3 ms·

So sounds like Shoppify should make the counternotice take effect instanteously. Elsewhere in this thread people are posting that they are leaving shoppify bec

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.

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.