4 ms·

That is toothless in preventing corps (with money) from abusing individuals (who don't have the money to start litigation). Also, from what I hear, many implem

by clarry 7y ago

That is toothless in preventing corps (with money) from abusing individuals (who don't have the money to start litigation). Also, from what I hear, many implementations of DMCA do not give the individual enough information to take action against false claims. EDIT: see for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22211087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22211087

ikeboy 7y ago
>That is toothless in preventing corps (with money) from abusing individuals (who don't have the money to start litigation). This is a problem with unequal access to the legal system, not with the law. >Also, from what I hear, many implementations of DMCA do not give the individual enough information to take action against false claims. It's pretty simple to get the actual information in a lawsuit. Subpoena the service provider for the complete notice sent. In most cases a lawsuit isn't needed. If you receive a false complaint and file a counternotice, the content gets restored 10-14 days later if there's no lawsuit filed.
- clarry 7y ago
  > In most cases a lawsuit isn't needed. If you receive a false complaint and file a counternotice, the content gets restored 10-14 days later if there's no lawsuit filed. Yes indeed, this is exactly what is happening: they get off the hook, and they can keep filing false claims as much as they want because taking action against them is too hard. Hence, toothless. No consequence for sending false claims, the only people who suffer are those who get their stuff unjustly taken down for two weeks. It'd be a little more equal if, upon receiving a counternotice, all the original claimant's claims would be instantly put on hold for 10-14 days (and then dropped) unless they file a suit.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    The reason why a counternotice allows it to be put back up is because filing one requires you to swear to noninfringement and accept jurisdiction. If you're not willing to do that, and the claimant is willing to swear to infringement, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt simply because someone else said the claimant was wrong in an unrelated case?
    - clarry 7y ago
      > If you're not willing to do that I never said that. The reason why you should give people the benefit of the doubt is because otherwise the system is horrendously unfair and unbalanced in that 1) those who file false claims have nothing to lose (because the likelihood that they get dragged into court is virtually nil, and in most cases even dragging them to court would most likely lose you more time=money than you can hope to claim in damages) 2) those who have their content unjustly taken down keep losing over and over again. If it's word against word, then yes both sides' word should have equal weight and consequence. Currently, that is not the case.
      - ikeboy 7y ago
        >If it's word against word, then yes both sides' word should have equal weight and consequence. Currently, that is not the case. I'm not sure what you mean here. In that scenario, a DMCA notice was sent and a counternotice was sent. The content gets put back up after 14 days. This seems acceptable to me, and doesn't favor one side disproportionately. Either side can choose to go to court, but if they choose not to, the content is put back up after a delay. I agree that there's a problem with people filing false claims. But I don't see how a law could improve that.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >This is a problem with unequal access to the legal system, not with the law. The legal system didn't magically become the way it is recently or suddenly. When the law was created, the legislators knew that there would be unequal access to the law. They did it anyway. >In most cases a lawsuit isn't needed. If you receive a false complaint and file a counternotice, the content gets restored 10-14 days later if there's no lawsuit filed. And your content is taken down for 14 days with no reasonable recourse for you.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    >And your content is taken down for 14 days with no reasonable recourse for you. This is a very small harm comparatively, in my view an acceptable loss in order to establish the overall framework. The alternative is not having any way to remove content short of a lawsuit, which would lead to significantly more lawsuits that's more expensive for everyone, and hurt smaller content owners that can't afford a lawsuit. Regardless of what the law is, people prepared to spend money on lawsuits will do better. But the direct impact of the law is moving most disputes outside of the legal system, which has the effect of making it more equal, not less. It's weird to blame the law for the few parts that do require lawsuits, when the alternative is many more suits.

by clarry 7y ago

ikeboy 7y ago

>That is toothless in preventing corps (with money) from abusing individuals (who don't have the money to start litigation). This is a problem with unequal access to the legal system, not with the law. >Also, from what I hear, many implementations of DMCA do not give the individual enough information to take action against false claims. It's pretty simple to get the actual information in a lawsuit. Subpoena the service provider for the complete notice sent. In most cases a lawsuit isn't needed. If you receive a false complaint and file a counternotice, the content gets restored 10-14 days later if there's no lawsuit filed.

clarry 7y ago
> In most cases a lawsuit isn't needed. If you receive a false complaint and file a counternotice, the content gets restored 10-14 days later if there's no lawsuit filed. Yes indeed, this is exactly what is happening: they get off the hook, and they can keep filing false claims as much as they want because taking action against them is too hard. Hence, toothless. No consequence for sending false claims, the only people who suffer are those who get their stuff unjustly taken down for two weeks. It'd be a little more equal if, upon receiving a counternotice, all the original claimant's claims would be instantly put on hold for 10-14 days (and then dropped) unless they file a suit.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  The reason why a counternotice allows it to be put back up is because filing one requires you to swear to noninfringement and accept jurisdiction. If you're not willing to do that, and the claimant is willing to swear to infringement, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt simply because someone else said the claimant was wrong in an unrelated case?
  - clarry 7y ago
    > If you're not willing to do that I never said that. The reason why you should give people the benefit of the doubt is because otherwise the system is horrendously unfair and unbalanced in that 1) those who file false claims have nothing to lose (because the likelihood that they get dragged into court is virtually nil, and in most cases even dragging them to court would most likely lose you more time=money than you can hope to claim in damages) 2) those who have their content unjustly taken down keep losing over and over again. If it's word against word, then yes both sides' word should have equal weight and consequence. Currently, that is not the case.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      >If it's word against word, then yes both sides' word should have equal weight and consequence. Currently, that is not the case. I'm not sure what you mean here. In that scenario, a DMCA notice was sent and a counternotice was sent. The content gets put back up after 14 days. This seems acceptable to me, and doesn't favor one side disproportionately. Either side can choose to go to court, but if they choose not to, the content is put back up after a delay. I agree that there's a problem with people filing false claims. But I don't see how a law could improve that.
Mirioron 7y ago
>This is a problem with unequal access to the legal system, not with the law. The legal system didn't magically become the way it is recently or suddenly. When the law was created, the legislators knew that there would be unequal access to the law. They did it anyway. >In most cases a lawsuit isn't needed. If you receive a false complaint and file a counternotice, the content gets restored 10-14 days later if there's no lawsuit filed. And your content is taken down for 14 days with no reasonable recourse for you.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  >And your content is taken down for 14 days with no reasonable recourse for you. This is a very small harm comparatively, in my view an acceptable loss in order to establish the overall framework. The alternative is not having any way to remove content short of a lawsuit, which would lead to significantly more lawsuits that's more expensive for everyone, and hurt smaller content owners that can't afford a lawsuit. Regardless of what the law is, people prepared to spend money on lawsuits will do better. But the direct impact of the law is moving most disputes outside of the legal system, which has the effect of making it more equal, not less. It's weird to blame the law for the few parts that do require lawsuits, when the alternative is many more suits.