6 ms·

The DMCA takedown problem

14 points by blasdel 17y ago

jurjenh 17y ago
Is the DMCA geared up for a "guerilla war" - ie can a bunch of motivated people target (for example) government sites and send them a string of take-down notices? Other than the traditional one-rule-for-the-masses, but government is above-the-rules, is there any good reason this would not work? Common sense seems to dictate copyright ownership would need to be verified, but obviously this seems to be unnecessary for DMCA...
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Well, the government generally uses its own servers, I think, and not hosted servers. So they'd be getting and responding to the complaints directly, and they've got all the lawyers they need, thanks to our tax dollars. Plus, it just might backfire by destroying what little government transparency we've got through the web. It would be more interesting -- and directly painful -- to do this to political candidates' campaign sites. But of course, doing so would be fraudulent, and we'd like to take the high road.
- drusenko 17y ago
  Besides the fact that whoever sent out the DMCA notices would go to jail for 2-4 years (perjury sentence in the state of california), this probably wouldn't work because the owner of the allegedly infringing content (the person who received the notice) can just "instantly" file a counter-notice with themselves, or just not file the counter notice at all (probably don't need to send it to yourself if you're the owner, though I'm not positive on that one). Then they can go after the sender, and lock them up for a while.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    4 years in prison in a bankrupt state for sending a letter claiming copyright infringement? Yeah right. The Unabomber sent bombs through the mail for years without being caught. If someone can do that, it should be trivial to send email to hosting companies without going to jail. Have you ever jaywalked? If so, you'll realize that not every law is enforceable.
    - drusenko 17y ago
      This email happens to include your full name, address, and other contact information. And it also certifies under penalty of perjury that you are telling the truth. If you don't believe that you can go to jail for 2-4 years in CA for committing perjury, google it. I'm not bullshitting you. Perjury is a serious offense. Clinton was impeached for it.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        You don't put your real contact information on fake letters you send.
        drusenko 17y ago
        Then the original DMCA notice (with fake contact information) is invalid and doesn't need to be followed.
        jrockway 17y ago
        The sender knows it's invalid. How does the recipient know?
        drusenko 17y ago
        In this hypothetical scenario, the person affected could take a few minutes to verify the information, and then report back to the host that the contact information is invalid.
        jrockway 17y ago
        But obviously you would just use the address of some large corporation, which will not be able to determine if it sent the legal notice quickly.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
drusenko 17y ago
Sorry, but your article is completely wrong, and your site doesn't allow comments, so I'll have to post here. The DMCA works very well for copyright owners, our users, and us as a web host. Here's how the process should work for an abusive DMCA request: 1- DMCA request (seemingly legitimate) is received, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the sender is the copyright owner. 2- Host contacts the site owner/removes the content. 3- Site owner is the legitimate owner of the content, so files a DMCA counter-notification with the host, with a statement under penalty of perjury that they are the copyright owner. 4- Host immediately brings disputed content back online. One of the parties is guilty of perjury, and they are both free to duke it out in court to have the content removed. Content can and will remain online until a court orders it removed. Web host has no liability for content remaining online (even if the counter-notification was bullshit), and the matter is presented and judged where it should be for such a dispute: in court. If you believe that someone filed a bogus DMCA notice against your content, immediately file a counter-notice and your content should be immediately (or shortly, if not automated) back online. Then, you can sue the person who filed the complaint, and they will have quite a bit of responsibility and liability. Sounds like the real fault in the process is that no-one understands it and that the system doesn't make itself accessible to the average lay-person. Maybe what we really need is a site that explains everything more clearly and makes filing a notice/counter-notice much simpler.
- inpoiun 17y ago
  > immediately file a counter-notice and your content should be immediately... No, because by putting your content back up the host is opening themselves to liability if it turns out you are wrong. Nobody is going to do that >sue the person who filed the complaint The person who filed the complaint is a mailinator address, or in Russia/Iran/Cuba or works for a corporation with more lawyers than you .
  - app 17y ago
    "No, because by putting your content back up the host is opening themselves to liability if it turns out you are wrong. Nobody is going to do that" No, the point of DMCA is the provider is agnostic to who owns the content. Its the making a decision on who owns the copyright that opens them up to litigation, because they would lose safe harbor protection. Incidentally, NOT putting the content back up would be a violation of the DMCA, which also opens you up to litigation. "The person who filed the complaint is a mailinator address, or in Russia/Iran/Cuba or works for a corporation with more lawyers than you." So they're either a 1) liar, in which case your content is back online and you're back where you started or 2) a big corp who can threaten to get their way? Welcome to the fundamental problem with the DMCA: it can be abused.

14 points by blasdel 17y ago

Is the DMCA geared up for a "guerilla war" - ie can a bunch of motivated people target (for example) government sites and send them a string of take-down notices? Other than the traditional one-rule-for-the-masses, but government is above-the-rules, is there any good reason this would not work? Common sense seems to dictate copyright ownership would need to be verified, but obviously this seems to be unnecessary for DMCA...

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Well, the government generally uses its own servers, I think, and not hosted servers. So they'd be getting and responding to the complaints directly, and they've got all the lawyers they need, thanks to our tax dollars. Plus, it just might backfire by destroying what little government transparency we've got through the web. It would be more interesting -- and directly painful -- to do this to political candidates' campaign sites. But of course, doing so would be fraudulent, and we'd like to take the high road.
drusenko 17y ago
Besides the fact that whoever sent out the DMCA notices would go to jail for 2-4 years (perjury sentence in the state of california), this probably wouldn't work because the owner of the allegedly infringing content (the person who received the notice) can just "instantly" file a counter-notice with themselves, or just not file the counter notice at all (probably don't need to send it to yourself if you're the owner, though I'm not positive on that one). Then they can go after the sender, and lock them up for a while.
- jrockway 17y ago
  4 years in prison in a bankrupt state for sending a letter claiming copyright infringement? Yeah right. The Unabomber sent bombs through the mail for years without being caught. If someone can do that, it should be trivial to send email to hosting companies without going to jail. Have you ever jaywalked? If so, you'll realize that not every law is enforceable.
  - drusenko 17y ago
    This email happens to include your full name, address, and other contact information. And it also certifies under penalty of perjury that you are telling the truth. If you don't believe that you can go to jail for 2-4 years in CA for committing perjury, google it. I'm not bullshitting you. Perjury is a serious offense. Clinton was impeached for it.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      You don't put your real contact information on fake letters you send.
      - drusenko 17y ago
        Then the original DMCA notice (with fake contact information) is invalid and doesn't need to be followed.
        jrockway 17y ago
        The sender knows it's invalid. How does the recipient know?
        drusenko 17y ago
        In this hypothetical scenario, the person affected could take a few minutes to verify the information, and then report back to the host that the contact information is invalid.
        jrockway 17y ago
        But obviously you would just use the address of some large corporation, which will not be able to determine if it sent the legal notice quickly.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]

drusenko 17y ago

Sorry, but your article is completely wrong, and your site doesn't allow comments, so I'll have to post here. The DMCA works very well for copyright owners, our users, and us as a web host. Here's how the process should work for an abusive DMCA request: 1- DMCA request (seemingly legitimate) is received, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the sender is the copyright owner. 2- Host contacts the site owner/removes the content. 3- Site owner is the legitimate owner of the content, so files a DMCA counter-notification with the host, with a statement under penalty of perjury that they are the copyright owner. 4- Host immediately brings disputed content back online. One of the parties is guilty of perjury, and they are both free to duke it out in court to have the content removed. Content can and will remain online until a court orders it removed. Web host has no liability for content remaining online (even if the counter-notification was bullshit), and the matter is presented and judged where it should be for such a dispute: in court. If you believe that someone filed a bogus DMCA notice against your content, immediately file a counter-notice and your content should be immediately (or shortly, if not automated) back online. Then, you can sue the person who filed the complaint, and they will have quite a bit of responsibility and liability. Sounds like the real fault in the process is that no-one understands it and that the system doesn't make itself accessible to the average lay-person. Maybe what we really need is a site that explains everything more clearly and makes filing a notice/counter-notice much simpler.

inpoiun 17y ago
> immediately file a counter-notice and your content should be immediately... No, because by putting your content back up the host is opening themselves to liability if it turns out you are wrong. Nobody is going to do that >sue the person who filed the complaint The person who filed the complaint is a mailinator address, or in Russia/Iran/Cuba or works for a corporation with more lawyers than you .
- app 17y ago
  "No, because by putting your content back up the host is opening themselves to liability if it turns out you are wrong. Nobody is going to do that" No, the point of DMCA is the provider is agnostic to who owns the content. Its the making a decision on who owns the copyright that opens them up to litigation, because they would lose safe harbor protection. Incidentally, NOT putting the content back up would be a violation of the DMCA, which also opens you up to litigation. "The person who filed the complaint is a mailinator address, or in Russia/Iran/Cuba or works for a corporation with more lawyers than you." So they're either a 1) liar, in which case your content is back online and you're back where you started or 2) a big corp who can threaten to get their way? Welcome to the fundamental problem with the DMCA: it can be abused.