8 ms·

I'm not sure there is a fee which is both large enough it significantly deters bad claims while also being small enough to be different than saying nobody can a

I'm not sure there is a fee which is both large enough it significantly deters bad claims while also being small enough to be different than saying nobody can afford to defend their works on the internet via DMCA given the scale. Even if you have 90% accuracy in claims if you have to put out 10,000 claims in a year that's 1 million you have to escrow with the expected loss of 100,000 despite rarely being wrong. And you may well need to do significantly more than 10,000 claims per year given the number of sites and users uploading and re-sharing content. If it were just a token value of 1 dollar or something then you're back to the largest corporations being able to file a million bogus complaints as the cost of doing business. Absent a balanced number this would ultimately turn into another debate about the place of the DMCA itself.

FireBeyond 3y ago
> with the expected loss of 100,000 despite rarely being wrong To those 10% you were absolutely wrong. Why should they suffer because you were "mostly right" with other people?
- zamadatix 3y ago
  I don't think you get out of this with 0 suffering for everyone. That'd require some utopian method of figuring all of this out completely automatically with no errors for free. It's just not a realistic bar to measure either side on. As for amount of suffering an actual DMCA counter notice is an extremely easy thing to provide. What sites like e.g. YouTube do instead via backdoor agreements with IP holders outside the regulatory structure is where the real inconvenience comes from. That said, I wouldn't mind a bit more shift in general to make things slightly more difficult for copyright owners though. Just not as major a one as saying 100% of claims need to be valid from the get go or it's not viable for copyright holders.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Certainly, but false positives here mean actual infringement of a person's rights to protect someone else from potential infringement. I'm not sure how that is justifiable.
dclowd9901 3y ago
I'm pretty sure $100 per claimed violation is enough to 1) keep large companies from continuing to splattershot claims against sites and 2) small enough that it _shouldn't_ hurt smaller orgs or even individuals who probably have something near 100% claim success rates, if they do manual takedowns. Again, remembering they recover their "deposit" if the claim was successful.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  That's a fair opinion and I'd be supportive of trying it if everyone could agree on such a number. I'm just less optimistic it'll work out but status quo isn't all that great either so trying something people think could work would be better than doing nothing in my book, despite my doubt on it. Keep in mind even if you have and ideal 100% success rate on claims, recovering 100% of the deposits, it's still going to be thousands and thousands of dollars which used to be liquid now relegated to holding up the revolving door claims processing fees. Anything less than 100% just starts to make it an actual money pit instead of a financial annoyance.
throwup238 3y ago
“Even if you have 90% accuracy”??? You either have 100% certainty you are the rights holder and 100% accuracy, or you’re abusing the system. Full stop. Give each rightsholder ten freebies per platform or whatever, but they should sure as hell be 100% accurate.
- rimunroe 3y ago
  > You either have 100% certainty you are the rights holder and 100% accuracy, or you’re abusing the system. Full stop. Sorry, but how can you be 100% certain in a system where fair use exists?
  - wnevets 3y ago
    Are fair use exclusions being considered as bogus? When I hear bogus I assume that means they never had any rights over the content to begin with.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - rimunroe 3y ago
      Two people can reasonably disagree on who owns the rights to a derivative work, can't they?
      - wnevets 3y ago
        They can but that isn't what is happening according to the article. > The notice listed three URLs which needed to be “disabled immediately” along with a statement that the “information in the notification is accurate.” Unfortunately, we were unable to comply with the takedown demands because the URLs provided were not for TorrentFreak.com but an entirely different domain that we’d never heard of, under someone else’s control. I don't consider that a reasonable disagreement, I consider that a bogus claim.
        3y ago
mattlondon 3y ago
Ah but the whole argument against internet piracy is that it is costing creators so much money in lost sales etc. So even a small time rights holder who is losing sales (right? Right? Because that is what this is all about right?) should be happy to pay 100USD or whatever to ensure that they get all those thousands and thousands of lost sales that supposedly they lose from pirates.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Would I pay $10,000 to get a prospective $20,000 of my income secured? Yeah, duh, but I'm sure as hell not going to be happy about it.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    How did the $100 turn into #10,000?
    - darreninthenet 3y ago
      100 separate takedown notices I presume
newsclues 3y ago
First one is free and if you are correct another free request is available to you.
mikrotikker 3y ago
The NZ copyright strike/3 strike internet cancellation law has a fee of $250 or claim. As such it's hardly used anymore.
vlovich123 3y ago
But we’re talking about an article where 100% of the notices were bogus. That’s a long way away from this hypothetical 90%…

FireBeyond 3y ago

> with the expected loss of 100,000 despite rarely being wrong To those 10% you were absolutely wrong. Why should they suffer because you were "mostly right" with other people?

zamadatix 3y ago
I don't think you get out of this with 0 suffering for everyone. That'd require some utopian method of figuring all of this out completely automatically with no errors for free. It's just not a realistic bar to measure either side on. As for amount of suffering an actual DMCA counter notice is an extremely easy thing to provide. What sites like e.g. YouTube do instead via backdoor agreements with IP holders outside the regulatory structure is where the real inconvenience comes from. That said, I wouldn't mind a bit more shift in general to make things slightly more difficult for copyright owners though. Just not as major a one as saying 100% of claims need to be valid from the get go or it's not viable for copyright holders.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Certainly, but false positives here mean actual infringement of a person's rights to protect someone else from potential infringement. I'm not sure how that is justifiable.

dclowd9901 3y ago

I'm pretty sure $100 per claimed violation is enough to 1) keep large companies from continuing to splattershot claims against sites and 2) small enough that it _shouldn't_ hurt smaller orgs or even individuals who probably have something near 100% claim success rates, if they do manual takedowns. Again, remembering they recover their "deposit" if the claim was successful.

zamadatix 3y ago
That's a fair opinion and I'd be supportive of trying it if everyone could agree on such a number. I'm just less optimistic it'll work out but status quo isn't all that great either so trying something people think could work would be better than doing nothing in my book, despite my doubt on it. Keep in mind even if you have and ideal 100% success rate on claims, recovering 100% of the deposits, it's still going to be thousands and thousands of dollars which used to be liquid now relegated to holding up the revolving door claims processing fees. Anything less than 100% just starts to make it an actual money pit instead of a financial annoyance.

throwup238 3y ago

“Even if you have 90% accuracy”??? You either have 100% certainty you are the rights holder and 100% accuracy, or you’re abusing the system. Full stop. Give each rightsholder ten freebies per platform or whatever, but they should sure as hell be 100% accurate.

rimunroe 3y ago
> You either have 100% certainty you are the rights holder and 100% accuracy, or you’re abusing the system. Full stop. Sorry, but how can you be 100% certain in a system where fair use exists?
- wnevets 3y ago
  Are fair use exclusions being considered as bogus? When I hear bogus I assume that means they never had any rights over the content to begin with.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rimunroe 3y ago
    Two people can reasonably disagree on who owns the rights to a derivative work, can't they?
    - wnevets 3y ago
      They can but that isn't what is happening according to the article. > The notice listed three URLs which needed to be “disabled immediately” along with a statement that the “information in the notification is accurate.” Unfortunately, we were unable to comply with the takedown demands because the URLs provided were not for TorrentFreak.com but an entirely different domain that we’d never heard of, under someone else’s control. I don't consider that a reasonable disagreement, I consider that a bogus claim.
      - 3y ago

mattlondon 3y ago

Ah but the whole argument against internet piracy is that it is costing creators so much money in lost sales etc. So even a small time rights holder who is losing sales (right? Right? Because that is what this is all about right?) should be happy to pay 100USD or whatever to ensure that they get all those thousands and thousands of lost sales that supposedly they lose from pirates.

zamadatix 3y ago
Would I pay $10,000 to get a prospective $20,000 of my income secured? Yeah, duh, but I'm sure as hell not going to be happy about it.
- Filligree 3y ago
  How did the $100 turn into #10,000?
  - darreninthenet 3y ago
    100 separate takedown notices I presume

newsclues 3y ago

First one is free and if you are correct another free request is available to you.

mikrotikker 3y ago

The NZ copyright strike/3 strike internet cancellation law has a fee of $250 or claim. As such it's hardly used anymore.

vlovich123 3y ago

But we’re talking about an article where 100% of the notices were bogus. That’s a long way away from this hypothetical 90%…