3 ms·

> What would you change about the system? 3 strikes and you are out. Take down 3 obviously (probably decided by a judge) non-infringing things and you lose the

> What would you change about the system? 3 strikes and you are out. Take down 3 obviously (probably decided by a judge) non-infringing things and you lose the ability to send takedowns.

dmitriid 7y ago
Or, same, but with increasing penalties. 3 strikes, can't send notices for a week. 3 more strikes, a month. 3 more strikes, a year
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  Keep in mind that if a judge has to get involved, it would take a long time for the penalties to actually take effect. The idea of increasing penalties is a good one, but the lowest level needs to be an order of magnitude more significant, and ditto for the subsequent steps.
ikeboy 7y ago
>Take down 3 obviously (probably decided by a judge) non-infringing things and you lose the ability to send takedowns. Once it reaches this point, the service provider would likely stop accepting the notices anyway. See e.g. the recent lawsuit by Youtube against Brady, who sent a bunch of bogus notices. Once they realized that, they stopped accepting the notices. There's hardly a critical mass of takedowns by people who've been found 3 times by a judge to have sent fraudulent takedowns.
- Semaphor 7y ago
  > There's hardly a critical mass of takedowns by people who've been found 3 times by a judge to have sent fraudulent takedowns. Because those rarely go in front of a judge. Torrentfreak [0] gets many takedown notices where for example their reporting on a leak gets targeted with a DMCA request. If those companies had to fear someone challenging these (in this example an easy win) and making them lose their ability to send them out at all, that would change a lot. [0]: https://torrentfreak.com/all-dmca-notices-filed-against-torrentfreak-in-2019-were-bogus-191231/ https://torrentfreak.com/all-dmca-notices-filed-against-torr... > In previous years we’ve received erroneous complaints from the likes of Amazon, Electronic Arts, Disney, Entertainment One, Vertigo Films, Magnolia Pictures, NBCUniversal, Paramount, and even BBC Worldwide. This year we can add more. > According to Google’s Transparency Report, in 2019 Google received a further 11 DMCA takedown notices targeting our domain, sent on behalf of Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures, and sundry others. All of them were completely bogus.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    > If those companies had to fear someone challenging these (in this example an easy win) and making them lose their ability to send them out at all, that would change a lot. Why hasn't torrentfreak sued? Presumably because it's not an easy win and doesn't produce real benefits for them. I'm struggling to see how any of that would change under your proposal. For what it's worth, judges have occasionally issued injunctions preventing people from filing claims, under the DMCA and otherwise. See e.g. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16599762/home-it-inc-v-wen/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16599762/home-it-inc-v-... ("ORDERED that the Defendant Wupin Wen, no later than eighteen (18) hours after service of this Order on her via email to trademark@cn-ip.cn, trynow@cn-ip.cn, and bzkjuk@126.com: a. Notify Amazon that the trademark owner’s allegations of infringement against HOMEIT are withdrawn and that Amazon should re-list the involved products to its website as soon as possible; and b. Refrain from filing or otherwise communicating any allegations of infringement by HOMEIT to any third party, at minimum, for the duration of the instant litigation relative to Saganizer branded products." docket 21 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4160397/design-furnishings-inc-v-zen-path-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4160397/design-furnishi... (older case from 2010), "Defendant is therefore enjoined from notifying eBay that defendant has copyrights in the wicker patio furniture offered for sale by plaintiff and that plaintiff’s sales violate those copyrights. " docket 29 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16630192/california-beach-co-llc-v-du/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16630192/california-bea... "THEREFORE, DU AND ALL PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH DU, ARE TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from taking down, based on any alleged copyright infringement, from Facebook and Instagram, or any other service provider’s website, CBC’s online content or product line. Du is temporarily not permitted to file any further takedown notices with Facebook, Instagram, or any other service provider’s website as to CBC’s online content or product line. Any current and operative takedown notices in effect that were filed by Du as to CBC are restrained, and are to be disregarded by the online service provider. Accordingly, and specifically, Facebook (Report #2576187715997707) and Instagram (Report #1407615876061304) are directed to disregard Du’s takedown notice and to reinstate CBC’s online content during the period of this Order. " docket 22
    - mokus 7y ago
      Wow. A bit of a digression here but it appears they actually consider email a valid avenue of legal service? That blows my mind. I don’t even check my work email every 18 hours, and I haven’t looked through my home email in 3 or 4 years except to find specific messages I knew were coming.
- labawi 7y ago
  Did he actually use DMCA? AFAIK Youtube has it's own system and doesn't typically deal with DMCA. If you are required to do something by law, you can't just ignore (bad cases of) it, and call it case closed.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    It was DMCA notices, yes. DMCA doesn't require them to take it down. It just removes their safe harbor from liability if they don't. If YouTube is confident that a notice is BS, they can just ignore it.
    - notyourday 7y ago
      I would be highly surprised if that's the way it worked at youtube because that's not the way it works in other players: There's an takedown API/dashboard access to which is given to large content producers ( networks, large studios, transmitters, broadcasters, rights holders ). It is them who triggers the takedown action and selects the "reason" which triggers an automated action by the platform. Most of the "content had been taken down by mistake" comes not from internal system but rather from other parties having access to the takedown API.
      - ikeboy 7y ago
        That's separate. It's called content ID. But the case I mentioned above was by someone who did not have access to content ID and was just submitting fraudulent DMCA notices. See also https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/youtube-backs-its-users-new-fair-use-protection-program https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/youtube-backs-its-user...

> What would you change about the system? 3 strikes and you are out. Take down 3 obviously (probably decided by a judge) non-infringing things and you lose the ability to send takedowns.

dmitriid 7y ago

Or, same, but with increasing penalties. 3 strikes, can't send notices for a week. 3 more strikes, a month. 3 more strikes, a year

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Keep in mind that if a judge has to get involved, it would take a long time for the penalties to actually take effect. The idea of increasing penalties is a good one, but the lowest level needs to be an order of magnitude more significant, and ditto for the subsequent steps.

ikeboy 7y ago

>Take down 3 obviously (probably decided by a judge) non-infringing things and you lose the ability to send takedowns. Once it reaches this point, the service provider would likely stop accepting the notices anyway. See e.g. the recent lawsuit by Youtube against Brady, who sent a bunch of bogus notices. Once they realized that, they stopped accepting the notices. There's hardly a critical mass of takedowns by people who've been found 3 times by a judge to have sent fraudulent takedowns.

Semaphor 7y ago
> There's hardly a critical mass of takedowns by people who've been found 3 times by a judge to have sent fraudulent takedowns. Because those rarely go in front of a judge. Torrentfreak [0] gets many takedown notices where for example their reporting on a leak gets targeted with a DMCA request. If those companies had to fear someone challenging these (in this example an easy win) and making them lose their ability to send them out at all, that would change a lot. [0]: https://torrentfreak.com/all-dmca-notices-filed-against-torrentfreak-in-2019-were-bogus-191231/ https://torrentfreak.com/all-dmca-notices-filed-against-torr... > In previous years we’ve received erroneous complaints from the likes of Amazon, Electronic Arts, Disney, Entertainment One, Vertigo Films, Magnolia Pictures, NBCUniversal, Paramount, and even BBC Worldwide. This year we can add more. > According to Google’s Transparency Report, in 2019 Google received a further 11 DMCA takedown notices targeting our domain, sent on behalf of Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures, and sundry others. All of them were completely bogus.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  > If those companies had to fear someone challenging these (in this example an easy win) and making them lose their ability to send them out at all, that would change a lot. Why hasn't torrentfreak sued? Presumably because it's not an easy win and doesn't produce real benefits for them. I'm struggling to see how any of that would change under your proposal. For what it's worth, judges have occasionally issued injunctions preventing people from filing claims, under the DMCA and otherwise. See e.g. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16599762/home-it-inc-v-wen/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16599762/home-it-inc-v-... ("ORDERED that the Defendant Wupin Wen, no later than eighteen (18) hours after service of this Order on her via email to trademark@cn-ip.cn, trynow@cn-ip.cn, and bzkjuk@126.com: a. Notify Amazon that the trademark owner’s allegations of infringement against HOMEIT are withdrawn and that Amazon should re-list the involved products to its website as soon as possible; and b. Refrain from filing or otherwise communicating any allegations of infringement by HOMEIT to any third party, at minimum, for the duration of the instant litigation relative to Saganizer branded products." docket 21 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4160397/design-furnishings-inc-v-zen-path-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4160397/design-furnishi... (older case from 2010), "Defendant is therefore enjoined from notifying eBay that defendant has copyrights in the wicker patio furniture offered for sale by plaintiff and that plaintiff’s sales violate those copyrights. " docket 29 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16630192/california-beach-co-llc-v-du/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16630192/california-bea... "THEREFORE, DU AND ALL PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH DU, ARE TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from taking down, based on any alleged copyright infringement, from Facebook and Instagram, or any other service provider’s website, CBC’s online content or product line. Du is temporarily not permitted to file any further takedown notices with Facebook, Instagram, or any other service provider’s website as to CBC’s online content or product line. Any current and operative takedown notices in effect that were filed by Du as to CBC are restrained, and are to be disregarded by the online service provider. Accordingly, and specifically, Facebook (Report #2576187715997707) and Instagram (Report #1407615876061304) are directed to disregard Du’s takedown notice and to reinstate CBC’s online content during the period of this Order. " docket 22
  - mokus 7y ago
    Wow. A bit of a digression here but it appears they actually consider email a valid avenue of legal service? That blows my mind. I don’t even check my work email every 18 hours, and I haven’t looked through my home email in 3 or 4 years except to find specific messages I knew were coming.
labawi 7y ago
Did he actually use DMCA? AFAIK Youtube has it's own system and doesn't typically deal with DMCA. If you are required to do something by law, you can't just ignore (bad cases of) it, and call it case closed.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  It was DMCA notices, yes. DMCA doesn't require them to take it down. It just removes their safe harbor from liability if they don't. If YouTube is confident that a notice is BS, they can just ignore it.
  - notyourday 7y ago
    I would be highly surprised if that's the way it worked at youtube because that's not the way it works in other players: There's an takedown API/dashboard access to which is given to large content producers ( networks, large studios, transmitters, broadcasters, rights holders ). It is them who triggers the takedown action and selects the "reason" which triggers an automated action by the platform. Most of the "content had been taken down by mistake" comes not from internal system but rather from other parties having access to the takedown API.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      That's separate. It's called content ID. But the case I mentioned above was by someone who did not have access to content ID and was just submitting fraudulent DMCA notices. See also https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/youtube-backs-its-users-new-fair-use-protection-program https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/youtube-backs-its-user...