3 ms·

I often write here on HN: Make the laws so that companies who claim false copyright infringements receive the same punishments and (financial) penalties as you

I often write here on HN: Make the laws so that companies who claim false copyright infringements receive the same punishments and (financial) penalties as you would as if you infringed the copyright. Also the entity falsely accused of copyright infringement should receive the same compensation as it would be sued for if it had infringend copyright.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
The copyright owners usually have better lawyers than the alleged infringers, but they can be sued. https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/intellectual-property/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request-10363/ https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/intellectual-property/con...
matheusmoreira 7y ago
They'll just lobby the government and say such a thing would make it "too risky" or "too hard" to enforce copyright. Actually making sure a DMCA complaint is valid is too much work and they shouldn't have to do it. What they want is a magic button that deletes from the internet everything that matches their content but doesn't come from them directly. They don't care about false positives or fair use either, it's just collateral damage. Copyright laws exist to benefit corporations, not the public.
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > They'll just lobby the government and say such a thing would make it "too risky" or "too hard" to enforce copyright. Any sensible person should counter that argument with the argument that it is currently "too hard" to defend oneself against false copyright claims.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    This assumes that sensible people can afford to pay lobbyists to influence law makers. Maybe the EFF could do that.
Semaphor 7y ago
Or my recent suggestion here: > 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. Of course neither of those are going to happen, those companies donate way too much money.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

The copyright owners usually have better lawyers than the alleged infringers, but they can be sued. https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/intellectual-property/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request-10363/ https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/intellectual-property/con...

matheusmoreira 7y ago

They'll just lobby the government and say such a thing would make it "too risky" or "too hard" to enforce copyright. Actually making sure a DMCA complaint is valid is too much work and they shouldn't have to do it. What they want is a magic button that deletes from the internet everything that matches their content but doesn't come from them directly. They don't care about false positives or fair use either, it's just collateral damage. Copyright laws exist to benefit corporations, not the public.

wolfgke 7y ago
> They'll just lobby the government and say such a thing would make it "too risky" or "too hard" to enforce copyright. Any sensible person should counter that argument with the argument that it is currently "too hard" to defend oneself against false copyright claims.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  This assumes that sensible people can afford to pay lobbyists to influence law makers. Maybe the EFF could do that.

Semaphor 7y ago

Or my recent suggestion here: > 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. Of course neither of those are going to happen, those companies donate way too much money.