6 ms·

So I can issue frivolous DMCA complaints against, say, YCombinator, and by law it has to be taken down until a counterclaim or X amount of time has passed, putt

So I can issue frivolous DMCA complaints against, say, YCombinator, and by law it has to be taken down until a counterclaim or X amount of time has passed, putting the onus of responsibility on innocent people? And as long as I'm actually the rightsholder, government will do nothing to address bad faith claims? The standard for proof is practically impossible, and you don't need a valid claim to negatively impact innocent people. It's a law that has no business existing; I'd argue the moral solution is to simply not honor it. We need to push back against copyright and IP in its entirety because it's clearly not serving its purpose if you can just cancel some random guy's project because you don't like it.

ajross 3y ago
> by law it has to be taken down until a counterclaim or X amount of time has passed Not quite. Nothing in the DMCA compels a takedown. What happens is that the free harbor granted under the DMCA (that it's illegal to sue Y Combinator for copyright violations in HN comments) is active only so long as HN takes quick and effective action to remove infringing materials. So what happens is that hosts of user-generated content (like HN comments, or Android TV Apps in the linked article) are naturally going to err on the side of a takedown just to be safe.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  > Not quite. Nothing in the DMCA compels a takedown. What happens is that the free harbor granted under the DMCA (that it's illegal to sue Y Combinator for copyright violations in HN comments) is active only so long as HN takes quick and effective action to remove infringing materials. Isn't that somewhat of a pointless distinction? The protection goes away if you don't take things down. Whether it's explicitly in law doesn't matter if it has the same effect. This reminds me of restaurants taking away their employees tips but saying "we're not forcing you to give up your tips, you'll just be fired if you try to keep them". Same thing.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > This reminds me of restaurants taking away their employees tips but saying "we're not forcing you to give up your tips, you'll just be fired if you try to keep them". > > Same thing. Uh... no, this is wage theft, and it's a crime that will put you in jail. In point of fact content sites refuse bogus takedown requests all the time. But where there's ambiguity they're clearly not going to stick their neck out for some rando app author. You're also forgetting that without the DMCA, the safe harbor provision wouldn't exist and instead of frivolous takedown requests we'd be treated to weekly "Disney Sues Apple Again" news.
    - mcv 3y ago
      Has wage theft ever put someone in jail? My impression is that the thief simply has to pay back the stolen wages and that's enough.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
Surely there are limits. Otherwise I could write a brief poem, copyright it, and start issuing DMCA take downs en masse saying that, say, the source code of Youtube plagiarized it. This very obviously wouldn't work, right?
- Pigalowda 3y ago
  That falls under prior art though i think
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    No, you would be lying about the poem being in the source code. In theory they'd need to take down Youtube until the counterclaim was filed, no?
- soerxpso 3y ago
  That particular example wouldn't work because you can't copyright something that you were not the first to create. If you "write" a brief poem that already exists in the YouTube source code, you don't hold the copyright.
  - crooked-v 3y ago
    The point you're missing is that in the OP article, Warner Bros doesn't own anything that's in the source code of the app they're DMCAing. In other words, the hypothetical is about just lying the same way as the bigcorps do.
  - 6510 3y ago
    Someone was making dvd's from old internet videos with unknown owners. One by one the hundreds of grainy videos were taken down. Today you cant find a single one and they are not selling the dvd anymore.
    - prometheon1 3y ago
      There was also "Fox issues DMCA takedown against the original YouTube clip it put into Family Guy": https://www.neowin.net/news/fox-issues-dmca-takedown-against-the-original-youtube-clip-it-put-into-family-guy/ https://www.neowin.net/news/fox-issues-dmca-takedown-against...
patmorgan23 3y ago
Companies do not HAVE to comply with DMCA take down requests. The reason the vast majority do is because of the safe harbour provisions. The platform is protected and has no liability if they comply with the DMCA take down notice. If a company chooses to not comply the next step is for the alleged rights holder to file a copyright infringement suit. If that doesn't happen then the Platform is fine. If an infringement suit is filed then the Platform could be dragged in and held partially liable for damages. Platforms have stood up to obviously frivolous takedown notices before, though not usually from big rights holders that have lots of copyright attorneys. This is definitely a part of the law that is unbalanced and needs some tunning to punish/prevent abuse.

ajross 3y ago

> by law it has to be taken down until a counterclaim or X amount of time has passed Not quite. Nothing in the DMCA compels a takedown. What happens is that the free harbor granted under the DMCA (that it's illegal to sue Y Combinator for copyright violations in HN comments) is active only so long as HN takes quick and effective action to remove infringing materials. So what happens is that hosts of user-generated content (like HN comments, or Android TV Apps in the linked article) are naturally going to err on the side of a takedown just to be safe.

zlg_codes 3y ago
> Not quite. Nothing in the DMCA compels a takedown. What happens is that the free harbor granted under the DMCA (that it's illegal to sue Y Combinator for copyright violations in HN comments) is active only so long as HN takes quick and effective action to remove infringing materials. Isn't that somewhat of a pointless distinction? The protection goes away if you don't take things down. Whether it's explicitly in law doesn't matter if it has the same effect. This reminds me of restaurants taking away their employees tips but saying "we're not forcing you to give up your tips, you'll just be fired if you try to keep them". Same thing.
- ajross 3y ago
  > This reminds me of restaurants taking away their employees tips but saying "we're not forcing you to give up your tips, you'll just be fired if you try to keep them". > > Same thing. Uh... no, this is wage theft, and it's a crime that will put you in jail. In point of fact content sites refuse bogus takedown requests all the time. But where there's ambiguity they're clearly not going to stick their neck out for some rando app author. You're also forgetting that without the DMCA, the safe harbor provision wouldn't exist and instead of frivolous takedown requests we'd be treated to weekly "Disney Sues Apple Again" news.
  - mcv 3y ago
    Has wage theft ever put someone in jail? My impression is that the thief simply has to pay back the stolen wages and that's enough.

BobaFloutist 3y ago

Surely there are limits. Otherwise I could write a brief poem, copyright it, and start issuing DMCA take downs en masse saying that, say, the source code of Youtube plagiarized it. This very obviously wouldn't work, right?

Pigalowda 3y ago
That falls under prior art though i think
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  No, you would be lying about the poem being in the source code. In theory they'd need to take down Youtube until the counterclaim was filed, no?
soerxpso 3y ago
That particular example wouldn't work because you can't copyright something that you were not the first to create. If you "write" a brief poem that already exists in the YouTube source code, you don't hold the copyright.
- crooked-v 3y ago
  The point you're missing is that in the OP article, Warner Bros doesn't own anything that's in the source code of the app they're DMCAing. In other words, the hypothetical is about just lying the same way as the bigcorps do.
- 6510 3y ago
  Someone was making dvd's from old internet videos with unknown owners. One by one the hundreds of grainy videos were taken down. Today you cant find a single one and they are not selling the dvd anymore.
  - prometheon1 3y ago
    There was also "Fox issues DMCA takedown against the original YouTube clip it put into Family Guy": https://www.neowin.net/news/fox-issues-dmca-takedown-against-the-original-youtube-clip-it-put-into-family-guy/ https://www.neowin.net/news/fox-issues-dmca-takedown-against...

patmorgan23 3y ago

Companies do not HAVE to comply with DMCA take down requests. The reason the vast majority do is because of the safe harbour provisions. The platform is protected and has no liability if they comply with the DMCA take down notice. If a company chooses to not comply the next step is for the alleged rights holder to file a copyright infringement suit. If that doesn't happen then the Platform is fine. If an infringement suit is filed then the Platform could be dragged in and held partially liable for damages. Platforms have stood up to obviously frivolous takedown notices before, though not usually from big rights holders that have lots of copyright attorneys. This is definitely a part of the law that is unbalanced and needs some tunning to punish/prevent abuse.