3 ms·

>already covered You weren't clear on who is being sued. So, if you don't give company Y a safe harbor, then many such company Ys will simply remove content w

by ikeboy 6y ago

>already covered You weren't clear on who is being sued. So, if you don't give company Y a safe harbor, then many such company Ys will simply remove content whenever they receive a complaint. It's cheaper, after all, and the users can't complain, since the contract will specify that. We're back to widespread abuse, except without the ability of the uploader to file a counternotice.

pdonis 6y ago
> if you don't give company Y a safe harbor, then many such company Ys will simply remove content whenever they receive a complaint. From what I can gather, many users would have no problem with that at all. At least one has posted in this discussion saying so explicitly. The DMCA is irrelevant for such users. To the extent there's an issue here at all, it's balancing between companies that have legitimate claims against purposeful infringers, and people who post content they legitimately own (or which is legitimate fair use or some other exception) that are targeted, mistakenly or with intent to bully, by companies. The DMCA arguably deters purposeful infringers, since it greatly decreases the cost to copyright owners of getting the infringing content removed and increases the cost of getting removed content reinstated. However, the DMCA also greatly enables mistaken or bullying claims against legitimate content, for the exact same reasons: it greatly decreases the cost of having content removed and increases the cost of getting it reinstated. If the first category is much larger than the second, the DMCA might be a reasonable tradeoff (putting aside the other issues I've raised about misuse of the law). If the second category is much larger than the first (which is what I suspect), the DMCA does not look to me like a reasonable tradeoff at all.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  The DMCA is relevant because it gives such companies a safe harbor to initially host such content. You would require they get a signed and notarized affidavit prior to granting this safe harbor. I think we can fix the trade-off by increasing penalties for abuse, as this discussion originally opened with such proposals. I'm not convinced abuse is so inevitable that we should ditch the whole framework.

by ikeboy 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> if you don't give company Y a safe harbor, then many such company Ys will simply remove content whenever they receive a complaint. From what I can gather, many users would have no problem with that at all. At least one has posted in this discussion saying so explicitly. The DMCA is irrelevant for such users. To the extent there's an issue here at all, it's balancing between companies that have legitimate claims against purposeful infringers, and people who post content they legitimately own (or which is legitimate fair use or some other exception) that are targeted, mistakenly or with intent to bully, by companies. The DMCA arguably deters purposeful infringers, since it greatly decreases the cost to copyright owners of getting the infringing content removed and increases the cost of getting removed content reinstated. However, the DMCA also greatly enables mistaken or bullying claims against legitimate content, for the exact same reasons: it greatly decreases the cost of having content removed and increases the cost of getting it reinstated. If the first category is much larger than the second, the DMCA might be a reasonable tradeoff (putting aside the other issues I've raised about misuse of the law). If the second category is much larger than the first (which is what I suspect), the DMCA does not look to me like a reasonable tradeoff at all.

ikeboy 6y ago
The DMCA is relevant because it gives such companies a safe harbor to initially host such content. You would require they get a signed and notarized affidavit prior to granting this safe harbor. I think we can fix the trade-off by increasing penalties for abuse, as this discussion originally opened with such proposals. I'm not convinced abuse is so inevitable that we should ditch the whole framework.