5 ms·

Seems like a good idea to me. Are you thinking of small or large values for $X and $Y?

elliekelly 6y ago
That is the question. If the dollar amount is too low then big companies could afford to abuse the process but if the dollar amount is too high it would be difficult for individual content owners to assert their rights. I was thinking $100 to file an initial claim and $50 to file a counter-claim but I really don't know. Or perhaps a mechanism where the cost to file an initial claim goes up to $1000 after a person/entity has filed a certain number of claims for the year?
- ikeboy 6y ago
  I really like counternotices being free. You shouldn't have to pay for standing up for your rights. I'm open to payments for DMCA notices, but it shouldn't be forfeited just because someone filed a counternotice. I think a better system would involve the escrowed money going to the other party, and allow some sort of small claims court to adjudicate those matters. Although it still feels extraneous. If there's strict liability for false claims and automatic lawyer fee awards then we'll get an industry of contingency lawyers taking such cases in hopes of an award.
  - everfree 6y ago
    Notices should also be free by that logic, since by sending one you're also standing up for your rights. Everyone likes to imagine DMCA senders as large companies and trolls, and it's true that that's a large section of them, but not all. There are also individuals who have had their blog articles copied, independent photographers who have had their photos used without permission, videographers whose videos have been copied to other YouTube channels. In some situations DMCA can help the little guy too.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      The difference is that copyright is a right that involves making money, while the right to free speech doesn't always involve selling things. The sender of a notice is benefiting off of copyright in some way, while the alleged infringer might not be benefiting financially, and therefore it's more important to allow them to defend their rights freely.
      - Mindwipe 6y ago
        > The difference is that copyright is a right that involves making money No it isn't. That's one reason, but international copyright treaties recognise a host of rights that copyright gives including the right to attribution, the right to maintain the integrity of the work, and the right to control distribution (including the notion that you can just say you'd quite like it not to be distributed thanks). Copyright is a speech right, not just an economic one.
        ikeboy 6y ago
        The US has a doctrine of first sale which says there is no right to control distribution. There's a right to control copying, that's it.
        Mindwipe 6y ago
        > The US has a doctrine of first sale which says there is no right to control distribution. There's a right to control copying, that's it. Leaving aside the long running issue that despite some people's claims here that US copyright law is evil and run by megacorps while the reality is that the US is in breach of many of it's treaty commitments on copyright (and has been for a long time), the doctrine of first sale absolutely does not say that there is no right to control distribution.
        ikeboy 6y ago
        Mind explaining what acts you believe are covered by distribution rights and not under first sale?
wtallis 6y ago
I think appropriate values would be whatever it costs to file a lawsuit in the relevant court, plus a transaction fee for the escrow service. DMCA takedown notices were sold as a way to get quicker action than filing for an injunction, but they should not be usable as an alternative to a real lawsuit. If you're sending a takedown notice, you should be prepared to follow up with a lawsuit, including being on the hook for the fees. I think it would also be nice for abandoned takedown notices (ie. where the counter-notice isn't contested with a lawsuit) to be public record entered on a court docket. That way, abusers of the system can be more readily identified and tracked.
- apercu 6y ago
  Maybe a sliding scale based on the companies revenue (or individuals income). Parent company if corporate. If I am a small indie label protecting my artists why should my fee be extravagant? But if I am say, a subsidiary of Disney, maybe I can bully my way through the system and acquire more IP because I have access to capital.

That is the question. If the dollar amount is too low then big companies could afford to abuse the process but if the dollar amount is too high it would be difficult for individual content owners to assert their rights. I was thinking $100 to file an initial claim and $50 to file a counter-claim but I really don't know. Or perhaps a mechanism where the cost to file an initial claim goes up to $1000 after a person/entity has filed a certain number of claims for the year?

ikeboy 6y ago
I really like counternotices being free. You shouldn't have to pay for standing up for your rights. I'm open to payments for DMCA notices, but it shouldn't be forfeited just because someone filed a counternotice. I think a better system would involve the escrowed money going to the other party, and allow some sort of small claims court to adjudicate those matters. Although it still feels extraneous. If there's strict liability for false claims and automatic lawyer fee awards then we'll get an industry of contingency lawyers taking such cases in hopes of an award.
- everfree 6y ago
  Notices should also be free by that logic, since by sending one you're also standing up for your rights. Everyone likes to imagine DMCA senders as large companies and trolls, and it's true that that's a large section of them, but not all. There are also individuals who have had their blog articles copied, independent photographers who have had their photos used without permission, videographers whose videos have been copied to other YouTube channels. In some situations DMCA can help the little guy too.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    The difference is that copyright is a right that involves making money, while the right to free speech doesn't always involve selling things. The sender of a notice is benefiting off of copyright in some way, while the alleged infringer might not be benefiting financially, and therefore it's more important to allow them to defend their rights freely.
    - Mindwipe 6y ago
      > The difference is that copyright is a right that involves making money No it isn't. That's one reason, but international copyright treaties recognise a host of rights that copyright gives including the right to attribution, the right to maintain the integrity of the work, and the right to control distribution (including the notion that you can just say you'd quite like it not to be distributed thanks). Copyright is a speech right, not just an economic one.
      - ikeboy 6y ago
        The US has a doctrine of first sale which says there is no right to control distribution. There's a right to control copying, that's it.
        Mindwipe 6y ago
        > The US has a doctrine of first sale which says there is no right to control distribution. There's a right to control copying, that's it. Leaving aside the long running issue that despite some people's claims here that US copyright law is evil and run by megacorps while the reality is that the US is in breach of many of it's treaty commitments on copyright (and has been for a long time), the doctrine of first sale absolutely does not say that there is no right to control distribution.
        ikeboy 6y ago
        Mind explaining what acts you believe are covered by distribution rights and not under first sale?

wtallis 6y ago

I think appropriate values would be whatever it costs to file a lawsuit in the relevant court, plus a transaction fee for the escrow service. DMCA takedown notices were sold as a way to get quicker action than filing for an injunction, but they should not be usable as an alternative to a real lawsuit. If you're sending a takedown notice, you should be prepared to follow up with a lawsuit, including being on the hook for the fees. I think it would also be nice for abandoned takedown notices (ie. where the counter-notice isn't contested with a lawsuit) to be public record entered on a court docket. That way, abusers of the system can be more readily identified and tracked.

apercu 6y ago
Maybe a sliding scale based on the companies revenue (or individuals income). Parent company if corporate. If I am a small indie label protecting my artists why should my fee be extravagant? But if I am say, a subsidiary of Disney, maybe I can bully my way through the system and acquire more IP because I have access to capital.