4 ms·

>> requirements of Section 512 Which include : > Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an

by ajnin 3y ago

>> requirements of Section 512 Which include : > Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number and email address

braiamp 3y ago
To which they respond: >> Shopify says that it’s not feasible for the company to investigate the validity of all takedown notices in detail. As such, these false claims resulted in actual removals and the affected stores also received strikes on their accounts.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- CobrastanJorji 3y ago
  Unlike the DMCA takedown, the "strike" is by no means required by any laws. That's just Shopify choosing to penalize takedown recipients without doing any investigating.
  - bdw5204 3y ago
    The idea of "strikes" is pretty standard in the US from the 90s era "3 strikes" crime laws (i.e. commit 3 crimes and you get life without parole; these have generally been repealed in the last 5-10 years or so) that were inspired by the rules of baseball where the batter is out after 3 unsuccessful swings or hittable pitches he didn't swing at. It isn't a good system but Youtube in particular was loaded with pirated content in the early days before Google invented automated copyright moderation so they most likely needed to do something drastic to delete pirate accounts to avoid legal trouble with the copyright lobby and everybody else just copied the idea as a "best practice".
  - mdasen 3y ago
    It is kinda required. The DMCA requires you to implement a policy for terminating repeat copyright infringers. You aren't required to call them "strikes", but you have to keep track of who is a repeat infringer and terminate their account. You have some leeway in how you implement it, but you do need to take action against repeat infringers. As such, any infringement that doesn't get overturned will end up as a strike against you (whether it's called a strike or not).
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Shopify says that it’s not feasible for the company to investigate the validity of all takedown notices in detail. In other words, they don't want to spend the money to fulfill their responsibilities.
  - Vicinity9635 3y ago
    [dead]
thomastjeffery 3y ago
I suspect it's easy for the complaining party to assert that an email address qualifies as enough information.
- chris_wot 3y ago
  Then change the form and make the address, email address and phone contact mandatory. If they want to file a DMCA through a less inconvenient mechanism, let them.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    > Then change the form and make the address, email address and phone contact mandatory That's the context I was referring to. If Shopify requires an address and phone number from DMCA claimants, then won't the DMCA claimants simply sue Shopify for making the process too restrictive? It looks like Shopify has decided not to play that specific game.
    - pavon 3y ago
      No, any form that sites provide are purely a convenience and are not required by law. Legally all you need is contact information where a lawyer can mail a DMCA complaint.
    - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
      Hmm, I think the law is bad here, though there might be relevant precedent that a lawyer can point to: >Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party // The complaining party is a party with a [genuine] complaint of copyright infringement. A specious claimant is not really a complaining party. Whilst an email address may allow you to contact a party, it's not really sufficient to contact a [genuine] complaining party; the email address will put you in touch with lots of correspondents who are not complaining parties but instead are vexacious complainants. Requirement for a notarized affidavit delivered by registered mail would seem like it would be no bar for genuine complainants who were subject to a loss that the court, or public process, should care about. That might be too onerous? Maybe parties should prove they have registered the copyright in their works at the USPTO, as they would in an infringement proceeding? This situation seems like what happens when you let corporate interests write the laws and you just sign them in.

by ajnin 3y ago

braiamp 3y ago

To which they respond: >> Shopify says that it’s not feasible for the company to investigate the validity of all takedown notices in detail. As such, these false claims resulted in actual removals and the affected stores also received strikes on their accounts.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
CobrastanJorji 3y ago
Unlike the DMCA takedown, the "strike" is by no means required by any laws. That's just Shopify choosing to penalize takedown recipients without doing any investigating.
- bdw5204 3y ago
  The idea of "strikes" is pretty standard in the US from the 90s era "3 strikes" crime laws (i.e. commit 3 crimes and you get life without parole; these have generally been repealed in the last 5-10 years or so) that were inspired by the rules of baseball where the batter is out after 3 unsuccessful swings or hittable pitches he didn't swing at. It isn't a good system but Youtube in particular was loaded with pirated content in the early days before Google invented automated copyright moderation so they most likely needed to do something drastic to delete pirate accounts to avoid legal trouble with the copyright lobby and everybody else just copied the idea as a "best practice".
- mdasen 3y ago
  It is kinda required. The DMCA requires you to implement a policy for terminating repeat copyright infringers. You aren't required to call them "strikes", but you have to keep track of who is a repeat infringer and terminate their account. You have some leeway in how you implement it, but you do need to take action against repeat infringers. As such, any infringement that doesn't get overturned will end up as a strike against you (whether it's called a strike or not).
wolverine876 3y ago
> Shopify says that it’s not feasible for the company to investigate the validity of all takedown notices in detail. In other words, they don't want to spend the money to fulfill their responsibilities.
- Vicinity9635 3y ago
  [dead]

thomastjeffery 3y ago

I suspect it's easy for the complaining party to assert that an email address qualifies as enough information.

chris_wot 3y ago
Then change the form and make the address, email address and phone contact mandatory. If they want to file a DMCA through a less inconvenient mechanism, let them.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  > Then change the form and make the address, email address and phone contact mandatory That's the context I was referring to. If Shopify requires an address and phone number from DMCA claimants, then won't the DMCA claimants simply sue Shopify for making the process too restrictive? It looks like Shopify has decided not to play that specific game.
  - pavon 3y ago
    No, any form that sites provide are purely a convenience and are not required by law. Legally all you need is contact information where a lawyer can mail a DMCA complaint.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    Hmm, I think the law is bad here, though there might be relevant precedent that a lawyer can point to: >Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party // The complaining party is a party with a [genuine] complaint of copyright infringement. A specious claimant is not really a complaining party. Whilst an email address may allow you to contact a party, it's not really sufficient to contact a [genuine] complaining party; the email address will put you in touch with lots of correspondents who are not complaining parties but instead are vexacious complainants. Requirement for a notarized affidavit delivered by registered mail would seem like it would be no bar for genuine complainants who were subject to a loss that the court, or public process, should care about. That might be too onerous? Maybe parties should prove they have registered the copyright in their works at the USPTO, as they would in an infringement proceeding? This situation seems like what happens when you let corporate interests write the laws and you just sign them in.