4 ms·

> There is stuff to complain about with the DMCA, but the core process is reasonable. it absolutely is not in any way reasonable. you must take down the conte

> There is stuff to complain about with the DMCA, but the core process is reasonable. it absolutely is not in any way reasonable. you must take down the content without question and then, after filing a counter-notice wait 10-14 days minimum before it can be restored [1]: "After a counter notice has been received, a service provider must wait 10-14 days before they can reactivate the claimed infringing content." frivolous complaints can completely cripple a business with little risk to the supposed claimant. https://odinlaw.com/what-is-a-dmca-counter-notice/ https://odinlaw.com/what-is-a-dmca-counter-notice/

TheDesolate0 6y ago
You must or they can take M$ to court, which M$ would crush RIAA.
m11a 6y ago
That is, to be fair, an aspect that could be improved on. However, how do you do this? For example, perhaps a large-business exemption where they are required to follow through with legal proceedings if a claimant files a counter-notice (so they can't do the whole claim, counter-claim filed, they don't follow up, like with PopcornTime, usually because the DMCA was bogus). But then this encourages further litigation, so it discourages people taking the risk to file a counter-claim. But unless they follow through with legal action, nobody can assess if the initial notice was "fraudulent". It's a real thorny problem.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
  There are many possible solutions, e.g. - A company that files a fraudulent request loses DMCA rights (that way, it doesn't have to be proven repeatedly, just once) - Liability for false takedowns w/ punitive damages, criminal liability with actual enforcement for malicious attempts or even negligence. Potentially a deposit requirement once a false claim has been made.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    Those are good ideas, but the first one should have been: - Nothing at all happens until a unbiased court issues an injunction. In other words, the process that was in place before the DMCA was passed.

TheDesolate0 6y ago

You must or they can take M$ to court, which M$ would crush RIAA.

m11a 6y ago

That is, to be fair, an aspect that could be improved on. However, how do you do this? For example, perhaps a large-business exemption where they are required to follow through with legal proceedings if a claimant files a counter-notice (so they can't do the whole claim, counter-claim filed, they don't follow up, like with PopcornTime, usually because the DMCA was bogus). But then this encourages further litigation, so it discourages people taking the risk to file a counter-claim. But unless they follow through with legal action, nobody can assess if the initial notice was "fraudulent". It's a real thorny problem.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
There are many possible solutions, e.g. - A company that files a fraudulent request loses DMCA rights (that way, it doesn't have to be proven repeatedly, just once) - Liability for false takedowns w/ punitive damages, criminal liability with actual enforcement for malicious attempts or even negligence. Potentially a deposit requirement once a false claim has been made.
- nybble41 6y ago
  Those are good ideas, but the first one should have been: - Nothing at all happens until a unbiased court issues an injunction. In other words, the process that was in place before the DMCA was passed.