4 ms·

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?

• 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.
    • wtallis 6y ago
      > Giving up after a blatantly false counter-notice is a reasonable choice today, not to be discouraged. I don't think it's that reasonable. If the counter-notice is so obviously wrong, then following through with a lawsuit probably stands a good chance of a default judgement in your favor, and a very good chance of a summary judgement in your favor. If every such case was pursued to final judgement or settlement, then we would quickly see this process provide effective deterrent to blatant copyright infringement.
      • ikeboy 6y ago
        The problem is the other side is often judgement proof. And you might not know who the other side until you get a counter-notice with their contact information.
        • wtallis 6y ago
          "Judgement proof" usually just means the plaintiff/copyright holder cannot make money off the defendant/infringer. But the infringer is still going to suffer financially. Having an expectation that you'll be driven into bankruptcy if you file a false counter-notice would probably serve as extremely effective deterrent against doing so, especially when it costs real money to file that false counter-notice. Judgement-proof infringers may be a serious problem under the current system, but I think that problem would be more or less eliminated by requiring participants in the DMCA takedown procedures to have skin in the game.
          • ikeboy 6y ago
            Why would there be such an expectation? What incentive would a copyright holder have to sue that they don't have under the current system?
            • wtallis 6y ago
              > What incentive would a copyright holder have to sue that they don't have under the current system? Right now, a copyright holder who sends a half-assed takedown notice has no incentive to put their money where their mouth is. Bur if they have to make a financial investment in order to file that notice and their money is forfeit if they don't follow through with a lawsuit when the notice is contested, then they obviously now have an incentive to follow through with a lawsuit. Especially if dropping their allegations of infringement now means the intended victim of the half-assed takedown notice gets part of that filing fee to compensate them for their troubles and having their work temporarily made unavailable.
              • 6y ago
• wtallis 6y ago
  > 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. If a lawsuit is filed, then you do have that chance to defend yourself, and win a judgment that includes expenses like filing fees.