5 ms·

> When will platforms start to be charged for their mistakes? Pretty sure if they had to make financial compensations for their mistakes, they would start using

by whack 6y ago

> When will platforms start to be charged for their mistakes? Pretty sure if they had to make financial compensations for their mistakes, they would start using humans more often to support this crap automated system. How exactly would you enforce this? Media companies have the right to not show content from a given artist, at any time, for any reason. If you passed a law saying that twitch has to pay fines for false DMCA takedowns, they would simply take down the same artist anyway, without giving them any reason whatsoever. Which hurts the artist even more - now they can't even appeal the decision, because they would have no idea why it occurred

jakelazaroff 6y ago
It’s easy to blame the platforms here, but this is just a symptom of the root problem. This will continue to be an issue as long as most art is controlled by litigious conglomerates trying to protect their cash cows. The immediate fix is to fine the entities filing false DMCA claims, not the platforms enforcing them. The longer term fix is to take away power and control from these giant corporations and give it back to the artists.
coryrc 6y ago
Public businesses are held to higher standards on choosing who to do business with than individuals, so why shouldn't monopolies be held to even higher standards? No secret takedowns, only allowed method is to follow the dmca law process, not take down whatever they want whenever they want. If they don't want to do that, then they can choose to not be a monopoly by raising prices significantly and leave room for competitors.
bostik 6y ago
> If you passed a law saying that twitch has to pay fines for false DMCA takedowns You have to dig deeper, beyond the platforms themselves: make it extremely expensive and dangerous to file copyfraud claims. As long as the incentives are in favour of carpetbombing, you will have lots of casualties. Repeating something I have said before, it feels to me the correct solution would be to go full Hammurabi on the perverse incentives. To eliminate the asymmetric warfare, one change would be enough. -- If a company, or an agent acting in their name, files a fraudulent copyright takedown, then the victim of that takedown gets to choose one item from that company's catalog that will become public domain. The company also becomes liable for all the lost [royalty] income for the creators of that particular item. The point is not to eliminate takedowns or make them technologically less effective. Goal should be to eliminate the incentives on abusing them, and make the depletion of culture a bad default.

by whack 6y ago

jakelazaroff 6y ago

It’s easy to blame the platforms here, but this is just a symptom of the root problem. This will continue to be an issue as long as most art is controlled by litigious conglomerates trying to protect their cash cows. The immediate fix is to fine the entities filing false DMCA claims, not the platforms enforcing them. The longer term fix is to take away power and control from these giant corporations and give it back to the artists.

coryrc 6y ago

Public businesses are held to higher standards on choosing who to do business with than individuals, so why shouldn't monopolies be held to even higher standards? No secret takedowns, only allowed method is to follow the dmca law process, not take down whatever they want whenever they want. If they don't want to do that, then they can choose to not be a monopoly by raising prices significantly and leave room for competitors.

bostik 6y ago

> If you passed a law saying that twitch has to pay fines for false DMCA takedowns You have to dig deeper, beyond the platforms themselves: make it extremely expensive and dangerous to file copyfraud claims. As long as the incentives are in favour of carpetbombing, you will have lots of casualties. Repeating something I have said before, it feels to me the correct solution would be to go full Hammurabi on the perverse incentives. To eliminate the asymmetric warfare, one change would be enough. -- If a company, or an agent acting in their name, files a fraudulent copyright takedown, then the victim of that takedown gets to choose one item from that company's catalog that will become public domain. The company also becomes liable for all the lost [royalty] income for the creators of that particular item. The point is not to eliminate takedowns or make them technologically less effective. Goal should be to eliminate the incentives on abusing them, and make the depletion of culture a bad default.