5 ms·

>It's abused to take down content that's not in violation of copyright That's a problem with DMCA in that it's applicable in an immediate and unilateral manner

by Daedren 25d ago

>It's abused to take down content that's not in violation of copyright That's a problem with DMCA in that it's applicable in an immediate and unilateral manner and any decision to resist comes after the takedown. DMCA is the problem in this context, not "copyright" itself.

Ekaros 25d ago
The real problem is that misuse is not followed by ruinously high penalty. False claims should result in statutory damages of tens thousands per claim. That is the way to prevent misuse.
- purpleidea 25d ago
  My personal website: https://purpleidea.com/ https://purpleidea.com/ has been DMCA'ed by some scammer and I still haven't gotten it back out. Google ignores the counter notices, and who knows where else the scammer (masquerading as a legitimate takedown company) has sent notices. Bing and DDG (same basically) have all delisted it.
- PaulKeeble 25d ago
  A lot of the problem with DMCA is how its been implemented by companies. There is a provision in the original law making it a crime to make false claims, but organisations like Youtube don't bother to make it even possible to counter claim in that way and trigger that side of the law. Everyone seems to have forgotten it was even part of it, I have never seen it enforced.
  - jeroenhd 25d ago
    > don't bother to make it even possible to counter claim in that way and trigger that side of the law It's not their responsibility. For that part of the law, you need to get your lawyer involved. And your lawyer will probably tell you not to waste your money, because the way the DMCA was written makes it practically impossible to find enough proof to actually win. I don't think the "internet is a series of pipes" politicians could've foreseen Youtube or TikTok, but had I believed that the authors of early internet legislation had that foresight, I would've accused the law of being intentionally written to lead to these implementations.
  - m4rtink 25d ago
    Then it is a bad law if you can just implement half or it & still be compliant. It should have penalties for doing that.
tyffanypastecf 25d ago
[flagged]

by Daedren 25d ago

Ekaros 25d ago

The real problem is that misuse is not followed by ruinously high penalty. False claims should result in statutory damages of tens thousands per claim. That is the way to prevent misuse.

purpleidea 25d ago
My personal website: https://purpleidea.com/ https://purpleidea.com/ has been DMCA'ed by some scammer and I still haven't gotten it back out. Google ignores the counter notices, and who knows where else the scammer (masquerading as a legitimate takedown company) has sent notices. Bing and DDG (same basically) have all delisted it.
PaulKeeble 25d ago
A lot of the problem with DMCA is how its been implemented by companies. There is a provision in the original law making it a crime to make false claims, but organisations like Youtube don't bother to make it even possible to counter claim in that way and trigger that side of the law. Everyone seems to have forgotten it was even part of it, I have never seen it enforced.
- jeroenhd 25d ago
  > don't bother to make it even possible to counter claim in that way and trigger that side of the law It's not their responsibility. For that part of the law, you need to get your lawyer involved. And your lawyer will probably tell you not to waste your money, because the way the DMCA was written makes it practically impossible to find enough proof to actually win. I don't think the "internet is a series of pipes" politicians could've foreseen Youtube or TikTok, but had I believed that the authors of early internet legislation had that foresight, I would've accused the law of being intentionally written to lead to these implementations.
- m4rtink 25d ago
  Then it is a bad law if you can just implement half or it & still be compliant. It should have penalties for doing that.

tyffanypastecf 25d ago

[flagged]