4 ms·
"To get content removed, copyright holder Bob need only claim a good-faith belief that neither he nor the law has authorized the use. Bob is not subject to pena
by drucken 14y ago
"To get content removed, copyright holder Bob need only claim a good-faith belief that neither he nor the law has authorized the use. Bob is not subject to penalties for perjury. In contrast, to get access to content re-enabled, Alice must claim a good faith belief under penalty of perjury that the material was mistakenly taken down. This allows for copyright holders to send out take-down notices without incurring much liability; to get the sites back up, the recipients might need to expend considerably more resources. Section 510(f) makes the sender of an invalid claim liable for the damages resulting from the content’s improper removal, including legal fees, but that remedy is not always practical.
Furthermore, ISP’s tend to remove allegedly offending material immediately, while there is a 10-14 day delay before the ISP re-enables access in response to a counter-notice. For example, if a website advertised an upcoming labor protest outside BlameCo, BlameCo could send a DMCA notice to the site's ISP alleging copyright infringement of their name or logo a week before the protest. The site would then be disabled; even if the site's owners immediately filed a counter-notice, access would not be re-enabled until after the protest, too late to be useful." [1]
The behavior described above is consistent with many ISPs, Google and Youtube, for example. In fact, with Youtube's stated policy [2] it is not even clear that without consent from the original "copyright holder" that they will restore content (though from DMCA terms alone they are theoretically legally obliged). Wordpress's stated policy [3] is more direct but no less frustrating for victims of malicious takedown notices.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Ineffective_Counter-Notice_Procedure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L...
[2]: http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/counter-notification.html http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/counter-notification.htm...
[3]: http://en.support.wordpress.com/content-theft-what-to-do/ http://en.support.wordpress.com/content-theft-what-to-do/
- dangrossman 14y agoIt's a trade-off. There's potential harm to the victim of a false claim, but there's also potential harm to the victim of a true claim in the case of a false counternotice. If the infringement is legitimate, then the law wants there to be ample time for the victim to go to court to get an injunction so further harm isn't done. It allows those ~10-14 days for that to happen -- after which the material has to be put back online for the service provider to retain the safe harbor benefits.
- jeremyjh 14y agoIt isn't a trade off at all. It is legislation that favors the interests of those who purchased the legislation.
- dangrossman 14y agoThe safe harbor provision of the DMCA exists entirely to take away power from copyright holders. It creates an entire class of businesses (internet service providers) who can't be sued for infringing copyrights if they follow certain rules. It makes copyright holders that abuse the provision pay both damages and legal fees of the victim. It enables the legal existence of sites like YouTube despite rampant copyright infringement. Meanwhile, other provisions of the same act directly benefit copyright holders: prohibiting breaking of anti-circumvention measures, for example. This gives DRM its legal teeth beyond simple breach of contract. How does this fit into your conspiracy theory? There isn't one single group that this act represents the interests of.
- jeremyjh 14y agoIt isn't a conspiracy theory to say that media interests did the lobbying for DMCA. I cannot even find a reference to an ISP lobby that promoted it. Was there one?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]