3 ms·
> declare it unconstitutional or something? It's not obviously so - which articles/amendments do you think it violates? In any case, it's insufficient for us
by wyldfire 5y ago
> declare it unconstitutional or something?
It's not obviously so - which articles/amendments do you think it violates? In any case, it's insufficient for us to declare it unconstitutional, that's for a judge to decide. In the absence of such a ruling, we can elect legislators to repeal it. But that seems terribly unlikely unless you can pose new legislation to take its place.
- amelius 5y agoIsn't it against the principle of innocent unless proven guilty? Also this law circumvents the court of law, which sounds like it could be in violation of some more foundational laws such as the constitution. Finally the law puts control over free speech in the hands of corporations.
- wyldfire 5y agoThat principle of jurisprudence is for criminal matters. The DMCA issues at hand are for civil issues: providing relief to a copyright holder against a potential infringer. The DMCA shields a provider like ISPs/Dropbox/Google/etc and compels them to take down content that a copyright holder claims is infringing (or provide counter-notice). I'd suggest an improvement to the DMCA would be to hold copyright holders responsible for claims determined to be made in bad faith, or even just an "excessive" number of false claims.
- amelius 5y agoThanks for clearing that up. > I'd suggest an improvement to the DMCA would be to hold copyright holders responsible for claims determined to be made in bad faith, or even just an "excessive" number of false claims. Yes, that would be a good idea. But it still leaves a bad taste, as it makes one wonder why we had to deal with the DMCA in its current form in the first place. Perhaps there should be a constitutional law which says that when it comes to things like entertainment and culture, then the benefit of the doubt should go to the people, not corporations. Imho, the US is taking the value of entertainment way too seriously.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago> I'd suggest an improvement to the DMCA would be to hold copyright holders responsible for claims determined to be made in bad faith, or even just an "excessive" number of false claims. I'd suggest extreme penalties for false DMCA takedown requests. Seven figures minimum for the first offense.
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoDMCA strictly reduces your liability. If you follow the DMCA takedown process, then you are shielded from liability for the copyright violation. If you don't follow the process, then you are back to exactly where you would be if the DMCA didn't exist. You have to be taken to court to actually face any penalties.