3 ms·

> how it could be legal to automatically send DMCA takedown requests Because the ones benefiting from this lobbied their way into getting it. And to extract th

> how it could be legal to automatically send DMCA takedown requests Because the ones benefiting from this lobbied their way into getting it. And to extract the most value they implemented automated means of doing it. Not only does this allow easily sending a flood of takedown notices thus discouraging anyone from even thinking of crossing you, it also provides an easy scapegoat in the near impossible situation that the company abusing the system is actually called to answer for the abuse. "It was just a technical mishap". But this isn't a technical problem, it's a corruption problem. And it doesn't have a technical fix, it has a legal one that cannot be applied because of the lobbying (corruption) mentioned earlier. On the other hand most takedown notices aren't actual "DMCA takedown notices". Platforms like YouTube or Twitter simply have an arrangement with the big "content owners" that they will act on such internal notices. That's to shield themselves from incurring costs when unavoidably they will host copyright infringing content that they don't take down. It's easier and safer to take the side of the big content owners than that of the users.

varispeed 6y ago
These days corruption is so rife, I am still amazed that whenever ones mentions it as a plausible cause of an event, there is a high chance the opinion will be buried with downvotes. Corrupt governments are one thing, but it is interesting how governments created an impression that corruption is a marginal problem, that it does not exist. Rarely you see anyone charged yet alone convicted and if you see it's rather some little things in the grand scheme of things. Some events are brazenly obvious yet I never hear them ever being investigated. I've been thinking how do you even report something like this if you only have your own suspicions but no hard evidence? How do you even get evidence that e.g. some regulation was bought? (e.g. you can see certain companies listed as party donors or belonging to a family of certain politicians and then you see a regulation going through against expert advice that hugely benefit those companies at the expense of competing businesses, yet even journalists known for being in opposition won't touch the topic).
- buran77 6y ago
  > governments created an impression that corruption is a marginal problem, that it does not exist. Governments create the impression that small, widespread corruption is the one that counts. The one where you pay a cop to get out of a speeding ticket, or a doctor to get better medical care. They will go out of their way to commission reports that condemn this as the real danger to society while using obscure metrics to support that idea. At the same time they invent a word to use when governments and legislators are involved: lobbying. They write off the corruption happening at high levels even if it's responsible for fundamentally changing how society works in ways that small corruption never could. Laws that weaken the educational system, or employee's rights, that protect corporations, etc. not only are the reason for why most small corruption exists in the first place, they also damage society beyond belief. And the kind of money and favors involved dwarf the GDP of many of those "most corrupt countries in the world". Which is why governments go out of their way to make this look like fair game, it's just lobbying. Getting the "evidence" is next to impossible because of the framework built around this. There are actual laws sending you to prison for giving $50 to a cop to get out of a fine, or the cop for taking it, written by the same people who wrote the law that allows one to pay $50M to a legislator to pass a "favorable" law. Of course there are some nuances that are always the go to for justifying how lobbying isn't bribery but they're all just as solid as saying "beautiful kids, it would be a shame if something... happened to them" is not extortion.
themaninthedark 6y ago
The law only has provision for taking down the illegal content, and if you respond with a counterclaim then it is supposed to but restored. Twitter, Youtube et alii have taken it upon themselves to suspend accounts and make it very hard to get things restored. The DMCA was written to shield them from incurring costs.(see OCILLA) They have wholly decided to operate in a realm outside the law in conjunction with copyright holders to actively seek out infringing material on their platform, to the point of limiting fair use and false positives. "To qualify for the § 512(c) safe harbor, the OSP must not have actual knowledge that it is hosting infringing material or be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent. It is clear from the statute and legislative history that an OSP has no duty to monitor its service or affirmatively seek infringing material on its system." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Knowledge_of_infringing_material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
- buran77 6y ago
  > the statute describes two ways in which an OSP can be put on notice of infringing material on its system: 1) notice from the copyright owner, known as notice and take down, and 2) the existence of "red flags." > The "red flag" test contains both a subjective and an objective element. Subjectively, the OSP must have knowledge that the material resides on its system. Objectively, the "infringing activity would have been apparent to a reasonable person operating under the same or similar circumstances." TL;DR: A half page automated email from a content owner has to be acted on expeditiously, can only be overturned with a lawsuit, and there's no penalty for abusing the system. Big content owners put a lot of money in the pockets of legislators to get such obviously biased laws in their favor. The takedown example here [0] requires all of 30 minutes of effort to be able to send notices as fast as your internet connection allows it. At this point all protections the OSP (YouTube) has are removed. The "red flag" process sets the bar just as low for the content owners. No OSP wants to test challenging this out in court knowing they make an enemy out of big content owners and even expose themselves to targeted attacks and more liability. But worse, the law puts a hell of a burden on the allegedly infringing party (the YouTube user) who has to fight in court against an automated email. Given the imbalance of power you'd expect the legislation to propose some penalty for abuse, like rapidly increasing fines for each false flag. It does not. It is solely aimed at "expeditiously" complying with the demand of the content owner leaving the other party with an impossible fight if they want the situation corrected. There is no reasonable interpretation where setting such a low bar for content owners but such a high bar for everyone else has anything to do with fairness. Big name content owners payed for this, and the US legislators took the money and delivered. YouTube and Twitter simply have no bone to pick with them and would rather stay out of the fight by complying without objections. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Takedown_example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...

varispeed 6y ago

These days corruption is so rife, I am still amazed that whenever ones mentions it as a plausible cause of an event, there is a high chance the opinion will be buried with downvotes. Corrupt governments are one thing, but it is interesting how governments created an impression that corruption is a marginal problem, that it does not exist. Rarely you see anyone charged yet alone convicted and if you see it's rather some little things in the grand scheme of things. Some events are brazenly obvious yet I never hear them ever being investigated. I've been thinking how do you even report something like this if you only have your own suspicions but no hard evidence? How do you even get evidence that e.g. some regulation was bought? (e.g. you can see certain companies listed as party donors or belonging to a family of certain politicians and then you see a regulation going through against expert advice that hugely benefit those companies at the expense of competing businesses, yet even journalists known for being in opposition won't touch the topic).

buran77 6y ago
> governments created an impression that corruption is a marginal problem, that it does not exist. Governments create the impression that small, widespread corruption is the one that counts. The one where you pay a cop to get out of a speeding ticket, or a doctor to get better medical care. They will go out of their way to commission reports that condemn this as the real danger to society while using obscure metrics to support that idea. At the same time they invent a word to use when governments and legislators are involved: lobbying. They write off the corruption happening at high levels even if it's responsible for fundamentally changing how society works in ways that small corruption never could. Laws that weaken the educational system, or employee's rights, that protect corporations, etc. not only are the reason for why most small corruption exists in the first place, they also damage society beyond belief. And the kind of money and favors involved dwarf the GDP of many of those "most corrupt countries in the world". Which is why governments go out of their way to make this look like fair game, it's just lobbying. Getting the "evidence" is next to impossible because of the framework built around this. There are actual laws sending you to prison for giving $50 to a cop to get out of a fine, or the cop for taking it, written by the same people who wrote the law that allows one to pay $50M to a legislator to pass a "favorable" law. Of course there are some nuances that are always the go to for justifying how lobbying isn't bribery but they're all just as solid as saying "beautiful kids, it would be a shame if something... happened to them" is not extortion.

themaninthedark 6y ago

The law only has provision for taking down the illegal content, and if you respond with a counterclaim then it is supposed to but restored. Twitter, Youtube et alii have taken it upon themselves to suspend accounts and make it very hard to get things restored. The DMCA was written to shield them from incurring costs.(see OCILLA) They have wholly decided to operate in a realm outside the law in conjunction with copyright holders to actively seek out infringing material on their platform, to the point of limiting fair use and false positives. "To qualify for the § 512(c) safe harbor, the OSP must not have actual knowledge that it is hosting infringing material or be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent. It is clear from the statute and legislative history that an OSP has no duty to monitor its service or affirmatively seek infringing material on its system." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Knowledge_of_infringing_material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...

buran77 6y ago
> the statute describes two ways in which an OSP can be put on notice of infringing material on its system: 1) notice from the copyright owner, known as notice and take down, and 2) the existence of "red flags." > The "red flag" test contains both a subjective and an objective element. Subjectively, the OSP must have knowledge that the material resides on its system. Objectively, the "infringing activity would have been apparent to a reasonable person operating under the same or similar circumstances." TL;DR: A half page automated email from a content owner has to be acted on expeditiously, can only be overturned with a lawsuit, and there's no penalty for abusing the system. Big content owners put a lot of money in the pockets of legislators to get such obviously biased laws in their favor. The takedown example here [0] requires all of 30 minutes of effort to be able to send notices as fast as your internet connection allows it. At this point all protections the OSP (YouTube) has are removed. The "red flag" process sets the bar just as low for the content owners. No OSP wants to test challenging this out in court knowing they make an enemy out of big content owners and even expose themselves to targeted attacks and more liability. But worse, the law puts a hell of a burden on the allegedly infringing party (the YouTube user) who has to fight in court against an automated email. Given the imbalance of power you'd expect the legislation to propose some penalty for abuse, like rapidly increasing fines for each false flag. It does not. It is solely aimed at "expeditiously" complying with the demand of the content owner leaving the other party with an impossible fight if they want the situation corrected. There is no reasonable interpretation where setting such a low bar for content owners but such a high bar for everyone else has anything to do with fairness. Big name content owners payed for this, and the US legislators took the money and delivered. YouTube and Twitter simply have no bone to pick with them and would rather stay out of the fight by complying without objections. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Takedown_example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...