4 ms·

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 someon

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.