3 ms·

> Issuing a take-down notice for content you do not own should result in large fines It effectively does. The DMCA makes damages, costs and attorneys fees mand

> Issuing a take-down notice for content you do not own should result in large fines It effectively does. The DMCA makes damages, costs and attorneys fees mandatory for material misrepresentations. Doctorow can sue at no cost to himself, while Fox would be out a significant amount of money in two sets of attorneys fees plus whatever damages Doctorow can show this caused to his sales.

haspoken 14y ago
It's not at no cost. Cory would need to invest the time and money up front for cost of the lawsuit and then make recovery after he won. He may, given his connections, be able to get assistance from organizations to assist with the financial side, but he would still need to invest the time. Fox likely just has lawyers on staff and would not really be paying attorney fees, just their usual wages. This is the downfall of the legal system, you need hefty resources to pursue justice. This seem to be a major reason that there is no practical penalty for false notices the majority of the time.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Proving material misrepresentation is an exceedingly costly affair. So most people will ask, which hurts worse, the takedown or the courtroom.
kumarm 14y ago
Once our content was taken down because of DMCA from Poland (With just a gmail address). We got our content back online with counter following procedures with google after 15 days. (That is the time required after counter for the DMCA complainer to respond back). How can we expect to sue some on in Poland with just a email address and no idea who the real person is and what they are worth? DMCA is an American law that only hurts people who live in US. It is very easy to abuse DMCA and trouble people in US if you live outside the country.
- manys 14y ago
  They're supposed to put your content back up once they receive the counter notice. Your provider screwed you.
  - dangrossman 14y ago
    He said it was put back online after 15 days. That's how it's supposed to work. There is a gap between the content being taken down and going back up to allow time for a copyright holder to go to court and get an injunction.
    - narag 14y ago
      It would be nice if Google would let submitters to provide (and honor) a OnDMCANotice event handler, so the counter-notice gets sent inmediately, maybe documented with a reference to IP registration.
- drdaeman 14y ago
  I'm not a laywer, nor I know US laws, but mustn't DMCA takedown notice include full contact details on entity who owns a copyrighted materials and, thus, sent the notice? I'm not sure, but I suspect, without those, the notice is legally void and provider should just drop it as junk mail.

haspoken 14y ago

It's not at no cost. Cory would need to invest the time and money up front for cost of the lawsuit and then make recovery after he won. He may, given his connections, be able to get assistance from organizations to assist with the financial side, but he would still need to invest the time. Fox likely just has lawyers on staff and would not really be paying attorney fees, just their usual wages. This is the downfall of the legal system, you need hefty resources to pursue justice. This seem to be a major reason that there is no practical penalty for false notices the majority of the time.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

Proving material misrepresentation is an exceedingly costly affair. So most people will ask, which hurts worse, the takedown or the courtroom.

kumarm 14y ago

Once our content was taken down because of DMCA from Poland (With just a gmail address). We got our content back online with counter following procedures with google after 15 days. (That is the time required after counter for the DMCA complainer to respond back). How can we expect to sue some on in Poland with just a email address and no idea who the real person is and what they are worth? DMCA is an American law that only hurts people who live in US. It is very easy to abuse DMCA and trouble people in US if you live outside the country.

manys 14y ago
They're supposed to put your content back up once they receive the counter notice. Your provider screwed you.
- dangrossman 14y ago
  He said it was put back online after 15 days. That's how it's supposed to work. There is a gap between the content being taken down and going back up to allow time for a copyright holder to go to court and get an injunction.
  - narag 14y ago
    It would be nice if Google would let submitters to provide (and honor) a OnDMCANotice event handler, so the counter-notice gets sent inmediately, maybe documented with a reference to IP registration.
drdaeman 14y ago
I'm not a laywer, nor I know US laws, but mustn't DMCA takedown notice include full contact details on entity who owns a copyrighted materials and, thus, sent the notice? I'm not sure, but I suspect, without those, the notice is legally void and provider should just drop it as junk mail.