4 ms·

No, the article says that only a few lawsuits have resulted in damages per section 512(f) of the DMCA [1] (which places a penalty on knowingly misrepresenting a

by kbuck 13y ago

No, the article says that only a few lawsuits have resulted in damages per section 512(f) of the DMCA [1] (which places a penalty on knowingly misrepresenting a work when filing a DMCA notice against it, if I am reading correctly). It sounds like they're able to sue under 512(f) in this case because Liberation Music pressed the issue even after they had been notified that the use was fair use. I am not a lawyer, though. [1] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512

Fuxy 13y ago
So does that mean that in order to keep our work up we need to challenge every take down and invest thousands of dollars fighting it? That is what is broken in the DMCA. Guilty until proven innocent and you the content creator (that uses some copyrighted material) have to pay for every bullshit take down notice you get. This is what big companies are counting on, that you are not willing to invest the time and effort needed to challenge them. And given that they have vastly more resources they will be better prepared to fight you that you are to fight them. This is not justice this is survival of the richest.
- mikeash 13y ago
  In order to keep your work up, all you have to do is tell your provider that the takedown notice is incorrect, and they'll restore your content. I believe there's a mandated delay (10 days?) before they can do it, so it's still pretty bad, but you don't have to sue. You can sue for damages if you think they sent the takedown maliciously, but it's not required just to restore the content.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Which means unlimited free 10-day takedowns. They can throw them out on a whim at anything that even matches keywords, because there's no penalty for negligence, only direct maliciousness. It's not hugely expensive to fight plain takedowns, but it's still a burden that shouldn't exist, and having your content down is a cost you'll never recover.

by kbuck 13y ago

Fuxy 13y ago

So does that mean that in order to keep our work up we need to challenge every take down and invest thousands of dollars fighting it? That is what is broken in the DMCA. Guilty until proven innocent and you the content creator (that uses some copyrighted material) have to pay for every bullshit take down notice you get. This is what big companies are counting on, that you are not willing to invest the time and effort needed to challenge them. And given that they have vastly more resources they will be better prepared to fight you that you are to fight them. This is not justice this is survival of the richest.

mikeash 13y ago
In order to keep your work up, all you have to do is tell your provider that the takedown notice is incorrect, and they'll restore your content. I believe there's a mandated delay (10 days?) before they can do it, so it's still pretty bad, but you don't have to sue. You can sue for damages if you think they sent the takedown maliciously, but it's not required just to restore the content.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Which means unlimited free 10-day takedowns. They can throw them out on a whim at anything that even matches keywords, because there's no penalty for negligence, only direct maliciousness. It's not hugely expensive to fight plain takedowns, but it's still a burden that shouldn't exist, and having your content down is a cost you'll never recover.