playing devil’s advocate here, and may obviously be missing some points of the regulation.
- incompatible 7y ago
  I don't know about this. There's a difference between taking down supposed infringements from your users (or "subscribers") and your own material put on your own site by your own employees. I'm not sure that the DMCA mechanism is relevant for the latter.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  Honoring a DMCA takedown isn’t ever required, but ignoring one strips away the safe harbor protections for that specific content. This in turn makes you liable for any copyright infringement of that content as if you had published it yourself. If it’s legitimate, you’ll presumably win the court case and quite possibly get your attorney fees back.
  - strogonoff 7y ago
    Thanks for patient explanation. I guess, to sum up, the current system enables smaller players (commenters, vloggers, site authors) to publish on the Web through intermediaries of all kinds (like Linode or YouTube). Those intermediaries want to make sure they don’t get sued for the content they host, so they use safe harbor and observe DMCA. Those enjoying more direct access to the backbone (metaphorically and possibly literally speaking) of the Internet trust their legal teams and don’t need safe harbor protections. Thus if you are lucky enough to not need the safe harbor protections, you have the ability to bully smaller fish by issuing takedowns left and right.
    - kd5bjo 7y ago
      That’s essentially right but the ability to use takedowns to bully the smaller fish comes from a slightly different source. What the DMCA safe harbor provisions both try and succeed to do is remove those intermediaries from potential copyright proceedings. This allows them to flourish but also disincentivizes them from providing legal assistance to their customers— the ultimate lawsuit will be not be Giant Media Conglomerate vs Comcast ISP, it will be Giant Media Conglomerate vs John Doe. So the fundamental problem here doesn’t really have anything to do with copyright, but rather the reality that fighting a lawsuit can ruin you even if you’re in the right.
dredmorbius 7y ago
If the content is the company's own, DMCA takedown doesn't apply. If the content is a third party's, BigCo's option is to simply refuse the takedown, in which case the safe-harbour provisions (as you've been told repeatedly in this thread) don't exist. Your understanding of the DMCA generally as expressed here is poor. You'd do well to read the law or a good explanation of it. Copyright law is online at the Cornell University Law Server: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/ Subject matter, generally (see especially 106 & 106A): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1 Infringement and remedies, including DMCA safe-harbour provisions (section 512): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5 EFF have a basic explanation: https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca Lumen (previously the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse), has a longer explainer on DMCA Safe Harbour provisions: https://lumendatabase.org/topics/14 https://lumendatabase.org/topics/14

strogonoff 7y ago

Wouldn’t it put them in violation of a federal law? If they send a counter-claim without taking the content down, can’t they be sued for DMCA non-compliance? The law appears to mandate immediate takedown for certain period of time regardless of counter-claim status. Playing devil’s advocate here, and may obviously be missing some points of the regulation.

incompatible 7y ago
I don't know about this. There's a difference between taking down supposed infringements from your users (or "subscribers") and your own material put on your own site by your own employees. I'm not sure that the DMCA mechanism is relevant for the latter.
kd5bjo 7y ago
Honoring a DMCA takedown isn’t ever required, but ignoring one strips away the safe harbor protections for that specific content. This in turn makes you liable for any copyright infringement of that content as if you had published it yourself. If it’s legitimate, you’ll presumably win the court case and quite possibly get your attorney fees back.
- strogonoff 7y ago
  Thanks for patient explanation. I guess, to sum up, the current system enables smaller players (commenters, vloggers, site authors) to publish on the Web through intermediaries of all kinds (like Linode or YouTube). Those intermediaries want to make sure they don’t get sued for the content they host, so they use safe harbor and observe DMCA. Those enjoying more direct access to the backbone (metaphorically and possibly literally speaking) of the Internet trust their legal teams and don’t need safe harbor protections. Thus if you are lucky enough to not need the safe harbor protections, you have the ability to bully smaller fish by issuing takedowns left and right.
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    That’s essentially right but the ability to use takedowns to bully the smaller fish comes from a slightly different source. What the DMCA safe harbor provisions both try and succeed to do is remove those intermediaries from potential copyright proceedings. This allows them to flourish but also disincentivizes them from providing legal assistance to their customers— the ultimate lawsuit will be not be Giant Media Conglomerate vs Comcast ISP, it will be Giant Media Conglomerate vs John Doe. So the fundamental problem here doesn’t really have anything to do with copyright, but rather the reality that fighting a lawsuit can ruin you even if you’re in the right.

dredmorbius 7y ago

If the content is the company's own, DMCA takedown doesn't apply. If the content is a third party's, BigCo's option is to simply refuse the takedown, in which case the safe-harbour provisions (as you've been told repeatedly in this thread) don't exist. Your understanding of the DMCA generally as expressed here is poor. You'd do well to read the law or a good explanation of it. Copyright law is online at the Cornell University Law Server: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/ Subject matter, generally (see especially 106 & 106A): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1 Infringement and remedies, including DMCA safe-harbour provisions (section 512): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5 EFF have a basic explanation: https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca Lumen (previously the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse), has a longer explainer on DMCA Safe Harbour provisions: https://lumendatabase.org/topics/14 https://lumendatabase.org/topics/14