5 ms·

So you would effectively destroy all free user generated content sites, and a good portion of the cheap ones as well. Just good to make that clear upfront when

by ikeboy 6y ago

So you would effectively destroy all free user generated content sites, and a good portion of the cheap ones as well. Just good to make that clear upfront when evaluating your proposal, so people could decide if this is really less draconian than the current system.

pdonis 6y ago
> So you would effectively destroy all free user generated content sites If it's impossible to do reasonable due diligence without charging users, yes. Posting content has a cost; it is entirely reasonable for users who want to post the content to bear at least a portion of that cost. > a good portion of the cheap ones as well Depends on what you mean by "cheap" and how much it would cost to actually do reasonable due diligence in a sane legal regime. I don't think it would cost much at all per user, particularly for a site like YouTube which has so many users. Which brings up another point: a large corporation like Google, owning a site like YouTube, is precisely the kind of corporation that ought to figure out a cheap way to do reasonable due diligence and handle things like having people provide a legal document before they upload content, and work with the legal system to develop a way of dealing with this that is fair and reasonable to all parties. And yet they are too lazy to do that, and depend on draconian laws instead to give them a supposed "safe harbor" against claims that, in a sane world, they would be able to refute and dismiss with minimal effort. And, further, the government is precisely the entity that, when large corporations fail to do what they ought to do, is supposed to make them do it, as the representative of the interests of the people. What our government did, instead, was to simply capitulate to the demands of the large corporations, and to fail to require them to do any due diligence at all, instead putting all the burden on the individuals who are posting legitimate content they created that gets mistaken by some corporation for copyrighted content--or the corporation simply decides not to care whether the content is infringing or not, because they see value in showing everyone else that they can bully whomever they want and not get stopped. And you are arguing that all this is perfectly fine and proper. Just to make that clear upfront so people know what you are really saying.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  YouTube did come up with a solution to one of the issues with DMCA - that it requires a manual report. They allowed sophisticated rights owners to upload content and then automatically flag any uploads that match. This is done outside of the DMCA and has no negative effect on users accounts, and comes with an appeal option. This is somewhat of an improvement on the DMCA, and it's voluntary for rights owners so it doesn't violate the DMCA. It's successfully reduced the number of DMCA complaints YouTube receives. I still don't quite understand what aspect of the law you consider draconian. Is removing a video for 14 days such a terrible downside that you'd get rid of the whole framework? Or are there other parts you object to? As above, I don't believe the DMCA is perfect. So please don't accuse me of thinking it is. I think penalties for false claims should be increased, I think false claims should be strict liability and antitrust per se. But I think getting rid of the entire framework would be a mistake.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > I still don't quite understand what aspect of the law you consider draconian. The fact that it accepts complaints as factual and valid without evidence and without any legal due process for conflicting claims. Conflicting claims are supposed to be decided by a court, and neither party is supposed to have their claim accepted as fact and acted on until a court has decided.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      Accepting a DMCA complaint doesn't mean it's factual or valid. It simply means the content is removed for 14 days, if a valid counternotice is submitted and no lawsuit is filed. So to be clear - the 14 day period is what you consider draconian?
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > Accepting a DMCA complaint doesn't mean it's factual or valid. Yes, it does, because the content gets taken down. That means treating the content as if it does infringe copyright. That means treating the claim of infringement as valid. Saying "well, we aren't accepting it as valid, but we're still taking down the content anyway" is just sophistry. Taking down the content is accepting the claim as valid, or would be in any sane legal regime. But we don't live in a sane legal regime.

by ikeboy 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> So you would effectively destroy all free user generated content sites If it's impossible to do reasonable due diligence without charging users, yes. Posting content has a cost; it is entirely reasonable for users who want to post the content to bear at least a portion of that cost. > a good portion of the cheap ones as well Depends on what you mean by "cheap" and how much it would cost to actually do reasonable due diligence in a sane legal regime. I don't think it would cost much at all per user, particularly for a site like YouTube which has so many users. Which brings up another point: a large corporation like Google, owning a site like YouTube, is precisely the kind of corporation that ought to figure out a cheap way to do reasonable due diligence and handle things like having people provide a legal document before they upload content, and work with the legal system to develop a way of dealing with this that is fair and reasonable to all parties. And yet they are too lazy to do that, and depend on draconian laws instead to give them a supposed "safe harbor" against claims that, in a sane world, they would be able to refute and dismiss with minimal effort. And, further, the government is precisely the entity that, when large corporations fail to do what they ought to do, is supposed to make them do it, as the representative of the interests of the people. What our government did, instead, was to simply capitulate to the demands of the large corporations, and to fail to require them to do any due diligence at all, instead putting all the burden on the individuals who are posting legitimate content they created that gets mistaken by some corporation for copyrighted content--or the corporation simply decides not to care whether the content is infringing or not, because they see value in showing everyone else that they can bully whomever they want and not get stopped. And you are arguing that all this is perfectly fine and proper. Just to make that clear upfront so people know what you are really saying.

ikeboy 6y ago
YouTube did come up with a solution to one of the issues with DMCA - that it requires a manual report. They allowed sophisticated rights owners to upload content and then automatically flag any uploads that match. This is done outside of the DMCA and has no negative effect on users accounts, and comes with an appeal option. This is somewhat of an improvement on the DMCA, and it's voluntary for rights owners so it doesn't violate the DMCA. It's successfully reduced the number of DMCA complaints YouTube receives. I still don't quite understand what aspect of the law you consider draconian. Is removing a video for 14 days such a terrible downside that you'd get rid of the whole framework? Or are there other parts you object to? As above, I don't believe the DMCA is perfect. So please don't accuse me of thinking it is. I think penalties for false claims should be increased, I think false claims should be strict liability and antitrust per se. But I think getting rid of the entire framework would be a mistake.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > I still don't quite understand what aspect of the law you consider draconian. The fact that it accepts complaints as factual and valid without evidence and without any legal due process for conflicting claims. Conflicting claims are supposed to be decided by a court, and neither party is supposed to have their claim accepted as fact and acted on until a court has decided.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    Accepting a DMCA complaint doesn't mean it's factual or valid. It simply means the content is removed for 14 days, if a valid counternotice is submitted and no lawsuit is filed. So to be clear - the 14 day period is what you consider draconian?
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > Accepting a DMCA complaint doesn't mean it's factual or valid. Yes, it does, because the content gets taken down. That means treating the content as if it does infringe copyright. That means treating the claim of infringement as valid. Saying "well, we aren't accepting it as valid, but we're still taking down the content anyway" is just sophistry. Taking down the content is accepting the claim as valid, or would be in any sane legal regime. But we don't live in a sane legal regime.