6 ms·

We should have a penalty/fine for fake DCMA requests. Big corps keep sending automated DCMAs with little consequence and often the little guys do have the reso

We should have a penalty/fine for fake DCMA requests. Big corps keep sending automated DCMAs with little consequence and often the little guys do have the resources to fight back.

rvz 5y ago
Another reason to self-host. Rather than sit on someone else's platform.
acdha 5y ago
This is in the law, but it’s rarely enforced. Stepping up education for judges and support for people filing lawsuits against major companies would be a relatively easy way to start making the automated bots riskier to run.
- Semaphor 5y ago
  Is it? I always thought there is only a fine for misrepresenting that you are representing the copyright owner. Not for falsely claiming a piece of work is indeed infringing.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Yes — see page 12 here: https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf “Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification, is liable for any resulting damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) incurred by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider.” Here's the actual text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that by now the courts have confirmed that it's not just enough to say that you own the copyright on the material: you also have to confirm that the person you're sending the claim to doesn't have a right to use the material as well and that includes fair-use. If you were, say, using a Disney clip in a film studies context they would likely be liable if a takedown bot sent a DMCA claim unless they could show that you did something like posting the entire film claiming it was for “study” purposes. In this case, that's highly relevant since this repository was apparently released under an open source license so even if Pearson held the copyright they wouldn't be able to take away the permission granted by the open source license unless they could prove that it was never legally approved for release under that license.
    - olliej 5y ago
      Knowingly is the problem - it implies intent so erroneous claims don’t fall afoul of it. Obviously attacks on critics do and should be penalized but that doesn’t happen either - it requires a lawyer that will cost much more than you’ll ever get. Until the law is amended to require the victims be compensated for time and legal expenses there’s still no real cost to fraud
      - gravypod 5y ago
        Another important part of the law: "or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification"
ryanmarsh 5y ago
DMCA?
mabbo 5y ago
Even simpler, require those filing a claim to put down a monetary deposit. If the accused disputes, they too file a deposit. The winner gets the money back and the platform gets to keep the losers deposit as a fee for having a trained, certified human make the decision. Make the fees scale up with the number of claims by an accuser. No one would file a frivolous claim. No one would dispute an obviously correct claim. The cost of having humans decide is covered, so platforms like Google have no excuse.
- swiley 5y ago
  This is a fantastic idea, I'm sure there are issues with it but none are immediately obvious.
  - olliej 5y ago
    It means that people without spare cash completely lose the ability to appeal. I don’t know why a counterclaim should require a deposit - DMCA is already a guilty until proven innocent law, and merely counterclaiming doesn’t put your content back online.
- yccs27 5y ago
  This seems like the perfect way to enable frivolous takedowns, because the accused might not be able to pay the deposit to dispute the claim. Additionally, small artists might similarly become unable to enforce their rights. (And if the deposit isn't too big, do you think a few dollars will deter billion-dollar companies?)
  - mabbo 5y ago
    Is it worse than the existing system where there is no cost, and no way to fight back? I'm not arguing that it's a perfect system, but with a few adjustments I feel it's a much better one than exists today.
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
      A counterclaim letter is the way to fight back. The law is fine. The enforcement is iffy.

We should have a penalty/fine for fake DCMA requests. Big corps keep sending automated DCMAs with little consequence and often the little guys do have the resources to fight back.

rvz 5y ago

Another reason to self-host. Rather than sit on someone else's platform.

acdha 5y ago

This is in the law, but it’s rarely enforced. Stepping up education for judges and support for people filing lawsuits against major companies would be a relatively easy way to start making the automated bots riskier to run.

Semaphor 5y ago
Is it? I always thought there is only a fine for misrepresenting that you are representing the copyright owner. Not for falsely claiming a piece of work is indeed infringing.
- acdha 5y ago
  Yes — see page 12 here: https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf “Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification, is liable for any resulting damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) incurred by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider.” Here's the actual text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that by now the courts have confirmed that it's not just enough to say that you own the copyright on the material: you also have to confirm that the person you're sending the claim to doesn't have a right to use the material as well and that includes fair-use. If you were, say, using a Disney clip in a film studies context they would likely be liable if a takedown bot sent a DMCA claim unless they could show that you did something like posting the entire film claiming it was for “study” purposes. In this case, that's highly relevant since this repository was apparently released under an open source license so even if Pearson held the copyright they wouldn't be able to take away the permission granted by the open source license unless they could prove that it was never legally approved for release under that license.
  - olliej 5y ago
    Knowingly is the problem - it implies intent so erroneous claims don’t fall afoul of it. Obviously attacks on critics do and should be penalized but that doesn’t happen either - it requires a lawyer that will cost much more than you’ll ever get. Until the law is amended to require the victims be compensated for time and legal expenses there’s still no real cost to fraud
    - gravypod 5y ago
      Another important part of the law: "or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification"

ryanmarsh 5y ago

DMCA?

mabbo 5y ago

Even simpler, require those filing a claim to put down a monetary deposit. If the accused disputes, they too file a deposit. The winner gets the money back and the platform gets to keep the losers deposit as a fee for having a trained, certified human make the decision. Make the fees scale up with the number of claims by an accuser. No one would file a frivolous claim. No one would dispute an obviously correct claim. The cost of having humans decide is covered, so platforms like Google have no excuse.

swiley 5y ago
This is a fantastic idea, I'm sure there are issues with it but none are immediately obvious.
- olliej 5y ago
  It means that people without spare cash completely lose the ability to appeal. I don’t know why a counterclaim should require a deposit - DMCA is already a guilty until proven innocent law, and merely counterclaiming doesn’t put your content back online.
yccs27 5y ago
This seems like the perfect way to enable frivolous takedowns, because the accused might not be able to pay the deposit to dispute the claim. Additionally, small artists might similarly become unable to enforce their rights. (And if the deposit isn't too big, do you think a few dollars will deter billion-dollar companies?)
- mabbo 5y ago
  Is it worse than the existing system where there is no cost, and no way to fight back? I'm not arguing that it's a perfect system, but with a few adjustments I feel it's a much better one than exists today.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    A counterclaim letter is the way to fight back. The law is fine. The enforcement is iffy.