5 ms·
It'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 co
by dangrossman 14y ago
It'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]