5 ms·

In what circumstances would escrowed money be forfeited? If the escrowed money doesn't go to the parties, then there's no incentive from either side to conside

by ikeboy 6y ago

In what circumstances would escrowed money be forfeited? If the escrowed money doesn't go to the parties, then there's no incentive from either side to consider the other side's escrow when determining their actions. Or worse - someone could file a suit and dismiss it later just to force escrow to be paid out. I think you need a lot more details on what happens in each scenario here.

Buttons840 6y ago
The circumstances where the escrow IS NOT returned would be the forfeitures. You have to read between the lines since the comment only specifies when escrow IS returned. So, alleged copyright owner loses escrow when a counter claim is filed. The accused loses escrow when a lawsuit is filed. This detail isn't as important as the overall result. Those who engage in mass DMCA abuse will directly lose money as a result.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ac29 6y ago
  > The accused loses escrow when a lawsuit is filed. So all the alleged copyright owner needs to do to deprive the accused of $Y is file a lawsuit (which could be completely lacking in merit)? That is arguably worse than the status quo, unless $Y is trivially small, in which case it lacks meaning to begin with.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    If the plaintiff's case lacks merit, the defendant will get $Y back when the plaintiff loses, plus other fees, and the plaintiff who wasted everyone's time pays all of those costs and potentially punitive damages or sanctions if it was a really egregious abuse of the takedown process.
elliekelly 6y ago
> In what circumstances would escrowed money be forfeited? When a counter-notice is filed (and so the material at issue is put back online) but a lawsuit is never filed the $X would be forfeit. When a counter-notice is filed and a lawsuit is filed then both $X and $Y would be forfeit. > Or worse - someone could file a suit and dismiss it later just to force escrow to be paid out. I would imagine $X and $Y being small enough dollar amounts that this maneuver wouldn't be worthwhile.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  Sounds too harsh for the first, unless $X is very low. What if you learn from the counternotice that they're not going to be able to be able to pay a judgement? And the second is also too harsh - you should have the opportunity to defend yourself in court, not automatically pay money just for standing up for your rights.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    > What if you learn from the counternotice that they're not going to be able to be able to pay a judgement? You would still want the copyright-infringing material removed regardless of their ability to pay. > you should have the opportunity to defend yourself in court, not automatically pay money just for standing up for your rights In the US you are almost always required to automatically pay money in order to assert your rights. Filing a lawsuit means paying filing fees.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      >You would still want the copyright-infringing material removed regardless of their ability to pay. But it might not be cost effective to file a suit. Giving up after a blatantly false counter-notice is a reasonable choice today, not to be discouraged. >In the US you are almost always required to automatically pay money in order to assert your rights. Filing a lawsuit means paying filing fees. That's if the courts are involved. The nice thing about the DMCA is it provides a completely free way to assert your rights, and the other side must file a lawsuit in order to change that. I guess your proposal would still require a lawsuit to be filed before you actually lose money, but even putting money up in escrow seems like too much to require.

by ikeboy 6y ago

Buttons840 6y ago

The circumstances where the escrow IS NOT returned would be the forfeitures. You have to read between the lines since the comment only specifies when escrow IS returned. So, alleged copyright owner loses escrow when a counter claim is filed. The accused loses escrow when a lawsuit is filed. This detail isn't as important as the overall result. Those who engage in mass DMCA abuse will directly lose money as a result.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ac29 6y ago
> The accused loses escrow when a lawsuit is filed. So all the alleged copyright owner needs to do to deprive the accused of $Y is file a lawsuit (which could be completely lacking in merit)? That is arguably worse than the status quo, unless $Y is trivially small, in which case it lacks meaning to begin with.
- wtallis 6y ago
  If the plaintiff's case lacks merit, the defendant will get $Y back when the plaintiff loses, plus other fees, and the plaintiff who wasted everyone's time pays all of those costs and potentially punitive damages or sanctions if it was a really egregious abuse of the takedown process.

elliekelly 6y ago

> In what circumstances would escrowed money be forfeited? When a counter-notice is filed (and so the material at issue is put back online) but a lawsuit is never filed the $X would be forfeit. When a counter-notice is filed and a lawsuit is filed then both $X and $Y would be forfeit. > Or worse - someone could file a suit and dismiss it later just to force escrow to be paid out. I would imagine $X and $Y being small enough dollar amounts that this maneuver wouldn't be worthwhile.

ikeboy 6y ago
Sounds too harsh for the first, unless $X is very low. What if you learn from the counternotice that they're not going to be able to be able to pay a judgement? And the second is also too harsh - you should have the opportunity to defend yourself in court, not automatically pay money just for standing up for your rights.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  > What if you learn from the counternotice that they're not going to be able to be able to pay a judgement? You would still want the copyright-infringing material removed regardless of their ability to pay. > you should have the opportunity to defend yourself in court, not automatically pay money just for standing up for your rights In the US you are almost always required to automatically pay money in order to assert your rights. Filing a lawsuit means paying filing fees.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    >You would still want the copyright-infringing material removed regardless of their ability to pay. But it might not be cost effective to file a suit. Giving up after a blatantly false counter-notice is a reasonable choice today, not to be discouraged. >In the US you are almost always required to automatically pay money in order to assert your rights. Filing a lawsuit means paying filing fees. That's if the courts are involved. The nice thing about the DMCA is it provides a completely free way to assert your rights, and the other side must file a lawsuit in order to change that. I guess your proposal would still require a lawsuit to be filed before you actually lose money, but even putting money up in escrow seems like too much to require.