5 ms·

It is supposed to be instant. It's a notice and notice system. One party claims infringement, hosting takes it down. Other party counters that it's legit, hosti

by RevEng 3y ago

It is supposed to be instant. It's a notice and notice system. One party claims infringement, hosting takes it down. Other party counters that it's legit, hosting puts it back up. With both parties having given legal statements, the claimant can proceed to sue the defendant. But it never works out this way because this system wasn't intended to protect individuals, but rather large media groups. Record labels and movie studios didn't want their stuff easily copied. Hosting companies don't fear the wrath of an individual, but they do fear a multi billion dollar corporation. So they respond instantly and automatically to takedown notices, but are hesitant to put back anything based on a counter notice, lest the claimant - likely a large corporation or their agent - decides to take them to court for continuing to make it available. Etsy takes this one step further and straight up doesn't implement the DMCA. Instead, they take copyright infringement notices and make that an automatic take down and strike. There is no counter notice option at all. As the defendant, you are told to contact the claimant and convince them to reverse the claim. Which of course they will never do no matter how good of a case you can make for it. In the mean time, your store gets shut down and any money still in your account is frozen. Ask Etsy what to do and you'll get one automatic reply followed by radio silence forever. I lost two years of work building up my first store and had to start another from the ground up.

jrochkind1 3y ago
So sounds like Shoppify should make the counternotice take effect instanteously. Elsewhere in this thread people are posting that they are leaving shoppify because fake DMCA takedowns are such a problem. So this is clearly self-interested on Shoppify's part. The lawsuit against the John Doe is a good thing, but it's more just an announcement of intent, they haven't even found the guy yet! Making the counternotices instantaneous, as the notices are, would remove a huge chunk of the harm here to shoppify's customers, no? > but are hesitant to put back anything based on a counter notice, lest the claimant - likely a large corporation or their agent - decides to take them to court for continuing to make it available. This is weird, as they scrupulously followed the DCMA, and should be immune from such suits, right? Of course, anyone can sue for anything, but if they put it back up only after a counter-notice, a judge should throw out a suit pretty quick, no? The whole point of the DMCA is that hosts are not liable if they have adhered to it, and putting something back up after a proper counternotice is adhering to it. This is the way, Shoppify.
- Fabricio20 3y ago
  As another commenter pointed out, it cannot be instantaneous because the DMCA requires at least 10 business days before you can restore the content. So that way they would not be following the DMCA and thus not be eligible for the safe harbor. From [1]. "promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and" "(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network." 1: https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyr...
  - RevEng 3y ago
    Thank you for the clarification.
  - jrochkind1 3y ago
    Aha, thanks for clarifying. It sounds like the two week delay is unfortunately part of the DMCA after all, doh! 10 business days may have sounded like a shorter amount of time 20 years ago, for the use cases anticipated then. With what's actually occuring, and the widespread use of unjustified takedown requests, it is much harser than I think was planned. Unfortuantely, if there were any ammendments to happen to DMCA now, I think they'd be in the wrong direction.

by RevEng 3y ago

jrochkind1 3y ago

So sounds like Shoppify should make the counternotice take effect instanteously. Elsewhere in this thread people are posting that they are leaving shoppify because fake DMCA takedowns are such a problem. So this is clearly self-interested on Shoppify's part. The lawsuit against the John Doe is a good thing, but it's more just an announcement of intent, they haven't even found the guy yet! Making the counternotices instantaneous, as the notices are, would remove a huge chunk of the harm here to shoppify's customers, no? > but are hesitant to put back anything based on a counter notice, lest the claimant - likely a large corporation or their agent - decides to take them to court for continuing to make it available. This is weird, as they scrupulously followed the DCMA, and should be immune from such suits, right? Of course, anyone can sue for anything, but if they put it back up only after a counter-notice, a judge should throw out a suit pretty quick, no? The whole point of the DMCA is that hosts are not liable if they have adhered to it, and putting something back up after a proper counternotice is adhering to it. This is the way, Shoppify.

Fabricio20 3y ago
As another commenter pointed out, it cannot be instantaneous because the DMCA requires at least 10 business days before you can restore the content. So that way they would not be following the DMCA and thus not be eligible for the safe harbor. From [1]. "promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and" "(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network." 1: https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyr...
- RevEng 3y ago
  Thank you for the clarification.
- jrochkind1 3y ago
  Aha, thanks for clarifying. It sounds like the two week delay is unfortunately part of the DMCA after all, doh! 10 business days may have sounded like a shorter amount of time 20 years ago, for the use cases anticipated then. With what's actually occuring, and the widespread use of unjustified takedown requests, it is much harser than I think was planned. Unfortuantely, if there were any ammendments to happen to DMCA now, I think they'd be in the wrong direction.