6 ms·

DMCA is such an epically shitty law. Only worse is that other countries are happily copying the law too.

devmor 4y ago
Lets remember that the DMCA is what allows providers like youtube to host content without being liable to the copyright infringement of its users. The takedown provision sucks, but its an essential law for the open internet to even exist.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  false dilemmas are seen to intentionally omit the possibility of additional options and approaches
- throwaway1777 4y ago
  I thought the reason was section 230 not dmca.
  - ameliaquining 4y ago
    Section 230 doesn't apply to copyright infringement claims (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title47-section230&num=0&edition=prelim#substructure-location_e_2 https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...). Immunity from copyright infringement claims relies on the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.
- Oxidation 4y ago
  The legal requirement to act instantly on the automatic presumption of the claimants being both right and acting in good faith with no evidence required isn't required to avoid liability. They could have required some higher standard of proof of ownership and as long as they followed the process, YouTube would have the same protection. The system is specifically designed to be gamed by claimants.
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    It works the other way: it let's a site post user content without the user having to prove legal clearance for the content. Without this, there would be no sites allowing users to post nearly anything. In exchange for this freedom, the sites have to agree to some resolution format for when a copyright complaint is triggered. So the system is not designed to be gamed by claimants. It's designed to give legal protections to hosts of sites. But this is most definitely a carveout to protect sites. Without the law no one would face to liability of hosting user generated content.
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      The DMCA was passed in 1998. You do realize we had a fully functioning internet filled with user-generated content before 1998, right?
      - SideQuark 4y ago
        Yet not one of the biggest sites with user content was formed before the DMCA. Why didn't any of those fully functioning internet user sites dominate? Certainly other, non-user content sites from then were big. Its almost as if providing safe harbor allowed such sites to grow......
        Oxidation 4y ago
        With as much evidence, one can say that it's almost as if the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 allowed it. Geocities, say, was huge before the DMCA and died after it.
        SideQuark 4y ago
        Geocities had ~1.8M users in Dec 1997. They were often sued for copyright (e.g., here[1]) infringement since then providers were liable. This made it harder for them to raise money, since as copyright holders became more saavy about what companies were doing on the internet, they were increasingly targeting them. After DMCA when those suits were gone, they raised $$$, became much more valuable, grew, and soon got bought by Yahoo. They went from the 5th most visited to 3rd, even with much more competition. They grew the user base. The same thing happened to Tripod and Angelfire from that time. Instead of trying to cherry pick one example, look at all companies before and after. That is the accurate way to see what happened. If you think the safe harbor content protection did not and does not matter, look how hard current companies are pushing to keep Congress from removing such laws. [1] https://washingtontechnology.com/1996/11/publishers-push-piracy-plan-on-providers/334487/ https://washingtontechnology.com/1996/11/publishers-push-pir...
- Adraghast 4y ago
  Considering the open internet existed before DMCA did, I suspect “essential” is an exaggeration.
  - RockRobotRock 4y ago
    Internet wasn't that fast, consumers weren't informed, legislators weren't informed.
    - cld8483 4y ago
      The internet was more than fast enough for copyright infringement. Copywritten books, images, and even music were commonly shared online before the DMCA was passed.
    - Adraghast 4y ago
      The criteria was existence. It existed. Could the internet exist in a way that makes the RIAA/MPAA/etc happy without DMCA? Maybe not. But there’s no reason to assume their happiness is a requirement, or even desirable.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Lets remember that the DMCA is what allows providers like youtube to host content without being liable to the copyright infringement of its users. It arguably doesn’t actually allow sites very specifically like Youtube to do that, which is why YouTube has a separate and more draconian arrangement with major rights holders, created in response to previous litigation and litigation threats, and is also currently being sued by a variety of rights holders in a suit which hasn’t been easily been barred by the DMCA safe harbor.
Oxidation 4y ago
> DMCA mechanics just not works, seems like anybody can claim anything, the service provider is just forced to remove the content and in general not ask or nor the considering if the claims are real. It works extremely well, if you consider who the beneficiaries are (who also happened to write it).
Ekaros 4y ago
To me it isn't that horrible process. You are own a small forum or site. You get DMCA takedown, you take content down and are safe. Send notification to uploader. They disagree. You can put stuff back up. You are not liable for damages after this. And really shouldn't be expected to fight. Now it is up to the two other parties to fight it out. This is where the system fails, because whole process is long and expensive. But so is any other legal action. Maybe consider fixing that reality first.
- noxvilleza 4y ago
  The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people can file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero repercussions. Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder). A better system would be one that allows the uploader to take the takedown issuer to court, and if the takedown request was clearly malicious and bogus then the takedown issuer would get a penalty. This approach would still allow a legitimate takedown request, but not be forced the issuer into taking a contested case to court.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people can file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero repercussions. The takedown process is part of, and only relevant to, the safe-harbor provision. > Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder). Because not complying with a correct-in-form takedown puts them outside of the dafe harbor. The uploader can, of course, challenge the false takedown (and the host can decide they don't care about safe harbor, but they won't in practice, nor will they normally care as much about safe harbor against claims by the uploader, so counternotice compliance may be less enthusiastic than takedown compliance.) > A better system would be one that allows the uploader to take the takedown issuer to court You can do this. A false takedown is false, damaging statement of fact and actionable as such, it may also be actionable as tortious interference, and a number of other things.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Is the DMCA such a shitty law (questions about copyright in general aside), or are companies in shitty in just automatically responding to any DMCA allegation while refusing to invest anything in transparency/process/even-handedness? Basically if you are hit with a copyright or any other sort of terms of service violation, you are stuck spending time and energy trying to communicate with a black box. Platformists say that this is necessary because transparency will allow bad actors to game the system, but their solution to this to make society into an oppressive panopticon; the cure is worse than the disease. Further, the ignore the degree to which the lack of transparency is already weaponized by bad faith actors.
- cld8483 4y ago
  If the default most common way of complying with a law is shitty behavior, then the law itself is shitty. Good laws don't incentivize bad behavior.
- Zak 4y ago
  The broken part of the notice/takedown/counter-notice process is that a takedown requires prompt action, but a counter-notice requires a waiting period. Removing the waiting period and relying on damages to make the copyright holder whole seems like a more fair process. I think the anticircumvention part of the DMCA is what's really shitty, but that's a tangent.
- fivre 4y ago
  Yes. In general, DMCA was written by rightsholder lawyers early in the internet's lifetime to maximize their power and minimize their responsibilities or damages if they abuse it. The prevalence of systems like Youtube's contentID allowing (often real, but also often flimsily alleged) rightsholders to nigh-unilaterally capture all value on the barest suggestion of unlicensed use is abysmal and calls for a compulsory license system more akin to radio, but rightsholders don't want that because compulsory licenses don't let them negotiate megaprofit deals on their own terms. The anti-circumvention provsions are also a trash fire. DRM regimes are some hot consumer-hostile bullshit that have no (legal) alternative because the law is behind them and heavily weighted towards the needs and wants of major IP holders. Modern US copyright law is designed primarily to maximize profits and enforcement mechanisms for entrenched interests with little regard for anything that isn't, idk, Beyonce tier of actually needing that much licensing cruft. There's some joke somewhere about ours being the first few generations to systematically deny ourselves access to our own culture because biglaw is more than happy to cut off its cultural nose to spite its face so long as the money train keeps flowing for the few elites that really benefit from the current system. We have a walled garden that will likely never fall because life is peachy if you're inside the garden already, and anyone outside can't compete with the financial and lobbying muscle of those inside it without operating in legal gray areas at best.

Lets remember that the DMCA is what allows providers like youtube to host content without being liable to the copyright infringement of its users. The takedown provision sucks, but its an essential law for the open internet to even exist.

yieldcrv 4y ago
false dilemmas are seen to intentionally omit the possibility of additional options and approaches
throwaway1777 4y ago
I thought the reason was section 230 not dmca.
- ameliaquining 4y ago
  Section 230 doesn't apply to copyright infringement claims (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title47-section230&num=0&edition=prelim#substructure-location_e_2 https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...). Immunity from copyright infringement claims relies on the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.
Oxidation 4y ago
The legal requirement to act instantly on the automatic presumption of the claimants being both right and acting in good faith with no evidence required isn't required to avoid liability. They could have required some higher standard of proof of ownership and as long as they followed the process, YouTube would have the same protection. The system is specifically designed to be gamed by claimants.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  It works the other way: it let's a site post user content without the user having to prove legal clearance for the content. Without this, there would be no sites allowing users to post nearly anything. In exchange for this freedom, the sites have to agree to some resolution format for when a copyright complaint is triggered. So the system is not designed to be gamed by claimants. It's designed to give legal protections to hosts of sites. But this is most definitely a carveout to protect sites. Without the law no one would face to liability of hosting user generated content.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    The DMCA was passed in 1998. You do realize we had a fully functioning internet filled with user-generated content before 1998, right?
    - SideQuark 4y ago
      Yet not one of the biggest sites with user content was formed before the DMCA. Why didn't any of those fully functioning internet user sites dominate? Certainly other, non-user content sites from then were big. Its almost as if providing safe harbor allowed such sites to grow......
      - Oxidation 4y ago
        With as much evidence, one can say that it's almost as if the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 allowed it. Geocities, say, was huge before the DMCA and died after it.
        SideQuark 4y ago
        Geocities had ~1.8M users in Dec 1997. They were often sued for copyright (e.g., here[1]) infringement since then providers were liable. This made it harder for them to raise money, since as copyright holders became more saavy about what companies were doing on the internet, they were increasingly targeting them. After DMCA when those suits were gone, they raised $$$, became much more valuable, grew, and soon got bought by Yahoo. They went from the 5th most visited to 3rd, even with much more competition. They grew the user base. The same thing happened to Tripod and Angelfire from that time. Instead of trying to cherry pick one example, look at all companies before and after. That is the accurate way to see what happened. If you think the safe harbor content protection did not and does not matter, look how hard current companies are pushing to keep Congress from removing such laws. [1] https://washingtontechnology.com/1996/11/publishers-push-piracy-plan-on-providers/334487/ https://washingtontechnology.com/1996/11/publishers-push-pir...
Adraghast 4y ago
Considering the open internet existed before DMCA did, I suspect “essential” is an exaggeration.
- RockRobotRock 4y ago
  Internet wasn't that fast, consumers weren't informed, legislators weren't informed.
  - cld8483 4y ago
    The internet was more than fast enough for copyright infringement. Copywritten books, images, and even music were commonly shared online before the DMCA was passed.
  - Adraghast 4y ago
    The criteria was existence. It existed. Could the internet exist in a way that makes the RIAA/MPAA/etc happy without DMCA? Maybe not. But there’s no reason to assume their happiness is a requirement, or even desirable.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Lets remember that the DMCA is what allows providers like youtube to host content without being liable to the copyright infringement of its users. It arguably doesn’t actually allow sites very specifically like Youtube to do that, which is why YouTube has a separate and more draconian arrangement with major rights holders, created in response to previous litigation and litigation threats, and is also currently being sued by a variety of rights holders in a suit which hasn’t been easily been barred by the DMCA safe harbor.

Oxidation 4y ago

> DMCA mechanics just not works, seems like anybody can claim anything, the service provider is just forced to remove the content and in general not ask or nor the considering if the claims are real. It works extremely well, if you consider who the beneficiaries are (who also happened to write it).

Ekaros 4y ago

To me it isn't that horrible process. You are own a small forum or site. You get DMCA takedown, you take content down and are safe. Send notification to uploader. They disagree. You can put stuff back up. You are not liable for damages after this. And really shouldn't be expected to fight. Now it is up to the two other parties to fight it out. This is where the system fails, because whole process is long and expensive. But so is any other legal action. Maybe consider fixing that reality first.

noxvilleza 4y ago
The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people can file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero repercussions. Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder). A better system would be one that allows the uploader to take the takedown issuer to court, and if the takedown request was clearly malicious and bogus then the takedown issuer would get a penalty. This approach would still allow a legitimate takedown request, but not be forced the issuer into taking a contested case to court.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people can file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero repercussions. The takedown process is part of, and only relevant to, the safe-harbor provision. > Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder). Because not complying with a correct-in-form takedown puts them outside of the dafe harbor. The uploader can, of course, challenge the false takedown (and the host can decide they don't care about safe harbor, but they won't in practice, nor will they normally care as much about safe harbor against claims by the uploader, so counternotice compliance may be less enthusiastic than takedown compliance.) > A better system would be one that allows the uploader to take the takedown issuer to court You can do this. A false takedown is false, damaging statement of fact and actionable as such, it may also be actionable as tortious interference, and a number of other things.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Is the DMCA such a shitty law (questions about copyright in general aside), or are companies in shitty in just automatically responding to any DMCA allegation while refusing to invest anything in transparency/process/even-handedness? Basically if you are hit with a copyright or any other sort of terms of service violation, you are stuck spending time and energy trying to communicate with a black box. Platformists say that this is necessary because transparency will allow bad actors to game the system, but their solution to this to make society into an oppressive panopticon; the cure is worse than the disease. Further, the ignore the degree to which the lack of transparency is already weaponized by bad faith actors.

cld8483 4y ago
If the default most common way of complying with a law is shitty behavior, then the law itself is shitty. Good laws don't incentivize bad behavior.
Zak 4y ago
The broken part of the notice/takedown/counter-notice process is that a takedown requires prompt action, but a counter-notice requires a waiting period. Removing the waiting period and relying on damages to make the copyright holder whole seems like a more fair process. I think the anticircumvention part of the DMCA is what's really shitty, but that's a tangent.
fivre 4y ago
Yes. In general, DMCA was written by rightsholder lawyers early in the internet's lifetime to maximize their power and minimize their responsibilities or damages if they abuse it. The prevalence of systems like Youtube's contentID allowing (often real, but also often flimsily alleged) rightsholders to nigh-unilaterally capture all value on the barest suggestion of unlicensed use is abysmal and calls for a compulsory license system more akin to radio, but rightsholders don't want that because compulsory licenses don't let them negotiate megaprofit deals on their own terms. The anti-circumvention provsions are also a trash fire. DRM regimes are some hot consumer-hostile bullshit that have no (legal) alternative because the law is behind them and heavily weighted towards the needs and wants of major IP holders. Modern US copyright law is designed primarily to maximize profits and enforcement mechanisms for entrenched interests with little regard for anything that isn't, idk, Beyonce tier of actually needing that much licensing cruft. There's some joke somewhere about ours being the first few generations to systematically deny ourselves access to our own culture because biglaw is more than happy to cut off its cultural nose to spite its face so long as the money train keeps flowing for the few elites that really benefit from the current system. We have a walled garden that will likely never fall because life is peachy if you're inside the garden already, and anyone outside can't compete with the financial and lobbying muscle of those inside it without operating in legal gray areas at best.