5 ms·

I had a DMCA takedown notice sent to me on behalf of a website owner who didn't want me linking to their site. How does that even work? How does the DMCA appl

I had a DMCA takedown notice sent to me on behalf of a website owner who didn't want me linking to their site. How does that even work? How does the DMCA apply such that I can invoke it to tell you to stop linking to my site? I'm guessing it doesn't, but if you're at the mercy of a hosting service that doesn't actually understand the DMCA you're in a jam.

notatoad 12y ago
The way the DMCA works ISPs or any other service hosting third-party content must comply with every takedown notice immediately, regardless of it's legitimacy, if they want to continue to enjoy the protections of the DMCA. (meaning, unless they want to accept liability for the copyright of every piece of content on their servers). So yes, it absolutely does work that way: you can send a takedown notice to anybody for any reason and they must comply with it. The logic is that DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury, and people aren't going to risk perjuring themselves just to improve their SEO or take down a blog post they don't like. Unfortunately, the courts seem willing to accept excuses like "the automated process i use to send out DMCA takedown notices got a little overzealous" as legitimate, so DMCA takedowns are now pretty much just a free-for-all for anybody who wants anything taken down.
- Myrth 12y ago
  Someone needs to send a couple of millions DMCA takedown requests from random sources to random targets, to make this problem visible.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Hurting innocents in the pursuit of political reform isn't the way to go.
    - J_Darnley 12y ago
      Several places in the world have shown that to be effective. And that would be real physical harm.
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        When has terrorism been an effective way to invoke change in a democratic society?
        crgt 12y ago
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
        sillysaurus3 12y ago
        Colonists objected to the Tea Act because they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to "No taxation without representation," that is, be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented. Again, and in hopes of a more substantive reply: when has hurting innocents been an effective way to get what you want in a society with political representation for its citizens?
        Myrth 12y ago
        Ok, how about not fully random sources and targets, but ones that somehow involved in DMCA lobbying and enforcement. That would remove the "innocent" from equation.
        J_Darnley 12y ago
        The IRA has members in parliaments now. Negotiations with the Taliban have changed their method from arms to words. I could probably find a few more by spending a little time researching.
    - Myrth 12y ago
      The sending itself wouldn't be hurting anyone. The responding parties would have to make a decision to hurt innocents or not, and maybe actually forced to do some due diligence, that is expected of them. And maybe voice out that current requirements make this hard or impossible for them.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      The hurt was imposed by the law. Utilizing the law to its letter and to impose the fundamental flaw in it is simply making that hurt visible.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The way the DMCA works ISPs or any other service hosting third-party content must comply with every takedown notice immediately, regardless of it's legitimacy, if they want to continue to enjoy the protections of the DMCA. AFAICT from actually reading the act, they only have to comply with notices meeting the facial requirements, and failing to do so only exposes them to liability for the content covered by the particular notice for which they failed, and only where they would have had liability without the DMCA safe harbor provisions. I'd like to see any analysis supporting the characterization you make here.
duskwuff 12y ago
It doesn't apply. A DMCA request must identify a copyrighted work that is being infringed. If your host is forwarding on these takedown requests, they're not doing their job properly.

notatoad 12y ago

The way the DMCA works ISPs or any other service hosting third-party content must comply with every takedown notice immediately, regardless of it's legitimacy, if they want to continue to enjoy the protections of the DMCA. (meaning, unless they want to accept liability for the copyright of every piece of content on their servers). So yes, it absolutely does work that way: you can send a takedown notice to anybody for any reason and they must comply with it. The logic is that DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury, and people aren't going to risk perjuring themselves just to improve their SEO or take down a blog post they don't like. Unfortunately, the courts seem willing to accept excuses like "the automated process i use to send out DMCA takedown notices got a little overzealous" as legitimate, so DMCA takedowns are now pretty much just a free-for-all for anybody who wants anything taken down.

Myrth 12y ago
Someone needs to send a couple of millions DMCA takedown requests from random sources to random targets, to make this problem visible.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Hurting innocents in the pursuit of political reform isn't the way to go.
  - J_Darnley 12y ago
    Several places in the world have shown that to be effective. And that would be real physical harm.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      When has terrorism been an effective way to invoke change in a democratic society?
      - crgt 12y ago
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
        sillysaurus3 12y ago
        Colonists objected to the Tea Act because they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to "No taxation without representation," that is, be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented. Again, and in hopes of a more substantive reply: when has hurting innocents been an effective way to get what you want in a society with political representation for its citizens?
        Myrth 12y ago
        Ok, how about not fully random sources and targets, but ones that somehow involved in DMCA lobbying and enforcement. That would remove the "innocent" from equation.
      - J_Darnley 12y ago
        The IRA has members in parliaments now. Negotiations with the Taliban have changed their method from arms to words. I could probably find a few more by spending a little time researching.
  - Myrth 12y ago
    The sending itself wouldn't be hurting anyone. The responding parties would have to make a decision to hurt innocents or not, and maybe actually forced to do some due diligence, that is expected of them. And maybe voice out that current requirements make this hard or impossible for them.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    The hurt was imposed by the law. Utilizing the law to its letter and to impose the fundamental flaw in it is simply making that hurt visible.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> The way the DMCA works ISPs or any other service hosting third-party content must comply with every takedown notice immediately, regardless of it's legitimacy, if they want to continue to enjoy the protections of the DMCA. AFAICT from actually reading the act, they only have to comply with notices meeting the facial requirements, and failing to do so only exposes them to liability for the content covered by the particular notice for which they failed, and only where they would have had liability without the DMCA safe harbor provisions. I'd like to see any analysis supporting the characterization you make here.

duskwuff 12y ago

It doesn't apply. A DMCA request must identify a copyrighted work that is being infringed. If your host is forwarding on these takedown requests, they're not doing their job properly.