ikeboy

40 ms·

391.
by ikeboy 6y ago
You already need to pay costs for false notices under 512(f). It's just hard to enforce.
392.
by ikeboy 6y ago
One of two things must be true. Either this legal affirmation is simple enough to get that it doesn't actually reduce infringement much (and thus making infringement much more of a problem by removing any way of handling it other than
393.
by ikeboy 6y ago
So you would effectively destroy all free user generated content sites, and a good portion of the cheap ones as well. Just good to make that clear upfront when evaluating your proposal, so people could decide if this is really less draconia
394.
by ikeboy 6y ago
>I mean the same standard that would be used for any other statement or deposition that was presented as evidence or testimony in a court. Normally that requires a statement made upon oath or affirmation and witnessed by a notary public
395.
by ikeboy 6y ago
What do you mean by legally valid? Is there a difference between the proposed "affirmation" and what a counternotice currently says? >Which would then bring the obvious next question: how did you confirm that the someone else w
396.
by ikeboy 6y ago
There's nothing in the law currently, correct. I believe a law similar to DMCA, but with some more protections as above, should be passed applying to accusations of patent and trademark infringement.
397.
by ikeboy 6y ago
You're just saying that the DMCA notice system should be abolished. But the system was established for a compelling purpose. Firstly, it provides a safe harbor to YouTube - nobody can sue YouTube for hosting infringing content if they
398.
by ikeboy 6y ago
In the US you only can't sue for libel because DMCA preempts all federal and state causes of action - instead you sue for misrepresentation under 512(f). But for false claims of infringement that don't involve copyright, a libel c
399.
by ikeboy 6y ago
I'm not quite sure about that framing. Every jurisdiction reserves the right to sanction attorneys for frivolous cases. The framing I'd prefer is that there are meritless cases that don't quite rise to the level of frivolous;
400.
by ikeboy 6y ago
I wrote https://medium.com/@corporatebullies/why-the-shop-safe-act-i... in part to point out a related issue in regards to a proposed bill. Rigid three strikes laws are almost never appropriate.
401.
by ikeboy 6y ago
I also think once these fixes are implemented, that the same should apply to trademark and patent infringement notices. Those also see widespread abuse, it's just not as prominent because the targets are small businesses.
402.
by ikeboy 6y ago
1. There's no reason to prohibit agent relationships, as long as liability attaches to the rights owner. 2. Strict liability is a good idea, but the exact amount should be up to discretion of the court. Some cases are more egregious th
403.
by ikeboy 6y ago
1. It's unethical to threaten to sue without an actual intention of suing - lawyers can be disciplined for that. 2. Once you sue, you can't dismiss unilaterally once the other side has responded. They can reasonably say "we p
404.
by ikeboy 6y ago
In this case, Casio is unlikely to file a frivolous lawsuit, so the content will go back up. The only disadvantage is if the rights owner is willing to file a frivolous lawsuit, and in that scenario their lawyers can get sanctioned by the c
405.
by ikeboy 6y ago
It's very difficult to establish the bad faith required to win a 512(f) misrepresentation case, but it's doable and you can win damages.
406.
by ikeboy 6y ago
If you'd read some of my below comments, you'd notice I addressed this scenario. Fines should be adjusted for the probability of getting caught. Also, certain torts, like stealing, are considered criminal.
407.
by ikeboy 6y ago
Do you intend to ban ranking algorithms?
408.
by ikeboy 6y ago
I honestly don't know if your point is that it's fine to give the state this power, or if that widespread abuse shows that it's not fine.
409.
by ikeboy 6y ago
>So if we flog lawyers for SLAPP suits, they'd do it more often? You'd certainly have an increase in the number of frivolous anti-SLAPP motions. Very related: I've been hit with a frivolous anti-SLAPP when suing a company
410.
by ikeboy 6y ago
How would this be antitrust on the platform's part? How do they gain market share? Someone tried suing Amazon over basically this theory and failed, same lawyer that I'm using in an antitrust case against tp-link for false infring
411.
by ikeboy 6y ago
Google has an at-will contract with users. They have no legal obligation to host their content, and can take it down for any reason.
412.
by ikeboy 6y ago
What reform could you propose that solves this? The flip side is that anything you do to increase payouts also increases the number of suits brought, which is less efficient. Any policy regarding the legal system ends up hurting some group
413.
by ikeboy 6y ago
>This happens all the time, not just with copyright law, so doesn't that seem to imply that the penalty for the larger party is insufficient? Not necessarily. With copyright law there's practically no penalty, and I think that
414.
by ikeboy 6y ago
You're not wrong. I'm just responding to someone who's asking about theory, and I'm explaining why the courts work the way they do. They do have to balance the cost to the parties of litigation with the right of people t
415.
by ikeboy 6y ago
You're proposing creating an affirmative obligation on private parties to carry products or content they have no contractual obligation to. Why? What's the compelling reason we should allow YouTube to delete videos they don't
416.
by ikeboy 6y ago
And if you'd read the rest of my comment, you'll notice two different rationales behind punitive damages that have nothing to do with teaching lessons. It's all about deterrence.
417.
by ikeboy 6y ago
We're talking about civil law here.
418.
by ikeboy 6y ago
See, I get scared when people want to use the courts to "teach a lesson." That's not what they're intended for. If all harms are efficiently deterred and compensated, it's only our base animal instincts that suggest
419.
by ikeboy 6y ago
The law, especially in civil cases, isn't there to punish losers. It's there to fix harms done. If you win, you get paid an approximation of your harm. Class actions exist to solve the collective action problem of the harm not bei
420.
by ikeboy 6y ago
0. Productivity per person can and does increase

More ›