4 ms·

I know this isn't the point but this post is a master class in how to inform readers when you expect people from outside your community to read it. It explains

I know this isn't the point but this post is a master class in how to inform readers when you expect people from outside your community to read it. It explains what every element is, concisely but clearly. I now know exactly what Luanti is, who all the actors are in this conflict, and what the conflict is about. It clearly conveys the who, what, when, where and why of the situation. Also, DMCA is a damned mess, with the worst people in the world profiting from it and bullying small creators. There really should be better mechanisms to defend oneself from spurious claims.

account42 1mo ago
Most of all, there need to be serious consequences for wanton DMCA abuse. As in lawyers disbarred and the company that hired them having to pay significant fines level.
vorpalhex 1mo ago
One of the issues is that these aren't proper DMCA claims, instead Google/Youtube do a weird pseudo-DMCA thing where they just agree to take down your content and make you argue about it. But the DMCA allows immediate countersuit for false notice with damages. If Google/Youtube actually just forwarded strict DMCA notices and no longer did takedowns once you counter-claimed, you could sue the trolls and collect damages. At that point it's just a free lunch for some bored lawyers willing to publish public domain works, covers, etc that are protected.
- tough 1mo ago
  One of the loopholes of the counter-claim, is that you accept whatever random jurisdiction of the original claimer as your jurisdiction, pulling you usually into US Sphere. It's a rigged game, its better not to engage with. the specific laws and consequences from ai: > Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), for a DMCA counter-notice to be legally valid, the person filing it must explicitly state in writing that they consent to the jurisdiction of a US Federal District Court. > If you live in the US, you consent to the federal court in your local district. > If you live outside the US, you must consent to the judicial district where the service provider (YouTube/Google) is located—which means the Northern District of California. > For a creator living in Europe, Asia, or South America, filing a counter-notice means signing a document that legally exposes them to a federal copyright lawsuit in California. Even if the creator is 100% in the right (e.g., they used public domain footage or have clear Fair Use), the sheer financial threat of having to hire a US federal defense attorney to fight a lawsuit in California is often enough to make them abandon the dispute.
  - vorpalhex 1mo ago
    It isn't necessary that everyone play the game, it only takes one attorney group to create a sufficient hazard to these troll firms. Yes it is absolutely a dumb game and an unfair process, but playing dumb games and using unfair tactics to inflict pain go both ways.
    - kmeisthax 1mo ago
      Yes. However, there are a lot of attorneys who do not want to take on the risk of representing a small client[0] and advise them to just settle - that's why copyright trolling works. In addition, some platforms have their own parallel dispute resolution processes that have to be navigated first before you can make a formal DMCA complaint or counter-complaint. The reason for this is because those platforms have a lot of user piracy, and having their own system to ID and takedown work their users are reuploading makes it easier for them to negotiate their own licenses to the work. These systems are unregulated and often biased in favor of the legacy media companies who are selling them these rights in ways the DMCA process isn't. The average attorney is not an expert platform Kremlinologist, and law schools don't teach how to fight YouTube Content ID - mainly because the things that actually work against Content ID are things that would get you punished harder in a real court of law. Finally, the actual case we're talking about - Luanti - is a lot more involved than typical piracy cases or DMCA abuse cases. They are, after all, trying to make a game engine for Minecraft-like voxel games, and the screenshots they're showing off of those games are not entirely dissimilar to Minecraft. This is not "Luanti is an infringing copy of Minecraft", but "There is enough similarity to survive a motion to dismiss and require an actual trial". At which point the actual cost to defend goes from 4-5 figures to 6-7. [0] The massive payments attorneys get for representation are priced into the cost of education and testing required to become a licensed attorney. As a result, every minute you spend representing someone who can't afford you is time not being spent paying back student loans.
andai 1mo ago
It's funny I've even seen landing pages / product launches that violate this. Trending on HN: Blog post: Sneed now helps with your blargs Then I go to their homepage and it's like https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/3219377-curtains-for-zoosha https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/3219377-curtains-for-zoosha
- asphodele 1mo ago
  At last! My blargs have been in disarray for ages.
  - joquarky 1mo ago
    It sounds like someone hasn't yet invested in a turbo encabulator.
kevin_thibedeau 1mo ago
This isn't DMCA. The DMCA process provides for immediate restoration of contested content upon issuance of a counter notice. At that point the internet service is absolved of any responsibility until a court orders the removal. Google has never implemented that process.
- BrenBarn 1mo ago
  And that's because the DMCA lets Google exploit its position. It's still a DMCA problem until the DMCA is either repealed or fixed to produce a comprehensively good situation.
  - kevin_thibedeau 1mo ago
    Google made an arrangement to keep YouTube afloat. The copyright cartels can't use their automated libel machines if the fraudulently accused have the means to exercise their full rights. That would incur untenable operational expenses when people are permitted a low friction path to nullify the takedowns and then advance to the courts if the libeler wants carry on with their lies. With intentional bias built into the system, Google gets favorable treatment on remuneration for the commercial copyrighted content that they host. The fix is a revision that revokes safe harbor protection when an accused party is disenfranchised by omission of the counter notice process.
- rahulyc 1mo ago
  Yes, Google is really bad at this. For all the problems with Amazon, they're actually much better at actually following DMCA
  - api 1mo ago
    A major problem with closed mobile platforms is that if you have an App Store monopoly, why do you need to care? It's why all the app stores are absolute trash. Not sure how Apple handles DMCA but I know they're known for capricious arbitrary actions and being impossible to talk to. Their search and navigation is also total trash.
trinsic2 1mo ago
> Also, DMCA is a damned mess, with the worst people in the world profiting from it and bullying small creators. There really should be better mechanisms to defend oneself from spurious claims. Im pretty sure this is by design. The big players need to stifle small creators to maintain monopolies, google helps them do this because they benefit in some way.

account42 1mo ago

Most of all, there need to be serious consequences for wanton DMCA abuse. As in lawyers disbarred and the company that hired them having to pay significant fines level.

vorpalhex 1mo ago

One of the issues is that these aren't proper DMCA claims, instead Google/Youtube do a weird pseudo-DMCA thing where they just agree to take down your content and make you argue about it. But the DMCA allows immediate countersuit for false notice with damages. If Google/Youtube actually just forwarded strict DMCA notices and no longer did takedowns once you counter-claimed, you could sue the trolls and collect damages. At that point it's just a free lunch for some bored lawyers willing to publish public domain works, covers, etc that are protected.

tough 1mo ago
One of the loopholes of the counter-claim, is that you accept whatever random jurisdiction of the original claimer as your jurisdiction, pulling you usually into US Sphere. It's a rigged game, its better not to engage with. the specific laws and consequences from ai: > Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), for a DMCA counter-notice to be legally valid, the person filing it must explicitly state in writing that they consent to the jurisdiction of a US Federal District Court. > If you live in the US, you consent to the federal court in your local district. > If you live outside the US, you must consent to the judicial district where the service provider (YouTube/Google) is located—which means the Northern District of California. > For a creator living in Europe, Asia, or South America, filing a counter-notice means signing a document that legally exposes them to a federal copyright lawsuit in California. Even if the creator is 100% in the right (e.g., they used public domain footage or have clear Fair Use), the sheer financial threat of having to hire a US federal defense attorney to fight a lawsuit in California is often enough to make them abandon the dispute.
- vorpalhex 1mo ago
  It isn't necessary that everyone play the game, it only takes one attorney group to create a sufficient hazard to these troll firms. Yes it is absolutely a dumb game and an unfair process, but playing dumb games and using unfair tactics to inflict pain go both ways.
  - kmeisthax 1mo ago
    Yes. However, there are a lot of attorneys who do not want to take on the risk of representing a small client[0] and advise them to just settle - that's why copyright trolling works. In addition, some platforms have their own parallel dispute resolution processes that have to be navigated first before you can make a formal DMCA complaint or counter-complaint. The reason for this is because those platforms have a lot of user piracy, and having their own system to ID and takedown work their users are reuploading makes it easier for them to negotiate their own licenses to the work. These systems are unregulated and often biased in favor of the legacy media companies who are selling them these rights in ways the DMCA process isn't. The average attorney is not an expert platform Kremlinologist, and law schools don't teach how to fight YouTube Content ID - mainly because the things that actually work against Content ID are things that would get you punished harder in a real court of law. Finally, the actual case we're talking about - Luanti - is a lot more involved than typical piracy cases or DMCA abuse cases. They are, after all, trying to make a game engine for Minecraft-like voxel games, and the screenshots they're showing off of those games are not entirely dissimilar to Minecraft. This is not "Luanti is an infringing copy of Minecraft", but "There is enough similarity to survive a motion to dismiss and require an actual trial". At which point the actual cost to defend goes from 4-5 figures to 6-7. [0] The massive payments attorneys get for representation are priced into the cost of education and testing required to become a licensed attorney. As a result, every minute you spend representing someone who can't afford you is time not being spent paying back student loans.

andai 1mo ago

It's funny I've even seen landing pages / product launches that violate this. Trending on HN: Blog post: Sneed now helps with your blargs Then I go to their homepage and it's like https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/3219377-curtains-for-zoosha https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/3219377-curtains-for-zoosha

asphodele 1mo ago
At last! My blargs have been in disarray for ages.
- joquarky 1mo ago
  It sounds like someone hasn't yet invested in a turbo encabulator.

kevin_thibedeau 1mo ago

This isn't DMCA. The DMCA process provides for immediate restoration of contested content upon issuance of a counter notice. At that point the internet service is absolved of any responsibility until a court orders the removal. Google has never implemented that process.

BrenBarn 1mo ago
And that's because the DMCA lets Google exploit its position. It's still a DMCA problem until the DMCA is either repealed or fixed to produce a comprehensively good situation.
- kevin_thibedeau 1mo ago
  Google made an arrangement to keep YouTube afloat. The copyright cartels can't use their automated libel machines if the fraudulently accused have the means to exercise their full rights. That would incur untenable operational expenses when people are permitted a low friction path to nullify the takedowns and then advance to the courts if the libeler wants carry on with their lies. With intentional bias built into the system, Google gets favorable treatment on remuneration for the commercial copyrighted content that they host. The fix is a revision that revokes safe harbor protection when an accused party is disenfranchised by omission of the counter notice process.
rahulyc 1mo ago
Yes, Google is really bad at this. For all the problems with Amazon, they're actually much better at actually following DMCA
- api 1mo ago
  A major problem with closed mobile platforms is that if you have an App Store monopoly, why do you need to care? It's why all the app stores are absolute trash. Not sure how Apple handles DMCA but I know they're known for capricious arbitrary actions and being impossible to talk to. Their search and navigation is also total trash.

trinsic2 1mo ago

> Also, DMCA is a damned mess, with the worst people in the world profiting from it and bullying small creators. There really should be better mechanisms to defend oneself from spurious claims. Im pretty sure this is by design. The big players need to stifle small creators to maintain monopolies, google helps them do this because they benefit in some way.