4 ms·

> I think overall this is a good thing for an internet that hosts user-created content It would be, if fraudulent requests came with a penalty. They don’t. DMC

> I think overall this is a good thing for an internet that hosts user-created content It would be, if fraudulent requests came with a penalty. They don’t. DMCA is a pure cancer the way it is.

mlyle 3y ago
It's better than liability for service providers. If you're a service provider, you don't have to listen to a DMCA request; just the safe harbor the DMCA gives you evaporates and you're on your own (like service providers were before the DMCA). I agree it would be good for the DMCA to be strengthened against abuse like this, but it's better for everyone than if we didn't have it.
jeroenhd 3y ago
Without the DMCA, any host could be liable for their users' content. The DMCA was created out of necessity; without it, the internet couldn't exist. The implementation may be mostly written by the copyright industry, especially the way spurious takedowns are completely legal, but we're better off with the DMCA than without. With the power copyright and trademark institutions have now grown to, I also don't think I would like a modern re-interpretation of the law. The EU did some copyright rework. As expected, lobbyists turned copyright law into a shitfest designed to serve large companies with boatloads of IP. I would hate for the USA to also fall victim to that.
- advael 3y ago
  The DMCA is very much a shitfest designed to serve large companies with boatloads of IP. The takedown notice procedure negates the benefits of "safe harbor", which has been pretty thoroughly weakened in other laws and rulings as well, but the harms of it are miniscule compared to the anti-circumvention sections, which has reshaped practically the entire economy to serve corporate power in a way that not only disadvantages, but often actively harms most individuals, especially if you believe that loss of freedom or livelihood is a harm
- Semaphor 3y ago
  That’s kinda like saying the law that allows you to only murder people on Mondays is great, because otherwise you’d be allowed to murder people every day. No, that is not great, that doesn’t enable anything, the proper solution is not being allowed to randomly murder people any day of the week.
- Karunamon 3y ago
  >Without the DMCA, any host could be liable for their users' content. The DMCA was created out of necessity; without it, the internet couldn't exist. Wait, what? That seems at odds with section 230 of the CDA. What the DMCA established was the notice/takedown/counter-notice process. Section 230 makes hosts not liable for their users' content.
  - hnick 3y ago
    My understanding is that section 230 is more about free speech i.e. your defamatory statements do not allow me to be sued if you post them on my site as a comment. The protections do not cover illegal speech, such as copyright infringement. There are a few articles around discussing it like https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publishing-statements-and-content-others https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publishing-statements-and-c...

> I think overall this is a good thing for an internet that hosts user-created content It would be, if fraudulent requests came with a penalty. They don’t. DMCA is a pure cancer the way it is.

mlyle 3y ago

It's better than liability for service providers. If you're a service provider, you don't have to listen to a DMCA request; just the safe harbor the DMCA gives you evaporates and you're on your own (like service providers were before the DMCA). I agree it would be good for the DMCA to be strengthened against abuse like this, but it's better for everyone than if we didn't have it.

jeroenhd 3y ago

Without the DMCA, any host could be liable for their users' content. The DMCA was created out of necessity; without it, the internet couldn't exist. The implementation may be mostly written by the copyright industry, especially the way spurious takedowns are completely legal, but we're better off with the DMCA than without. With the power copyright and trademark institutions have now grown to, I also don't think I would like a modern re-interpretation of the law. The EU did some copyright rework. As expected, lobbyists turned copyright law into a shitfest designed to serve large companies with boatloads of IP. I would hate for the USA to also fall victim to that.

advael 3y ago
The DMCA is very much a shitfest designed to serve large companies with boatloads of IP. The takedown notice procedure negates the benefits of "safe harbor", which has been pretty thoroughly weakened in other laws and rulings as well, but the harms of it are miniscule compared to the anti-circumvention sections, which has reshaped practically the entire economy to serve corporate power in a way that not only disadvantages, but often actively harms most individuals, especially if you believe that loss of freedom or livelihood is a harm
Semaphor 3y ago
That’s kinda like saying the law that allows you to only murder people on Mondays is great, because otherwise you’d be allowed to murder people every day. No, that is not great, that doesn’t enable anything, the proper solution is not being allowed to randomly murder people any day of the week.
Karunamon 3y ago
>Without the DMCA, any host could be liable for their users' content. The DMCA was created out of necessity; without it, the internet couldn't exist. Wait, what? That seems at odds with section 230 of the CDA. What the DMCA established was the notice/takedown/counter-notice process. Section 230 makes hosts not liable for their users' content.
- hnick 3y ago
  My understanding is that section 230 is more about free speech i.e. your defamatory statements do not allow me to be sued if you post them on my site as a comment. The protections do not cover illegal speech, such as copyright infringement. There are a few articles around discussing it like https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publishing-statements-and-content-others https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publishing-statements-and-c...