3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere 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 agoThose 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.