3 ms·

I mean, my view of the DMCA is pretty similar. It makes it more efficient, and only the ambiguous cases are likely to actually end up in court. There's an issue

by ikeboy 6y ago

I mean, my view of the DMCA is pretty similar. It makes it more efficient, and only the ambiguous cases are likely to actually end up in court. There's an issue with abuse, and I think strengthening the penalties for abuse and shortening the 14 day period to perhaps 4-7 days to account for faster speeds in the internet era can address that. I don't see the need to get rid of it completely.

pdonis 6y ago
> shortening the 14 day period to perhaps 4-7 days I note that the Copyright Office report you linked to elsewhere in this discussion says (p. 6, top): "[T]he current statutory timeframes to resume providing access to content following receipt of a counter-notice currently ill serves both users and rightsholders given current business models and the realities of federal litigation. Ten to fourteen days is both too long for legitimate speech to be blocked, and too short for a rightsholder to realistically prepare and file a federal lawsuit to prevent the return of infringing materials." Shortening the first period addresses the first issue (somewhat), but not the second. The root problem here is the same issue I've raised elsewhere regarding DMCA notices, applied to counter notices: just as content gets taken down on receipt of a notice, without legal due process, content gets reinstated on receipt of a counter notice, without legal due process. So just as the notice process invites abuse by companies bullying legitimate posters of content that is not infringing, the counter notice process invites abuse by posters of content that is infringing. In both cases, the system favors the strong (companies that want to bully people), or at least the illegitimate (posters of infringing content who don't think the legitimate owners can file a lawsuit within 14 days of a counter notice) at the expense of the weak and legitimate (legitimate posters of non-infringing content, and legitimate owners of content who can't move fast enough to protect it). That's not how the law is supposed to work.

by ikeboy 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> shortening the 14 day period to perhaps 4-7 days I note that the Copyright Office report you linked to elsewhere in this discussion says (p. 6, top): "[T]he current statutory timeframes to resume providing access to content following receipt of a counter-notice currently ill serves both users and rightsholders given current business models and the realities of federal litigation. Ten to fourteen days is both too long for legitimate speech to be blocked, and too short for a rightsholder to realistically prepare and file a federal lawsuit to prevent the return of infringing materials." Shortening the first period addresses the first issue (somewhat), but not the second. The root problem here is the same issue I've raised elsewhere regarding DMCA notices, applied to counter notices: just as content gets taken down on receipt of a notice, without legal due process, content gets reinstated on receipt of a counter notice, without legal due process. So just as the notice process invites abuse by companies bullying legitimate posters of content that is not infringing, the counter notice process invites abuse by posters of content that is infringing. In both cases, the system favors the strong (companies that want to bully people), or at least the illegitimate (posters of infringing content who don't think the legitimate owners can file a lawsuit within 14 days of a counter notice) at the expense of the weak and legitimate (legitimate posters of non-infringing content, and legitimate owners of content who can't move fast enough to protect it). That's not how the law is supposed to work.