6 ms·

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

by 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...
        4y ago
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.

by devmor 4y ago

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...
        4y ago

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.