3 ms·

The solution to this problem is to simply require a small, say $50-$100 deposit that is paid to the host (e.g. youtube) the site/account/content owner (e.g. you

The solution to this problem is to simply require a small, say $50-$100 deposit that is paid to the host (e.g. youtube) the site/account/content owner (e.g. youtuber) if they file a counterclaim (covering up to some reasonable number of urls) and the DMCA claimant does not file a Federal lawsuit. If there is no counterclaim, then the deposit is refunded. If the claimant defends their copyright with a Federal lawsuit, the deposit is refunded. This makes takedown mills and fake take downs economically unfeasible and is reasonable for claimants in that it awards some money for dealing with fraudulent and mistaken claims.

blacksqr 3y ago
A simpler solution using existing infrastructure is simply to require a takedown notice to include the copyrighted work's registration information. It's not necessary to register a work with the US Copyright Office to have copyright protection, but registration is necessary to file an infringement claim in court. Registering takes time and money, and the registration database is public. Simply requiring a URL that points to the work's registration as part of the DMCA notice should take care of the problem.
- tagyro 3y ago
  But then someone has to check if the URL matches the complaint, right? Or?
  - blacksqr 3y ago
    The content host has to do work to locate the accused infringing content and make it inaccessible regardless, checking a URL for a content match should be a minimal additional effort.
- indymike 3y ago
  > registration is necessary to file an infringement claim in court. You can register post-infringement and sue anyway. > Simply requiring a URL that points to the work's registration as part of the DMCA notice should take care of the problem. I don't think an amateur photographer should have to pay a registration fee on every photo.
  - blacksqr 3y ago
    > You can register post-infringement and sue anyway. Never said otherwise. But if the copyright holder is serious about stopping the infringement, then registration will have to be done if the infringer files a counterclaim, in order to go to the next step. > I don't think an amateur photographer should have to pay a registration fee on every photo. They wouldn't, just the ones that are infringed.
dangrossman 3y ago
Google says there are 7 million search results for "Star Wars" on Etsy.com, an online marketplace for handmade goods. They're likely all infringing on Disney IP, as anyone big enough to get a license to make official Star Wars merchandise isn't going to qualify as an artisan handmade crafter to sell on Etsy. To perform a crackdown on those 7 million listings, you're proposing that Disney would need to make a $700 million dollar deposit with Etsy and wait for hopefully most of it to trickle back in. If the infringer is somewhere on the other side of the globe that Disney can't easily reach legally, they can't get their deposit back until they spend thousands filing a federal lawsuit that'll go unanswered, so the deposit is more than forfeit in many of these cases. That's for a single company to defend a single franchise on a single website. I don't think this is a "simple" solution.
- grecy 3y ago
  So you're saying one of the richest corporations on the planet can't afford to put down $700 million to guarantee their claims of infringement are actually accurate? Good, don't make the claim. Maybe multi-billion dollar companies shouldn't be enforcing copyright in such a draconian way in the first place.
- indymike 3y ago
  > They're likely all infringing on Disney IP, First, let's not use IP here. Let's be specific and say copyright since that is what DMCA covers. > Etsy.com This is an awful example as etsy would be the company that the DMCA takedown would be against. Etsy certainly is worth suing or profiting from selling unlicensed goods. > $700 million dollar deposit The amount of the deposit you use is the high end of the range. Even so, you didn't account that each deposit covers up to 100 URLs, so the deposit would be $70M which I think the mouse can afford, easily. > they can't get their deposit back until they spend thousands filing a federal lawsuit that'll go unanswered, The deposit would go back if the takedown does not get a counterclaim. Legitimate claims would result in the deposit being returned. Not every claim will have a counterclaim. If there is a counterclaim, the next step is a Federal lawsuit anyway. And if they don't answer you get a default judgement that can be collected in many countries around the world, and even on contingency. > I don't think this is a "simple" solution. You gave very little consideration to the people that are badly affected by fake counterclaims, and are assuming that every actor is a bad faith factory.

blacksqr 3y ago

A simpler solution using existing infrastructure is simply to require a takedown notice to include the copyrighted work's registration information. It's not necessary to register a work with the US Copyright Office to have copyright protection, but registration is necessary to file an infringement claim in court. Registering takes time and money, and the registration database is public. Simply requiring a URL that points to the work's registration as part of the DMCA notice should take care of the problem.

tagyro 3y ago
But then someone has to check if the URL matches the complaint, right? Or?
- blacksqr 3y ago
  The content host has to do work to locate the accused infringing content and make it inaccessible regardless, checking a URL for a content match should be a minimal additional effort.
indymike 3y ago
> registration is necessary to file an infringement claim in court. You can register post-infringement and sue anyway. > Simply requiring a URL that points to the work's registration as part of the DMCA notice should take care of the problem. I don't think an amateur photographer should have to pay a registration fee on every photo.
- blacksqr 3y ago
  > You can register post-infringement and sue anyway. Never said otherwise. But if the copyright holder is serious about stopping the infringement, then registration will have to be done if the infringer files a counterclaim, in order to go to the next step. > I don't think an amateur photographer should have to pay a registration fee on every photo. They wouldn't, just the ones that are infringed.

dangrossman 3y ago

Google says there are 7 million search results for "Star Wars" on Etsy.com, an online marketplace for handmade goods. They're likely all infringing on Disney IP, as anyone big enough to get a license to make official Star Wars merchandise isn't going to qualify as an artisan handmade crafter to sell on Etsy. To perform a crackdown on those 7 million listings, you're proposing that Disney would need to make a $700 million dollar deposit with Etsy and wait for hopefully most of it to trickle back in. If the infringer is somewhere on the other side of the globe that Disney can't easily reach legally, they can't get their deposit back until they spend thousands filing a federal lawsuit that'll go unanswered, so the deposit is more than forfeit in many of these cases. That's for a single company to defend a single franchise on a single website. I don't think this is a "simple" solution.

grecy 3y ago
So you're saying one of the richest corporations on the planet can't afford to put down $700 million to guarantee their claims of infringement are actually accurate? Good, don't make the claim. Maybe multi-billion dollar companies shouldn't be enforcing copyright in such a draconian way in the first place.
indymike 3y ago
> They're likely all infringing on Disney IP, First, let's not use IP here. Let's be specific and say copyright since that is what DMCA covers. > Etsy.com This is an awful example as etsy would be the company that the DMCA takedown would be against. Etsy certainly is worth suing or profiting from selling unlicensed goods. > $700 million dollar deposit The amount of the deposit you use is the high end of the range. Even so, you didn't account that each deposit covers up to 100 URLs, so the deposit would be $70M which I think the mouse can afford, easily. > they can't get their deposit back until they spend thousands filing a federal lawsuit that'll go unanswered, The deposit would go back if the takedown does not get a counterclaim. Legitimate claims would result in the deposit being returned. Not every claim will have a counterclaim. If there is a counterclaim, the next step is a Federal lawsuit anyway. And if they don't answer you get a default judgement that can be collected in many countries around the world, and even on contingency. > I don't think this is a "simple" solution. You gave very little consideration to the people that are badly affected by fake counterclaims, and are assuming that every actor is a bad faith factory.