4 ms·

> The accused infringer is never given a chance to face their accuser or even know that they are under investigation. So, how about if the legislation required

> The accused infringer is never given a chance to face their accuser or even know that they are under investigation. So, how about if the legislation required a DMCA adherence clause--that before a site could be taken down an official notice would need to be sent to administrative contact of the domain. If no official response is received in X days then the DOJ could issue a black listing. However, if the administrator does respond either by complying or by issuing a counter claim then the DOJ could not issue a black listing. The issue would have to be worked out the way DMCA conflicts are worked out. Now, should the initial DMCA take down notice be found to be legitimate and the site operator still does not comply in X days, then the DOJ may issue a black listing. Would that resolve your concern?

pilom 15y ago
What you describe would be orders of magnitude better than the current bill. That is how most court cases in the US today are run. I accuse you, the court issues a sopena for you (which you must receive), if you don't show up, you automatically lose the case. The problem then becomes, there is no way to internationally issue sopenas. The solution you gave was "if no official response is received in X days then ..." however a smart infringer could then sue for something along the lines of "our administrative contact was our (hosting company, private DNS listing company, at a non-existing building, made up, etc.), thus it never got to us" there is a way to write law to deal with all of these cases but it would not be easy to write for international dealings. (And I doubt anyone in congress understands how DNS records are listed enough to understand how to write it correctly)