3 ms·

I'd like to see DMCA updated with a simple addition: Anyone who fails to file a legal claim within 10 days after receiving a counter-notice shall be liable for

I'd like to see DMCA updated with a simple addition: Anyone who fails to file a legal claim within 10 days after receiving a counter-notice shall be liable for $10,000 to the company or person the DMCA claim was made against and $2,000 to the internet service that was sent the DMCA claim. The liability for failing to file legal action is levied jointly against the agent filing the DMCA claim and the claimant. I think this would quickly force some integrity, and would especially help content creators. It strikes at the heart of the injustice in the DMCA claim system: the agent always tries to claim "oopsie", and after that the claimant will try to blame the agent. In all reality, if you are the claimant, you need a very competent agent or you need to be doing it yourself. It is enough money to be worth going after. Just as copyright law provides for mind-boggling damages, the penalty for filing a fake, frivolous or fraudulent DMCA notice should have some serious teeth. Every DMCA notice I've dealt with was fraudulent (not really representing the copyright holder) or simple frivolous (i.e. a DMCA take-down for using a trademark).

RockRobotRock 3y ago
I’m trying to get a startup going that’s essentially a DMCA agent service. Any advice?
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  It’d have to be a non profit to work. There’s no profit to be had here.
- greyface- 3y ago
  For services subject to DMCA, it's often existentially risky to try to filter valid vs invalid notices, due to the potential loss of safe harbor, and much easier to just indiscriminately act on them all to the detriment of users. As an agent, you could offer filtering services, and work with an insurer to establish filtering standards and insure your clients against damages caused by loss of safe harbor due to incorrect filtering decisions.
- indymike 3y ago
  Takedowns or counterclaims?
blacksqr 3y ago
A victim of false DMCA claims ought to have grounds to sue for fraud, libel and tortious interference in business relationships.
supriyo-biswas 3y ago
I run a somewhat popular website whose assets were illegally copied by some small time firms based out of India to build some of their own products. While I was able to mitigate this with a DMCA, I shudder to think what would happen if I were to receive a bad faith counter claim under the proposed clause, since I don’t make anywhere near that amount of money.
- indymike 3y ago
  Right now, all that happens is the content goes back online which is simply no where near enough. Perhaps some kind of "Ernest money" should accompany a takedown request that would be split between to the person or entity that the takedown was filed against and the service provider? This might really help with fraudulent/frivolous takedowns from jurisdictions that are difficult to enforce US court rulings in. BTW many copyright law firms will work on contingency if the case is clear, and your evidence of ownership is solid.

RockRobotRock 3y ago

I’m trying to get a startup going that’s essentially a DMCA agent service. Any advice?

sillysaurusx 3y ago
It’d have to be a non profit to work. There’s no profit to be had here.
greyface- 3y ago
For services subject to DMCA, it's often existentially risky to try to filter valid vs invalid notices, due to the potential loss of safe harbor, and much easier to just indiscriminately act on them all to the detriment of users. As an agent, you could offer filtering services, and work with an insurer to establish filtering standards and insure your clients against damages caused by loss of safe harbor due to incorrect filtering decisions.
indymike 3y ago
Takedowns or counterclaims?

blacksqr 3y ago

A victim of false DMCA claims ought to have grounds to sue for fraud, libel and tortious interference in business relationships.

supriyo-biswas 3y ago

I run a somewhat popular website whose assets were illegally copied by some small time firms based out of India to build some of their own products. While I was able to mitigate this with a DMCA, I shudder to think what would happen if I were to receive a bad faith counter claim under the proposed clause, since I don’t make anywhere near that amount of money.

indymike 3y ago
Right now, all that happens is the content goes back online which is simply no where near enough. Perhaps some kind of "Ernest money" should accompany a takedown request that would be split between to the person or entity that the takedown was filed against and the service provider? This might really help with fraudulent/frivolous takedowns from jurisdictions that are difficult to enforce US court rulings in. BTW many copyright law firms will work on contingency if the case is clear, and your evidence of ownership is solid.