3 ms·

I think a sufficiently large company would still pay - it'd likely be a drop in the bucket compared to hiring a legal team. (A troll like the one in the article

I think a sufficiently large company would still pay - it'd likely be a drop in the bucket compared to hiring a legal team. (A troll like the one in the article? Still, depends on the price.) I think it should switch to the strike system that YouTube, at least, favors: if you issue three fraudulent DMCA notices, you lose the ability to do so again in the future.

pablok2 2y ago
Look at Nintendo, they're creating opportunities even when they try to stop anyone from using their things.
rcarmo 2y ago
...until you spoof a new e-mail address. That won't scale well.
- okanat 2y ago
  The DMCA takedown form can also request identity confirmation.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  Require registered law firms to file these. Yes, it'll cost money. But these fraudulent claims cost money, too.
IgorPartola 2y ago
Not a lawyer but isn’t it your rights to protect your copyright? As in, if you file fraudulent notices, YT removes you ability to file more, then you have a legitimate notice to file, now you presumably can sue YT for denying you the right to defend your copyright.
- WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
  Tough shit, you shouldn’t have sent the three fraudulent ones then. It’s all in the terms of service you have agreed to.
  - onionisafruit 2y ago
    Youtube would probably be violating dmca safe harbor if they required claimants to agree to their terms of service.
    - pavel_lishin 2y ago
      Ideally, this would be written into law.
  - IgorPartola 2y ago
    I mean I don’t disagree with you as a person. I am saying that YT might be hesitant to take this stance because the legal system might not share this sentiment. That’s for their lawyers to figure out.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  > isn’t it your rights to protect your copyright? Sure. But you don't have the right to harass people who haven't done so. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I would imagine that at some point, vexatious litigation protections ought to kick in.
dylan604 2y ago
And who decides a claim was fraudulent? Historically, the fraudulent claims have gotten away with it while the target has at least had to remove the video or at worst had their accounts banned. Yet, nothing happened to the fraudster.

pablok2 2y ago

Look at Nintendo, they're creating opportunities even when they try to stop anyone from using their things.

rcarmo 2y ago

...until you spoof a new e-mail address. That won't scale well.

okanat 2y ago
The DMCA takedown form can also request identity confirmation.
pavel_lishin 2y ago
Require registered law firms to file these. Yes, it'll cost money. But these fraudulent claims cost money, too.

IgorPartola 2y ago

Not a lawyer but isn’t it your rights to protect your copyright? As in, if you file fraudulent notices, YT removes you ability to file more, then you have a legitimate notice to file, now you presumably can sue YT for denying you the right to defend your copyright.

WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
Tough shit, you shouldn’t have sent the three fraudulent ones then. It’s all in the terms of service you have agreed to.
- onionisafruit 2y ago
  Youtube would probably be violating dmca safe harbor if they required claimants to agree to their terms of service.
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    Ideally, this would be written into law.
- IgorPartola 2y ago
  I mean I don’t disagree with you as a person. I am saying that YT might be hesitant to take this stance because the legal system might not share this sentiment. That’s for their lawyers to figure out.
pavel_lishin 2y ago
> isn’t it your rights to protect your copyright? Sure. But you don't have the right to harass people who haven't done so. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I would imagine that at some point, vexatious litigation protections ought to kick in.

dylan604 2y ago

And who decides a claim was fraudulent? Historically, the fraudulent claims have gotten away with it while the target has at least had to remove the video or at worst had their accounts banned. Yet, nothing happened to the fraudster.