4 ms·

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

by 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?
  - everfree 6y ago
    Not always. Say that an artist posts their art to Deviantart, and another user rips it off, erases the watermark, and uploads it to Reddit. No money changing hands, but the artist still has the legal right to remove the copy and/or be properly attributed.

by ikeboy 6y ago

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?
- everfree 6y ago
  Not always. Say that an artist posts their art to Deviantart, and another user rips it off, erases the watermark, and uploads it to Reddit. No money changing hands, but the artist still has the legal right to remove the copy and/or be properly attributed.