4 ms·

>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 u

by 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.
        ikeboy 6y ago
        The above proposal said the money was forfeited as soon as a counternotice is filed. Hence, no incentive to file a lawsuit. Regardless, filing a suit costs more money than they were proposing be put up in escrow. So at best it would be a weak incentive.
        wtallis 6y ago
        > The above proposal said the money was forfeited as soon as a counternotice is filed. Hence, no incentive to file a lawsuit. ... except for the fact that a lawsuit allows you to recover that fee, and more damages—if you have a case to begin with. It's a recoverable cost, not a sunk cost. > Regardless, filing a suit costs more money than they were proposing be put up in escrow. What are you basing this on? The comment you're referring to very deliberately did not use specific numbers.
        ikeboy 6y ago
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > 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. Lol, no it doesn't. Even launching such litigation costs tens of thousands of dollars per time, and many copyright owners have to file literally millions of requests a day, the vast, vast, vast majority of which are legitimate.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > and many copyright owners have to file literally millions of requests a day, No copyright owner is capable of filing millions of valid DMCA takedown requests per day. Anyone attempting to do so is flouting the requirements of the DMCA takedown procedure and committing perjury with every notice sent where a real human has not personally viewed the allegedly infringing material and come away with a good-faith belief that it does indeed constitute infringement of the work identified in the notice.

by ikeboy 6y ago

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.
      - ikeboy 6y ago
        The above proposal said the money was forfeited as soon as a counternotice is filed. Hence, no incentive to file a lawsuit. Regardless, filing a suit costs more money than they were proposing be put up in escrow. So at best it would be a weak incentive.
        wtallis 6y ago
        > The above proposal said the money was forfeited as soon as a counternotice is filed. Hence, no incentive to file a lawsuit. ... except for the fact that a lawsuit allows you to recover that fee, and more damages—if you have a case to begin with. It's a recoverable cost, not a sunk cost. > Regardless, filing a suit costs more money than they were proposing be put up in escrow. What are you basing this on? The comment you're referring to very deliberately did not use specific numbers.
        ikeboy 6y ago
Mindwipe 6y ago
> 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. Lol, no it doesn't. Even launching such litigation costs tens of thousands of dollars per time, and many copyright owners have to file literally millions of requests a day, the vast, vast, vast majority of which are legitimate.
- wtallis 6y ago
  > and many copyright owners have to file literally millions of requests a day, No copyright owner is capable of filing millions of valid DMCA takedown requests per day. Anyone attempting to do so is flouting the requirements of the DMCA takedown procedure and committing perjury with every notice sent where a real human has not personally viewed the allegedly infringing material and come away with a good-faith belief that it does indeed constitute infringement of the work identified in the notice.