3 ms·

I think it makes more sense to disqualify abusers from the entire takedown system. The DMCA takedown process takes a guilty-until-proven-otherwise approach, and

by jorams 3y ago

I think it makes more sense to disqualify abusers from the entire takedown system. The DMCA takedown process takes a guilty-until-proven-otherwise approach, and companies like Markscan from the article can clearly not be trusted with that power. After maybe 3 false takedowns the receiver should be allowed to assume anything they send is bullshit. There should also be consequences for copyright owners choosing to be represented by a large number of such abusers, but that's a lot more complicated and would require more due process.

GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
Why do copyright holders get due process but not accused infringers?
- Nifty3929 3y ago
  Because they are not being prosecuted for a crime, and are not being subject to legal penalties. They are not facing jail time or a legal judgement. The platform just takes them down. I’m not saying this is right, just that this is the reason.
  - indymike 3y ago
    False. A takedown can be very costly in terms of lost income for the victim of the false takedown. It is a legally prescribed process.
    - Nifty3929 3y ago
      I didn't say it wouldn't be costly - I'm sure in many cases it is. But it is not a legal process - the platform just removes your content. Just because a law requires platforms to do something, does not mean this is a legal process or proceeding. Just like if a law requires business to enforce mask-wearing, and then I get kicked out for not wearing a mask, that was not a legal proceeding. They just kicked me out.
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      Imagine if you could DMCA-strike a toilet - your toilet is pirated and is being dismantled immediately.
      - indymike 3y ago
        Must. Not. Make. Joke. About. Situation.
- njharman 3y ago
  The ultimate answer is because copyright holders have money and spent a fare bit of it on lobbyists. Copyright holders are organized, e.g. MPAA/RIAA, and motivated (money moves ya). Content consumers are disorganized and little motivated.
HideousKojima 3y ago
>I think it makes more sense to disqualify abusers from the entire takedown system. The problem with this idea is that there is no "system" you literally just send an email/letter/whatever claiming that you're the rightsholder.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Well, it starts via such a notice. You can just as easily send a counter notice. The actual violation process occurs in the courts though and that means you could never actually do anything anymore even if you were spamming out notices without getting caught.
gizmo 3y ago
Abusers of DMCA should just have the IP in question automatically reclassified as Public Domain. Problem solved. This may sound extreme (and it kind of is), but companies send bogus legal threats under penalty of perjury and it's time to put the "magic of incentives" at work here. IP protection is not a constitutional right. You abuse it you lose it.
- jorams 3y ago
  That's what I had in mind as the consequences in the last paragraph. I'm not sure what the process for that reclassification would look like. I think it does need some level of actual confirmation that the copyright owner is responsible for the abuse, while ignoring of abusers by a platform is easy and decentralized.
- metadat 3y ago
  Do the "abusers" tend to be the actual owners though? If not, there's no actual IP to take away from them. If not implemented carefully, this could incentivize shell games.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Also I could totally seeing this getting abused with competitors posting fake DMCA for one’s content to get their competition public domained.
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      That seems like you’d be committing perjury, which the victim could prove easily by showing there’s no authorization.
  - ssl-3 3y ago
    Does matter whether the abusers are the owners themselves or merely representative agents of that the owners have hired? I don't think that it does.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
c2h5oh 3y ago
The party receiving the notice would have to be able to verify that the filing party actually exists and is in fact filing the notice. If the purpose of filing the notice was griefing I can create firstname.lastname@freeemailprovider.tld email accounts by the dozen and start sending. Your proposal only helps with lazy automated notices / ones that are sent by companies aggressive and/or incompetent beyond reason. I'd rather have statutory damages somewhere in 5 digits range for filing obviously ridiculous notice, just like there is one for copyright violations.

by jorams 3y ago

GartzenDeHaes 3y ago

Why do copyright holders get due process but not accused infringers?

Nifty3929 3y ago
Because they are not being prosecuted for a crime, and are not being subject to legal penalties. They are not facing jail time or a legal judgement. The platform just takes them down. I’m not saying this is right, just that this is the reason.
- indymike 3y ago
  False. A takedown can be very costly in terms of lost income for the victim of the false takedown. It is a legally prescribed process.
  - Nifty3929 3y ago
    I didn't say it wouldn't be costly - I'm sure in many cases it is. But it is not a legal process - the platform just removes your content. Just because a law requires platforms to do something, does not mean this is a legal process or proceeding. Just like if a law requires business to enforce mask-wearing, and then I get kicked out for not wearing a mask, that was not a legal proceeding. They just kicked me out.
  - Qwertious 3y ago
    Imagine if you could DMCA-strike a toilet - your toilet is pirated and is being dismantled immediately.
    - indymike 3y ago
      Must. Not. Make. Joke. About. Situation.
njharman 3y ago
The ultimate answer is because copyright holders have money and spent a fare bit of it on lobbyists. Copyright holders are organized, e.g. MPAA/RIAA, and motivated (money moves ya). Content consumers are disorganized and little motivated.

HideousKojima 3y ago

>I think it makes more sense to disqualify abusers from the entire takedown system. The problem with this idea is that there is no "system" you literally just send an email/letter/whatever claiming that you're the rightsholder.

zamadatix 3y ago
Well, it starts via such a notice. You can just as easily send a counter notice. The actual violation process occurs in the courts though and that means you could never actually do anything anymore even if you were spamming out notices without getting caught.

gizmo 3y ago

Abusers of DMCA should just have the IP in question automatically reclassified as Public Domain. Problem solved. This may sound extreme (and it kind of is), but companies send bogus legal threats under penalty of perjury and it's time to put the "magic of incentives" at work here. IP protection is not a constitutional right. You abuse it you lose it.

jorams 3y ago
That's what I had in mind as the consequences in the last paragraph. I'm not sure what the process for that reclassification would look like. I think it does need some level of actual confirmation that the copyright owner is responsible for the abuse, while ignoring of abusers by a platform is easy and decentralized.
metadat 3y ago
Do the "abusers" tend to be the actual owners though? If not, there's no actual IP to take away from them. If not implemented carefully, this could incentivize shell games.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Also I could totally seeing this getting abused with competitors posting fake DMCA for one’s content to get their competition public domained.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    That seems like you’d be committing perjury, which the victim could prove easily by showing there’s no authorization.
- ssl-3 3y ago
  Does matter whether the abusers are the owners themselves or merely representative agents of that the owners have hired? I don't think that it does.
- dns_snek 3y ago

c2h5oh 3y ago

The party receiving the notice would have to be able to verify that the filing party actually exists and is in fact filing the notice. If the purpose of filing the notice was griefing I can create firstname.lastname@freeemailprovider.tld email accounts by the dozen and start sending. Your proposal only helps with lazy automated notices / ones that are sent by companies aggressive and/or incompetent beyond reason. I'd rather have statutory damages somewhere in 5 digits range for filing obviously ridiculous notice, just like there is one for copyright violations.