3 ms·
The DMCA requires that you assert you own the copyright on some work (under penalty of perjury), and also that some other work infringes on that (no penalty at
by SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
The DMCA requires that you assert you own the copyright on some work (under penalty of perjury), and also that some other work infringes on that (no penalty at all).
Adding liability in the case that the work is found not to be infringing, including substantial punitive damages paid to the accused (covering their time, emotional distress of being targeted by a lawsuit, attorney fees, and some amount extra) and the hosting provider (for wasting their time), would be a good reform.
- ghaff 3y agoThe DMCA arguably did not envision mass, often false, takedown requests. The problem with substantial punitive damages however is that you will have people who do legit requests that are determined to be false per haps by algorithms. (Or that are in some gray area.) >damages paid to the accused (covering their time, emotional distress of being targeted by a lawsuit, attorney fees, and some amount extra) Now you're talking fining people thousands of dollars even though they may have been in the right.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y agoNo, I'm talking about fining people thousands of dollars after being found guilty of falsely accusing others of infringement.
- bityard 3y agoOkay, yes, but essentially all abusive takedown requests are filed under a false name altogether, or by scummy law firms adept at hiding the people who actually run them. So, if you are the victim of a fake takedown request, either you are not going to find them because they don't exist, or if they do exist, they are beyond your reach. There is no means to enforce this penalty unless your opponent decides to by the rules. (Spoiler: they won't.)