3 ms·

This is an interesting point. I have no idea, but is it reasonable to make the claim that the DMCA is flawed? By that I mean, is it excessively annoying / ine

by palish 15y ago

This is an interesting point. I have no idea, but is it reasonable to make the claim that the DMCA is flawed? By that I mean, is it excessively annoying / ineffective to actually use the DMCA for its intended purpose? (I'm not referring to DMCA abuses... just whether it's fundamentally broken or not.) I haven't really given it much thought. I always assumed that the DMCA was a reasonable middle ground. But is it?

wmf 15y ago
I think it's safe to say that the Web 2.0 user-generated content sites were not envisioned (by either side) when the DMCA was drafted. These sites have made it so easy to share content and their business model does nothing to discourage infringement (compared to traditional Web hosting); these factors have shifted the balance so that infringement is much easier than enforcement. I don't know how to fix that, especially since there's a powerful status quo bias now that Web 2.0 has existed for so long.
earbitscom 15y ago
Well, I'll start by saying that it's excessively annoying that each artist and independent label and movie creator and so on, are responsible for knowing about and checking for their material on every site that provides MP3s, videos, etc. New ones pop up all of the time and it's impossible for most of these companies and individuals to even know about them, let alone check them from time to time. But then it gets worse, because you have sites like Grooveshark, which plenty of people do know about, do police, and do contact to have their content taken down, only to have that content reappear every other day. As of right now both The Eagles and King Crimson have publicly shared their lengthy email histories with Grooveshark, asking repeatedly to have their content removed. Grooveshark removes it, and then 24-48 hours later most of it is back on the site. Technically this is covered by the DMCA and it is the artist and their label's job to go to Grooveshark every day, find the content, pull the links, notify the company, and keep doing this over and over. The problem is, between the upload and the takedown, the content is there long enough for people who might otherwise use a legal service or purchase the material to access it as much as they want.
jerf 15y ago
If you believe that the purpose of the DMCA is to make it so you can sit back and do nothing and all piracy magically stops by Sheer Force of Law, it doesn't work. If you believe the purpose of the DMCA is to give rights holders a certain amount of power to self-enforce and are willing to concede that it won't all be stopped, it works pretty well. If your opinion is somewhere in between, adjust as needed. I think if earbits wanted to clean up his essay a bit he should come out and state clearly and explicitly what his goal for his desired legal regime is. I suspect he's sneaking in an implicit requirement that it be perfect on us, and if you accept that you'll never be satisfied. There is no set of tools that the government can hand the industry to eliminate piracy. Even SOPA isn't draconian enough. On the other hand, once you accept that a certain amount of lossage is inevitable and that we expect rightsholders to only really have to chase down violations on the largest sites and have the tools to catch the vast bulk, the argument that the DMCA is some sort of grossly flawed bill becomes much, much harder to just float by without justification. There's a huge gap in the logic there, which I think is what some people are choking on without quite consciously realizing it. I suspect that actually filling in that gap will inevitably erode the perceived power of the argument, though. He complains technical people aren't working out how to solve a problem that he can't actually give his true requirements for without losing his audience.
snowwrestler 15y ago
The fundamental flaw of the DMCA is that it does not provide a mechanism for handling sites that exist outside U.S. legal jurisdiction (but of course are just as easily reached by U.S. citizens). There is a volume problem with the DMCA, as earbit notes, but I tend to think that that is solvable with software. But when a site sits on a fat pipe in the Ukraine, serving up every movie made in the last 10 years for free, there is currently nothing in the DMCA or other U.S. law that can do anything about it.

by palish 15y ago

wmf 15y ago

I think it's safe to say that the Web 2.0 user-generated content sites were not envisioned (by either side) when the DMCA was drafted. These sites have made it so easy to share content and their business model does nothing to discourage infringement (compared to traditional Web hosting); these factors have shifted the balance so that infringement is much easier than enforcement. I don't know how to fix that, especially since there's a powerful status quo bias now that Web 2.0 has existed for so long.

earbitscom 15y ago

Well, I'll start by saying that it's excessively annoying that each artist and independent label and movie creator and so on, are responsible for knowing about and checking for their material on every site that provides MP3s, videos, etc. New ones pop up all of the time and it's impossible for most of these companies and individuals to even know about them, let alone check them from time to time. But then it gets worse, because you have sites like Grooveshark, which plenty of people do know about, do police, and do contact to have their content taken down, only to have that content reappear every other day. As of right now both The Eagles and King Crimson have publicly shared their lengthy email histories with Grooveshark, asking repeatedly to have their content removed. Grooveshark removes it, and then 24-48 hours later most of it is back on the site. Technically this is covered by the DMCA and it is the artist and their label's job to go to Grooveshark every day, find the content, pull the links, notify the company, and keep doing this over and over. The problem is, between the upload and the takedown, the content is there long enough for people who might otherwise use a legal service or purchase the material to access it as much as they want.

jerf 15y ago

If you believe that the purpose of the DMCA is to make it so you can sit back and do nothing and all piracy magically stops by Sheer Force of Law, it doesn't work. If you believe the purpose of the DMCA is to give rights holders a certain amount of power to self-enforce and are willing to concede that it won't all be stopped, it works pretty well. If your opinion is somewhere in between, adjust as needed. I think if earbits wanted to clean up his essay a bit he should come out and state clearly and explicitly what his goal for his desired legal regime is. I suspect he's sneaking in an implicit requirement that it be perfect on us, and if you accept that you'll never be satisfied. There is no set of tools that the government can hand the industry to eliminate piracy. Even SOPA isn't draconian enough. On the other hand, once you accept that a certain amount of lossage is inevitable and that we expect rightsholders to only really have to chase down violations on the largest sites and have the tools to catch the vast bulk, the argument that the DMCA is some sort of grossly flawed bill becomes much, much harder to just float by without justification. There's a huge gap in the logic there, which I think is what some people are choking on without quite consciously realizing it. I suspect that actually filling in that gap will inevitably erode the perceived power of the argument, though. He complains technical people aren't working out how to solve a problem that he can't actually give his true requirements for without losing his audience.

snowwrestler 15y ago

The fundamental flaw of the DMCA is that it does not provide a mechanism for handling sites that exist outside U.S. legal jurisdiction (but of course are just as easily reached by U.S. citizens). There is a volume problem with the DMCA, as earbit notes, but I tend to think that that is solvable with software. But when a site sits on a fat pipe in the Ukraine, serving up every movie made in the last 10 years for free, there is currently nothing in the DMCA or other U.S. law that can do anything about it.