3 ms·

> Perhaps Congress could modify 512 to require proof that you own the copyright / etc instead of just a signature. Given there is no requirement to register a

> Perhaps Congress could modify 512 to require proof that you own the copyright / etc instead of just a signature. Given there is no requirement to register a copyright, and the US is subject to international treaty commitment that there won't be a requirement to register a copyright, how exactly is this proof provided to a private entity? Demonstrating ownership of copyright in front of a judge often takes literally months at trial, there's no plausible mechanism to do this.

q-big 5y ago
> Given there is no requirement to register a copyright, and the US is subject to international treaty commitment that there won't be a requirement to register a copyright, how exactly is this proof provided to a private entity? I'd suggest an affidavit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit). This is, of course, not a proof in the strict sense, but should come near to it.
- lesuorac 5y ago
  I'm not too sure what the difference between that and the signature requirement is. > (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
  - q-big 5y ago
    I only have shallow knowledge of the US law, but in German law, if you give the analogue of an affidavit (eidesstattliche Versicherung) instead of just a signed statement, you will face harsh legal consequences if the statement in it turns out to be false.
    - Mindwipe 5y ago
      It's a perjury offense in the US under the existing DCMA. You basically suggested the current practice.
      - q-big 5y ago
        But then I am surprised that considering the many false DCMA claims, there are so few perjury lawsuits against the responsible persons.
lesuorac 5y ago
> Given there is no requirement to register a copyright, and the US is subject to international treaty commitment that there won't be a requirement to register a copyright, how exactly is this proof provided to a private entity? I think leaving it vague would be a feature. Somebody like Bungie it should be sufficient if the request came from somebody@bungie.net. But it seems to me if you want to run a commercial venture whose viability depends on others not infringing on your copyright you should do some legwork first to make it easily known that this is your work (I'd imagine it would make any future lawyer's job easier too). The downside is that YouTube could decide a signature is sufficient proof.

q-big 5y ago

> Given there is no requirement to register a copyright, and the US is subject to international treaty commitment that there won't be a requirement to register a copyright, how exactly is this proof provided to a private entity? I'd suggest an affidavit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit). This is, of course, not a proof in the strict sense, but should come near to it.

lesuorac 5y ago
I'm not too sure what the difference between that and the signature requirement is. > (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
- q-big 5y ago
  I only have shallow knowledge of the US law, but in German law, if you give the analogue of an affidavit (eidesstattliche Versicherung) instead of just a signed statement, you will face harsh legal consequences if the statement in it turns out to be false.
  - Mindwipe 5y ago
    It's a perjury offense in the US under the existing DCMA. You basically suggested the current practice.
    - q-big 5y ago
      But then I am surprised that considering the many false DCMA claims, there are so few perjury lawsuits against the responsible persons.

lesuorac 5y ago

> Given there is no requirement to register a copyright, and the US is subject to international treaty commitment that there won't be a requirement to register a copyright, how exactly is this proof provided to a private entity? I think leaving it vague would be a feature. Somebody like Bungie it should be sufficient if the request came from somebody@bungie.net. But it seems to me if you want to run a commercial venture whose viability depends on others not infringing on your copyright you should do some legwork first to make it easily known that this is your work (I'd imagine it would make any future lawyer's job easier too). The downside is that YouTube could decide a signature is sufficient proof.