4 ms·
> 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 horren
by 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.