3 ms·

> I mean, “voluntarily” in quote marks. They were likely threatened in some way and had to react pretty strongly, no? No, I don't think so. It wouldn't complet

> I mean, “voluntarily” in quote marks. They were likely threatened in some way and had to react pretty strongly, no? No, I don't think so. It wouldn't completely shock me if it was true, but I wouldn't expect it. My prior is that Redbubble has a list of words that just trigger takedowns or at least reviews, and "Loki" is one of them. I don't think Disney needs to threaten companies like Redbubble over every individual item, they can file a normal takedown request. I suspect that Redbubble is just generally scared of Disney overall, and that fear leads them to issue broad takedowns without the need for any other inputs. I don't know for certain, but I suspect this is an unprompted, voluntary move by Redbubble.

brundolf 5y ago
Which is still a story, just a different story: the mere possibility of legal action has a chilling effect on entire creative domains because platform owners are too scared to get within half a mile of where the actual line is drawn.
- danShumway 5y ago
  Oh sure, the DMCA absolutely has a chilling effect on creative industries, and Redbubble is probably justifiably scared of Disney, and that fear is a huge source of unjustifiable takedowns online. Disney in particular has a lot of responsibility for this, they have fought hard to expand copyright and are famously litigious. In my mind, the company very consciously and deliberately contributes to a culture of fear around fan works, references, and fair use in general. The DMCA in its current form chills both free speech and industry, and it should be revised or repealed. But, I suspect that Disney did not directly threaten Redbubble over this specific shirt. My guess is that this takedown is a product of the system, not a product of a specific phone call from a lawyer.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Oh sure, the DMCA absolutely has a chilling effect on creative industries Are you using “the DMCA” as shorthand for “the risk of contributory infringement lawsuits which predates the DMCA and which the DMCA safe harbor provisions mitigate”, or something else?
    - danShumway 5y ago
      The main problem with the DMCA is not that it provides a safe harbor, it's that the DMCA's safe harbor is provisional on following takedown requests. This creates an environment where platforms are extremely trigger-happy to remove content. There is very little reason not to take down every piece of content you get a request for, even if it's obviously fair use, because refusing to take it down opens you up for liability as a platform. Compare this to something like Section 230, where platforms are just not liable for 3rd-party content period. They don't have to worry so much that they're going to suddenly get dragged into court because they refused to listen to someone who complained about a likely legal piece of content. The DMCA safe harbor is better than making platforms directly liable, and a repeal of just the safe harbor laws and nothing else would be pretty bad. But lots of things are better than making platforms directly liable, that's not a high bar to clear. Even with the safe harbor provisions, it's still generally a harmful piece of legislation because it strongly incentivizes thoughtless takedowns. Also worth noting that DMCA does not simply maintain status quo on copyright law outside of the safe harbors, it also expanded copyright in a number of harmful ways (most infamously barring circumvention of DRM). Those parts aren't so relevant to what we're talking about, but I do want to bring up that there are plenty of other reasons beyond the current situation with Redbubble to criticize the law. > the risk of contributory infringement lawsuits which predates the DMCA Don't get me wrong, I'm also open to revising/repealing some of them, but they weren't the thing I was referring to in this comment.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Compare this to something like Section 230, where platforms are just not liable for 3rd-party content period. That's actually a controversial judicial expansion of 230 which has, AFAIK, only been been explicitly endorsed by one federal appeals circuit (and which there is a very strong case from the text of the CDA is the wrong interpretation), though I don’t know that any circuit has ruled the other way (cases which would turn on the distinction are not super common); on its face 230 only removes publisher liability under the conditions it provides, which would, under the rules applicable pre-230 (and not offline content still), leave distributor liability. Distributor liability is notice-based, much like contributory infringement under the DMCA safe harbor regime, though it operates on actual notice, rather than requiring adherence to a prescribed procedure.
- bdowling 5y ago
  > platform owners are too scared to get within half a mile of where the actual line is drawn. This. Then the tech news and commentators on HN, etc., get agitated and complain about IP rights as if the actual lines are drawn where the scared platform owners think they are.
  - username90 5y ago
    Yet another reason to reign in the freedom of platforms, as you say they aren't following the law they make their own laws that are much more hostile to the little guy.
    - erik_seaberg 5y ago
      (It’s “rein in,” like a horse.)
    - bdowling 5y ago
      > Yet another reason to reign in the freedom of platforms Forcing platforms to host material that may, arguably infringe copyrights or trademarks isn’t a solution. What’s needed are bright-line rules for determining fair use. Bright-line rules, however, are basically impossible for all but the simplest cases. Most cases are far too nuanced or deal with novel uses.
ghaff 5y ago
That seems likely. Maybe Disney shipped them the list and maybe they didn't. And presumably Disney could own copyright (trademark?) to some elements of the Loki and Thor characters as represented in the MCU. They just obviously can't own the name, as they can with many other characters.
quantified 5y ago
Fear the Maus!

brundolf 5y ago

Which is still a story, just a different story: the mere possibility of legal action has a chilling effect on entire creative domains because platform owners are too scared to get within half a mile of where the actual line is drawn.

danShumway 5y ago
Oh sure, the DMCA absolutely has a chilling effect on creative industries, and Redbubble is probably justifiably scared of Disney, and that fear is a huge source of unjustifiable takedowns online. Disney in particular has a lot of responsibility for this, they have fought hard to expand copyright and are famously litigious. In my mind, the company very consciously and deliberately contributes to a culture of fear around fan works, references, and fair use in general. The DMCA in its current form chills both free speech and industry, and it should be revised or repealed. But, I suspect that Disney did not directly threaten Redbubble over this specific shirt. My guess is that this takedown is a product of the system, not a product of a specific phone call from a lawyer.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Oh sure, the DMCA absolutely has a chilling effect on creative industries Are you using “the DMCA” as shorthand for “the risk of contributory infringement lawsuits which predates the DMCA and which the DMCA safe harbor provisions mitigate”, or something else?
  - danShumway 5y ago
    The main problem with the DMCA is not that it provides a safe harbor, it's that the DMCA's safe harbor is provisional on following takedown requests. This creates an environment where platforms are extremely trigger-happy to remove content. There is very little reason not to take down every piece of content you get a request for, even if it's obviously fair use, because refusing to take it down opens you up for liability as a platform. Compare this to something like Section 230, where platforms are just not liable for 3rd-party content period. They don't have to worry so much that they're going to suddenly get dragged into court because they refused to listen to someone who complained about a likely legal piece of content. The DMCA safe harbor is better than making platforms directly liable, and a repeal of just the safe harbor laws and nothing else would be pretty bad. But lots of things are better than making platforms directly liable, that's not a high bar to clear. Even with the safe harbor provisions, it's still generally a harmful piece of legislation because it strongly incentivizes thoughtless takedowns. Also worth noting that DMCA does not simply maintain status quo on copyright law outside of the safe harbors, it also expanded copyright in a number of harmful ways (most infamously barring circumvention of DRM). Those parts aren't so relevant to what we're talking about, but I do want to bring up that there are plenty of other reasons beyond the current situation with Redbubble to criticize the law. > the risk of contributory infringement lawsuits which predates the DMCA Don't get me wrong, I'm also open to revising/repealing some of them, but they weren't the thing I was referring to in this comment.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Compare this to something like Section 230, where platforms are just not liable for 3rd-party content period. That's actually a controversial judicial expansion of 230 which has, AFAIK, only been been explicitly endorsed by one federal appeals circuit (and which there is a very strong case from the text of the CDA is the wrong interpretation), though I don’t know that any circuit has ruled the other way (cases which would turn on the distinction are not super common); on its face 230 only removes publisher liability under the conditions it provides, which would, under the rules applicable pre-230 (and not offline content still), leave distributor liability. Distributor liability is notice-based, much like contributory infringement under the DMCA safe harbor regime, though it operates on actual notice, rather than requiring adherence to a prescribed procedure.
bdowling 5y ago
> platform owners are too scared to get within half a mile of where the actual line is drawn. This. Then the tech news and commentators on HN, etc., get agitated and complain about IP rights as if the actual lines are drawn where the scared platform owners think they are.
- username90 5y ago
  Yet another reason to reign in the freedom of platforms, as you say they aren't following the law they make their own laws that are much more hostile to the little guy.
  - erik_seaberg 5y ago
    (It’s “rein in,” like a horse.)
  - bdowling 5y ago
    > Yet another reason to reign in the freedom of platforms Forcing platforms to host material that may, arguably infringe copyrights or trademarks isn’t a solution. What’s needed are bright-line rules for determining fair use. Bright-line rules, however, are basically impossible for all but the simplest cases. Most cases are far too nuanced or deal with novel uses.

ghaff 5y ago

That seems likely. Maybe Disney shipped them the list and maybe they didn't. And presumably Disney could own copyright (trademark?) to some elements of the Loki and Thor characters as represented in the MCU. They just obviously can't own the name, as they can with many other characters.

quantified 5y ago

Fear the Maus!