3 ms·
This is all a bit besides my point, which is that youtube's system is not just the system required by law, but much friendlier to the accuser. That said, there
by gpm 4y ago
This is all a bit besides my point, which is that youtube's system is not just the system required by law, but much friendlier to the accuser.
That said, there are also civil penalties for false takedown notices under 512(f), which I believe have been successfully litigated. Still, the effort vs reward in litigating them is almost never worth it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
- cmeacham98 4y agoMy limited understanding is that 512(f) claims are almost impossible to win because you have to prove the claimant acted in bad faith, which is very difficult. My comment should have said something like "no effective civil remedy" rather than "no civil remedy".
- pseudo0 4y agoForeign entities abusing the DMCA system also adds another layer of impossibility to the system. Good luck pursuing recourse against someone in North Korea or wherever, even if the DMCA claims are in blatantly bad faith. The claimant should require some skin in the game to prevent this sort of nonsense, maybe a bond or surety of some kind held in the US?
- account42 4y agoBetter would be to scrap the whole thing and make the claimant convince a court before getting an injunction like for pretty much any other kind of dispute. If the costs to the cours for that are too high then add a copyright holder tax.