7 ms·

Just read the DCMA notice. Does it really mean anyone can write this sort of message, without any details or proof and you have to oblige to it?

by kombine 14y ago

nwh 14y ago
Pretty much. Google gets hit with so many that there's no way they even read them, let alone verify them. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
dagw 14y ago
Basically. But if someone files a fraudulent or incorrect notice, they open themselves up to having to pay damages and legal fees to the injured party.
- capisce 14y ago
  Only if the injured party can afford expensive and not necessarily open-and-shut legal action.
pyre 14y ago
The basic idea is that for a provider (Github, Google, etc), to keep their Safe Harbour protections, they have to act like a 'dumb pipe' and just obey these notices. Just like how the phone companies trying to keep their Common Carrier status[1]. Even without the DMCA, if the service provider interjects itself into the dispute they risk legal action against themselves. For example, they could evaluate the claims wrong, and get sued to allowing actually infringing material to stay up. It goes like this: 1. DMCA is filed by a person/entity with the service-provider. 2. Service-provider takes down offending content. 3. The person/entity that submitted the offending content now has the option to file a counter-notice with their service provider claiming that they feel/know there is no infringement. If they do file a counter-notice, then we continue on. If they don't file a counter-notice, then the story ends here. 4. The service-provider notifies the person/entity that filed the DMCA notice that a counter-notice was filed. The service-provider can now restore the content, but there is some weird stipulation that they need to wait something like 10 ~ 14 days before doing so. 5. The person/entity that filed the original notice now has to take legal action against the person/entity that they feel has infringed their copyrights if they want anything more to happen. The party that files the DMCA notice stipulates that they believe that their work has been infringed under penalty of perjury. [1] For a long time, people on the Internet believed that 'Common Carrier' provisions applied to ISPs, but it really only applies to phone companies. The Safe Harbour provisions of the DMCA are meant to give something similar for ISPs, though there are different rules.
- AliAdams 14y ago
  Thanks for the full explanation. So are there no repercussions on the filing party unless the defending party seeks legal action? If the system is blind and you have a somewhat decent legal team you could surely hamstring your competition particularly on more subjective cases like this. 15 days can be a big hit (eg taking a site off google around Christmas)
  - emn13 14y ago
    Yeah, that waiting period is pretty ridiculous.
    - dangrossman 14y ago
      Unless the infringement is real, where the harm to the original creator can be just as great. That waiting period gives them time to go to court and get an injunction before a falsely filed counternotice puts the illegal copies back online, potentially ruining a product launch or otherwise devastating their brand/income from the original.
      - emn13 14y ago
        Even if the infrigement is real the waiting period makes no sense. What difference are those 10 days going to make? Not to mention, the risk to the counter-noticer is quite high since they'd be commiting perjury if they filed a false counter notice. It's totally skewed- a false counter notice has a high risk and a false notice a low risk. The damage due to a false counter notice is likely small (it can't disrupt the real owners own usage; it's probably been online quite a while anyhow; and the infriger(s) can find other ways to do so if he really wants to - notice the quick Flat UI resuscitation). But the damage due to a false notice is potentially quite large since it imples complete loss of service (not just someone else getting a few days of free reign), and potentially loss of momentum, and the issue with free speech - which isn't critical, perhaps, but all else being equal I'd prefer we err on the side of open. So given the skewed potential for damage (much greater for a false notice), and the skewed risk to the fraudulent/mistaken party (much smaller for a false notice), it's utterly obvious there should not be such a waiting period.

Just read the DCMA notice. Does it really mean anyone can write this sort of message, without any details or proof and you have to oblige to it?

by kombine 14y ago

Just read the DCMA notice. Does it really mean anyone can write this sort of message, without any details or proof and you have to oblige to it?

nwh 14y ago

Pretty much. Google gets hit with so many that there's no way they even read them, let alone verify them. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

dagw 14y ago

Basically. But if someone files a fraudulent or incorrect notice, they open themselves up to having to pay damages and legal fees to the injured party.

capisce 14y ago
Only if the injured party can afford expensive and not necessarily open-and-shut legal action.

pyre 14y ago

The basic idea is that for a provider (Github, Google, etc), to keep their Safe Harbour protections, they have to act like a 'dumb pipe' and just obey these notices. Just like how the phone companies trying to keep their Common Carrier status[1]. Even without the DMCA, if the service provider interjects itself into the dispute they risk legal action against themselves. For example, they could evaluate the claims wrong, and get sued to allowing actually infringing material to stay up. It goes like this: 1. DMCA is filed by a person/entity with the service-provider. 2. Service-provider takes down offending content. 3. The person/entity that submitted the offending content now has the option to file a counter-notice with their service provider claiming that they feel/know there is no infringement. If they do file a counter-notice, then we continue on. If they don't file a counter-notice, then the story ends here. 4. The service-provider notifies the person/entity that filed the DMCA notice that a counter-notice was filed. The service-provider can now restore the content, but there is some weird stipulation that they need to wait something like 10 ~ 14 days before doing so. 5. The person/entity that filed the original notice now has to take legal action against the person/entity that they feel has infringed their copyrights if they want anything more to happen. The party that files the DMCA notice stipulates that they believe that their work has been infringed under penalty of perjury. [1] For a long time, people on the Internet believed that 'Common Carrier' provisions applied to ISPs, but it really only applies to phone companies. The Safe Harbour provisions of the DMCA are meant to give something similar for ISPs, though there are different rules.

AliAdams 14y ago
Thanks for the full explanation. So are there no repercussions on the filing party unless the defending party seeks legal action? If the system is blind and you have a somewhat decent legal team you could surely hamstring your competition particularly on more subjective cases like this. 15 days can be a big hit (eg taking a site off google around Christmas)
- emn13 14y ago
  Yeah, that waiting period is pretty ridiculous.
  - dangrossman 14y ago
    Unless the infringement is real, where the harm to the original creator can be just as great. That waiting period gives them time to go to court and get an injunction before a falsely filed counternotice puts the illegal copies back online, potentially ruining a product launch or otherwise devastating their brand/income from the original.
    - emn13 14y ago
      Even if the infrigement is real the waiting period makes no sense. What difference are those 10 days going to make? Not to mention, the risk to the counter-noticer is quite high since they'd be commiting perjury if they filed a false counter notice. It's totally skewed- a false counter notice has a high risk and a false notice a low risk. The damage due to a false counter notice is likely small (it can't disrupt the real owners own usage; it's probably been online quite a while anyhow; and the infriger(s) can find other ways to do so if he really wants to - notice the quick Flat UI resuscitation). But the damage due to a false notice is potentially quite large since it imples complete loss of service (not just someone else getting a few days of free reign), and potentially loss of momentum, and the issue with free speech - which isn't critical, perhaps, but all else being equal I'd prefer we err on the side of open. So given the skewed potential for damage (much greater for a false notice), and the skewed risk to the fraudulent/mistaken party (much smaller for a false notice), it's utterly obvious there should not be such a waiting period.