5 ms·

Nice, but the DMCA needs more reform than that. There is a severe imbalance in the fact that parties who feel that they have been infringed can serve financiall

Nice, but the DMCA needs more reform than that. There is a severe imbalance in the fact that parties who feel that they have been infringed can serve financially disastrous take-downs that must be complied with immediately. The only recourse for served parties is a long expensive legal process. Something needs to be done to bring this into balance.

sinak 14y ago
Aware of this, but one battle at a time. Right now there's momentum towards getting anti-circumvention fixed because of the WH petition, we want to broaden the scope somewhat, but not unrealistically.
sneak 14y ago
> Nice, but the DMCA needs more reform than that. There is a severe imbalance in the fact that parties who feel that they have been infringed can serve financially disastrous take-downs that must be complied with immediately. The only recourse for served parties is a long expensive legal process. This is demonstrably false. The first line of recourse is counter-notification, which reinstates the content.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >The first line of recourse is counter-notification, which reinstates the content. Sec. 512(g)(2)(B): "upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days" What can the victim of the fraudulent takedown do for those 10 days? Maybe go to court (I have no idea), but if so that certainly sounds like "long expensive legal process" to me, and if not then it's even worse because there is just no recourse at all.
  - wmf 14y ago
    I think most providers process counter-notices faster than 10 days. Also keep in mind that before the DMCA you'd have received a lawsuit instead of a takedown in the first place.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >Also keep in mind that before the DMCA you'd have received a lawsuit instead of a takedown in the first place. I kind of doubt it. Filing a fraudulent lawsuit requires finding a lawyer who is willing to risk getting disbarred and putting yourself in front of a judge with the power to impose serious punishments for misbehavior. Filing a fraudulent takedown notice can be done by any jackass with an internet connection and you only get punished if the victim has the knowledge, will and finances required to hire a lawyer and go after you.
      - 542458 14y ago
        > Filing a fraudulent lawsuit Who says that they'd all be fraudulent? I'd bet that there are more valid DMCA requests submitted than invalid. Sites like youTube would be buried in lawsuits.
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >Who says that they'd all be fraudulent? The fact that the user in question by stipulation hasn't posted any infringing material. We're not talking about the effect on intermediaries. Obviously if there were no safe harbor at all then the intermediaries would immediately cease to exist and the internet as we know it would disappear, probably to be replaced by something resembling The Pirate Bay.
        devcpp 14y ago
        Oh, that's good. Why do we have lawsuits in general then? I'd bet more guilty people are prosecuted than innocents. Let's make the economy of the judge's salary and assume everyone is guilty.
HNLogInShit 14y ago
This proposal is missing a critical component: circumvention to allow playback of legally purchased media on any device we choose. There's no excuse for denying people the ability to copy a DVD or Blu-Ray's contents to an iPad, home server, or whatever.

sinak 14y ago

Aware of this, but one battle at a time. Right now there's momentum towards getting anti-circumvention fixed because of the WH petition, we want to broaden the scope somewhat, but not unrealistically.

sneak 14y ago

> Nice, but the DMCA needs more reform than that. There is a severe imbalance in the fact that parties who feel that they have been infringed can serve financially disastrous take-downs that must be complied with immediately. The only recourse for served parties is a long expensive legal process. This is demonstrably false. The first line of recourse is counter-notification, which reinstates the content.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>The first line of recourse is counter-notification, which reinstates the content. Sec. 512(g)(2)(B): "upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days" What can the victim of the fraudulent takedown do for those 10 days? Maybe go to court (I have no idea), but if so that certainly sounds like "long expensive legal process" to me, and if not then it's even worse because there is just no recourse at all.
- wmf 14y ago
  I think most providers process counter-notices faster than 10 days. Also keep in mind that before the DMCA you'd have received a lawsuit instead of a takedown in the first place.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >Also keep in mind that before the DMCA you'd have received a lawsuit instead of a takedown in the first place. I kind of doubt it. Filing a fraudulent lawsuit requires finding a lawyer who is willing to risk getting disbarred and putting yourself in front of a judge with the power to impose serious punishments for misbehavior. Filing a fraudulent takedown notice can be done by any jackass with an internet connection and you only get punished if the victim has the knowledge, will and finances required to hire a lawyer and go after you.
    - 542458 14y ago
      > Filing a fraudulent lawsuit Who says that they'd all be fraudulent? I'd bet that there are more valid DMCA requests submitted than invalid. Sites like youTube would be buried in lawsuits.
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >Who says that they'd all be fraudulent? The fact that the user in question by stipulation hasn't posted any infringing material. We're not talking about the effect on intermediaries. Obviously if there were no safe harbor at all then the intermediaries would immediately cease to exist and the internet as we know it would disappear, probably to be replaced by something resembling The Pirate Bay.
      - devcpp 14y ago
        Oh, that's good. Why do we have lawsuits in general then? I'd bet more guilty people are prosecuted than innocents. Let's make the economy of the judge's salary and assume everyone is guilty.

HNLogInShit 14y ago

This proposal is missing a critical component: circumvention to allow playback of legally purchased media on any device we choose. There's no excuse for denying people the ability to copy a DVD or Blu-Ray's contents to an iPad, home server, or whatever.