6 ms·

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, ou

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.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Incidentally, NOT putting the content back up would be a violation of the DMCA, which also opens you up to litigation. I don't think the DMCA says anything about having your account canceled for causing problems, however. ("Sorry, we determined that your node was using too much CPU, and have terminated your account." Now the host does not have to deal with your DMCA problems, as they are no longer your host. They can even pull a Comcast and keep the limits unpublished and enforce them arbitrarily as they please. The little guy never wins.)
    - app 17y ago
      Totally true!
  - inpoiun 17y ago
    Isn't that the point though? The host receives a DMCA request and take down the content, they are perfectly safe (safe harbor provision etc) You (the author) come along and say, no it isn't illegal - please put it back up. If they put it back up don't they lose the DMCA safe protection? They are publicly siding with your claim that it's legal. Also there is the practical point that a takedown notice simply means clicking a link on the host's site or emailing an address. Getting it back involves sworn affidavits, visits to lawyers an trying to find a human contact at the hosting company.
    - app 17y ago
      No, the order of operations the OP posted is correct-- restoring content removed by DMCA is the lawful response to counter notifications, specifically to discourage abuse of the DMCA: if the notifying company is serious about the takedown, they have to be willing to sue you, and the evidence has to be there.
eli 17y ago
Wrong! This is a common misconception. According to the DMCA, the host MUST wait at least 10 business days after receiving a counter-notification before they can put the content back online. This is ostensibly to give the complainant a chance to file a lawsuit. In other words, I can knock almost anything off the net for two weeks with a single bogus message. See for yourself in 202(g)(2) http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304... It's true that the linked article didn't go into detail about counter-notification, but it is dead on and I think you're the one who doesn't fully understand the system :)
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  Yes you can knock almost anything offline for a fortnight, however you're also guilty of perjury, which I know here in Canada can put you in jail for up to 15 years enshrined by the constitution. You can be a moron all you want, and anyone who tries it is welcome to a hefty fine or jail time.
  - graywh 17y ago
    Yet, we hear about bogus notices all the time.
    - drusenko 17y ago
      You hear about them, but where's your facts? We're a sizeable host that receives notices on an almost daily basis, and we've yet to receive a single bogus notice. In my opinion, the bogus DMCA notice issue is VERY overblown.
- drusenko 17y ago
  Sorry, but in the article, it mentioned a completely fraudulent complainant. While each host is definitely free to act as they please, if you pointed out that the original complaint was invalid (complainant info incorrect/could not get in touch) along with your counter-notice, we would reactivate your site immediately, as I imagine most reasonable companies would, since the original notice would be invalid. In the case where the complainant was legitimate, then yes, your content would be offline for 10 days. However, the complainant would also be guilty of perjury, which would carry a sentence of 2-4 years in California. So, if you're affected, then go to court and get them locked up. What is often overlooked is that without the DMCA the content host would be liable, so there would be no third party hosting on the Internet. Which pretty much means there would be no Internet as we know it today. Granted, it's not a perfect system, but it's also not the worst thing out there.
mukyu 17y ago
How the process 'should work' is not how it works in practice. A good example is the numerous times that Wikipedia has had to delete an image depicting a trivial symbol that a white nationalist organization uses as their logo.[1][2] Wikimedia has a lawyer on staff and has considerable clout, yet they can be bullied by a small racist group. How well do you think an individual fares against a large media corporation on a host that receives a large number of DMCA requests? I know I personally have read many accounts of musicians having their music removed from myspace and youtube with no recourse. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Crosstar.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Crosstar.png [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Crosstar.png http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&pa...
- drusenko 17y ago
  And how many times has the system worked as intended? Any system is going to have some false positive rate. If the logo/image you mentioned was owned by someone else, then it should be removed. It's not bullying, it's their rights, whether you agree with that or not. And if they don't own it, then at worst the logo should have been offline for 10 days. We don't have enough data to determine of the few false positives we hear make up a decent portion of the total notices sent. From my perspective (I receive notices almost daily), the false positive rate is close to negligible, and the system is working, for the most part, quite well.
  - billswift 17y ago
    >And how many times has the system worked as intended? Any system is going to have some false positive rate. So it's fine by you to fuck over an occasional innocent person to help some mega-corp's profits?
    - drusenko 17y ago
      I'm supporting a system that protects copyrights and that seems to work well, for the most part. It's not perfect, but better than not having it, in my opinion. Sounds like your issue is not with the DMCA, but with copyrights in general, which is entirely a different argument to be having.

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.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Incidentally, NOT putting the content back up would be a violation of the DMCA, which also opens you up to litigation. I don't think the DMCA says anything about having your account canceled for causing problems, however. ("Sorry, we determined that your node was using too much CPU, and have terminated your account." Now the host does not have to deal with your DMCA problems, as they are no longer your host. They can even pull a Comcast and keep the limits unpublished and enforce them arbitrarily as they please. The little guy never wins.)
  - app 17y ago
    Totally true!
- inpoiun 17y ago
  Isn't that the point though? The host receives a DMCA request and take down the content, they are perfectly safe (safe harbor provision etc) You (the author) come along and say, no it isn't illegal - please put it back up. If they put it back up don't they lose the DMCA safe protection? They are publicly siding with your claim that it's legal. Also there is the practical point that a takedown notice simply means clicking a link on the host's site or emailing an address. Getting it back involves sworn affidavits, visits to lawyers an trying to find a human contact at the hosting company.
  - app 17y ago
    No, the order of operations the OP posted is correct-- restoring content removed by DMCA is the lawful response to counter notifications, specifically to discourage abuse of the DMCA: if the notifying company is serious about the takedown, they have to be willing to sue you, and the evidence has to be there.

eli 17y ago

Wrong! This is a common misconception. According to the DMCA, the host MUST wait at least 10 business days after receiving a counter-notification before they can put the content back online. This is ostensibly to give the complainant a chance to file a lawsuit. In other words, I can knock almost anything off the net for two weeks with a single bogus message. See for yourself in 202(g)(2) http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304... It's true that the linked article didn't go into detail about counter-notification, but it is dead on and I think you're the one who doesn't fully understand the system :)

electromagnetic 17y ago
Yes you can knock almost anything offline for a fortnight, however you're also guilty of perjury, which I know here in Canada can put you in jail for up to 15 years enshrined by the constitution. You can be a moron all you want, and anyone who tries it is welcome to a hefty fine or jail time.
- graywh 17y ago
  Yet, we hear about bogus notices all the time.
  - drusenko 17y ago
    You hear about them, but where's your facts? We're a sizeable host that receives notices on an almost daily basis, and we've yet to receive a single bogus notice. In my opinion, the bogus DMCA notice issue is VERY overblown.
drusenko 17y ago
Sorry, but in the article, it mentioned a completely fraudulent complainant. While each host is definitely free to act as they please, if you pointed out that the original complaint was invalid (complainant info incorrect/could not get in touch) along with your counter-notice, we would reactivate your site immediately, as I imagine most reasonable companies would, since the original notice would be invalid. In the case where the complainant was legitimate, then yes, your content would be offline for 10 days. However, the complainant would also be guilty of perjury, which would carry a sentence of 2-4 years in California. So, if you're affected, then go to court and get them locked up. What is often overlooked is that without the DMCA the content host would be liable, so there would be no third party hosting on the Internet. Which pretty much means there would be no Internet as we know it today. Granted, it's not a perfect system, but it's also not the worst thing out there.

mukyu 17y ago

How the process 'should work' is not how it works in practice. A good example is the numerous times that Wikipedia has had to delete an image depicting a trivial symbol that a white nationalist organization uses as their logo.[1][2] Wikimedia has a lawyer on staff and has considerable clout, yet they can be bullied by a small racist group. How well do you think an individual fares against a large media corporation on a host that receives a large number of DMCA requests? I know I personally have read many accounts of musicians having their music removed from myspace and youtube with no recourse. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Crosstar.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Crosstar.png [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Crosstar.png http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&pa...

drusenko 17y ago
And how many times has the system worked as intended? Any system is going to have some false positive rate. If the logo/image you mentioned was owned by someone else, then it should be removed. It's not bullying, it's their rights, whether you agree with that or not. And if they don't own it, then at worst the logo should have been offline for 10 days. We don't have enough data to determine of the few false positives we hear make up a decent portion of the total notices sent. From my perspective (I receive notices almost daily), the false positive rate is close to negligible, and the system is working, for the most part, quite well.
- billswift 17y ago
  >And how many times has the system worked as intended? Any system is going to have some false positive rate. So it's fine by you to fuck over an occasional innocent person to help some mega-corp's profits?
  - drusenko 17y ago
    I'm supporting a system that protects copyrights and that seems to work well, for the most part. It's not perfect, but better than not having it, in my opinion. Sounds like your issue is not with the DMCA, but with copyrights in general, which is entirely a different argument to be having.