3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThank you for the clarification.
- jrochkind1 3y agoAha, 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.