6 ms·

This is precisely what the dcma is for

amelius 5y ago
But it could backfire, if you can't pay for a lawyer I suppose. I suspect DMCA is for big companies with a legal department only.
- gruez 5y ago
  Bacfire how?
  - buran77 5y ago
    Maybe misfire is a better term. The DMCA process ends up with a lawsuit if the 2 parties don't agree. This means that the submitter of the complaint has to be ready for an expensive legal battle even if they win, or can drop the whole thing. The US justice system encourages anyone with deep enough pockets to freely step over the law when their opponent can't outspend them.
    - eli 5y ago
      There’s no plausible scenario where sending a DMCA notice gets you into a lawsuit you don’t want to be in.
      - buran77 5y ago
        I said nothing about "lawsuit you don’t want to be in". A DMCA claim either ends in an agreement (CNET agrees it's infringement or the submitter agrees it's not), or else the submitter has to go to court to prove their case. As I said they can of course "drop the whole thing": avoid any lawsuit but also drop the claim. Which is where the "misfire" rather than "backfire" analogy comes from. Unlike the usual YouTube situations, CNET is both the online service provider and the party accused of infringing so the content can only go down if CNET agrees to take it down, or a court decides this.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      No. If CNET refuses to take it down, you (OP) could file a lawsuit, but CNET has no grounds to sue you for a DMCA notice that you are legally correct in sending.
      - buran77 5y ago
        No to which part exactly? Nothing in "ends up with a lawsuit if the 2 parties don't agree [...] or can drop the whole thing" suggests CNET can file a lawsuit. Without an agreement the only way to take down the content is a lawsuit.
        macintux 5y ago
        I think the fundamental dispute is this: sure, CNET could ignore the DMCA notice, but in that case the developer is in no worse shape legally than if they don't file the notice at all. So "backfire" is definitely not the right word, and "misfire" is true but not a reason to discard the best, cheapest weapon in this fight.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  > But it could backfire, if you can't pay for a lawyer I suppose. How? If anything, the biggest complaint about the DMCA is that it has no penalties even against people acting in obviously unreasonable ways. > I suspect DMCA is for big companies with a legal department only. No? Looks like you just send a certified letter to the address listed at https://www.redventures.com/legal/cmg-terms-of-use.html https://www.redventures.com/legal/cmg-terms-of-use.html under "Legal Complaints" and you're done. (IANAL, of course, but nothing here seems special)

But it could backfire, if you can't pay for a lawyer I suppose. I suspect DMCA is for big companies with a legal department only.

gruez 5y ago
Bacfire how?
- buran77 5y ago
  Maybe misfire is a better term. The DMCA process ends up with a lawsuit if the 2 parties don't agree. This means that the submitter of the complaint has to be ready for an expensive legal battle even if they win, or can drop the whole thing. The US justice system encourages anyone with deep enough pockets to freely step over the law when their opponent can't outspend them.
  - eli 5y ago
    There’s no plausible scenario where sending a DMCA notice gets you into a lawsuit you don’t want to be in.
    - buran77 5y ago
      I said nothing about "lawsuit you don’t want to be in". A DMCA claim either ends in an agreement (CNET agrees it's infringement or the submitter agrees it's not), or else the submitter has to go to court to prove their case. As I said they can of course "drop the whole thing": avoid any lawsuit but also drop the claim. Which is where the "misfire" rather than "backfire" analogy comes from. Unlike the usual YouTube situations, CNET is both the online service provider and the party accused of infringing so the content can only go down if CNET agrees to take it down, or a court decides this.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    No. If CNET refuses to take it down, you (OP) could file a lawsuit, but CNET has no grounds to sue you for a DMCA notice that you are legally correct in sending.
    - buran77 5y ago
      No to which part exactly? Nothing in "ends up with a lawsuit if the 2 parties don't agree [...] or can drop the whole thing" suggests CNET can file a lawsuit. Without an agreement the only way to take down the content is a lawsuit.
      - macintux 5y ago
        I think the fundamental dispute is this: sure, CNET could ignore the DMCA notice, but in that case the developer is in no worse shape legally than if they don't file the notice at all. So "backfire" is definitely not the right word, and "misfire" is true but not a reason to discard the best, cheapest weapon in this fight.
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
> But it could backfire, if you can't pay for a lawyer I suppose. How? If anything, the biggest complaint about the DMCA is that it has no penalties even against people acting in obviously unreasonable ways. > I suspect DMCA is for big companies with a legal department only. No? Looks like you just send a certified letter to the address listed at https://www.redventures.com/legal/cmg-terms-of-use.html https://www.redventures.com/legal/cmg-terms-of-use.html under "Legal Complaints" and you're done. (IANAL, of course, but nothing here seems special)