Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down

mg.co.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down

#71

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

leeoniya wrote: post #21
kijin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misconception. You can't use a counter-claim to keep your content up. You can only use one to have your content reinstated after it has been removed. https://www.dmca.com/faq/What-is-a-DMCA-Counterclaim

we've gone through this with linode. they give you exactly 96 hours to remove the content and then you can go through the dispute process. it took about 2 weeks to work things out. we had used some images from an mfg's pdf installation manual on a page that was reselling that mfg's own products which we were buying from their offical distributor - the only way to get the product. talk about absurd. some of the media…

It seems like you have a beef with copyright law, not with the DMCA. Using their images just is a clear violation of copyright, even though I agree that it is ridiculous for them to go after their own resellers.

Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down

#72

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

illuminati1911 wrote: post #19

The DMCA is truly a steaming pile of shit. Nintendo and other companies are also abusing it to take down fair use videos by individuals on YouTube.

There wouldn't be a place for individuals to infringe copyright without the DMCA. Any platform would be exposed to full liability for all their users' posts. So be careful what you wish for.

(This is same dynamic as Section 230, btw. It continues to astonish me that even the tech community is incapable of understanding the basic mechanisms)

Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down

#73

Post by DanBC »

strogonoff wrote: post #41
incompatible wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realise people bothered to put up fake websites. I thought a plausible-looking DMCA notification was sufficient to get a provider to take something down.

If it were so easy and cheap as many comments on this page imply, why aren’t we seeing this often used against large well-known businesses in bad faith? E.g., someone creates a puny single-person LLC, and files DMCA notices against New York Times, Amazon blog posts, Apple press releases, et cetera. According to claims I see here, the content will have to be down for 10-14 days regardless of how quickly the counter-cl…

Because that's a criminal offence (perjury) that carries a potential prison sentence, and they'd be liable for costs.

NYT, Amazon, Apple, etc aren't going to fuck about with that. They'd push for prosecution of people making false DMCA claims, and they'd sue for their losses.

Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down

#74

Post by DanBC »

strogonoff wrote: post #47
joe_the_user wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were so easy and cheap as many comments on this page imply, why aren’t we seeing this often used against large well-known businesses in bad faith? Because medium sized companies know not to mess with large companies but don't care about small companies?

You wrote “not to mess with large companies”. What are the consequences of issuing a DMCA notice against content published by a large company?

If you knowingly do so you're committing perjury which carries a potential 5 year sentence.

Then a bunch of people can recover their losses.

> shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down

#75

Post by DanBC »

strogonoff wrote: post #56
ryacko wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single person LLC does not protect from perjury charges. Unfortunately DMCA perjury cases aren’t prosecuted.

Isn’t there a contradiction—if as you say DMCA perjury cases aren’t prosecuted, what’s there to lose for that hypothetical “DMCA troll” LLC?

DMCA perjury requires "knowingly" sending false reports. So far there's enough deniability for bigcos to get away with it.

This hypothetical troll wouldn't have that deniability. It would be very clear that they are knowingly making false complaints.

Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down

#77

Post by vuyani »

delta1 wrote: post #76
tibbydudeza wrote: post #60

They should have hosted with a non US ISP.

It seems extremely obvious. ZA domain, ZA relevant content, predominantly ZA readers (presumably) - why host in the US?

Load shedding

South Africa has had constant power outages

http://www.eskom.co.za/documents/LoadSheddingFAQ.pdf

Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down

#78

Post by kd5bjo »

strogonoff wrote: post #69
kd5bjo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honoring a DMCA takedown isn’t ever required, but ignoring one strips away the safe harbor protections for that specific content. This in turn makes you liable for any copyright infringement of that content as if you had published it yourself. If it’s legitimate, you’ll presumably win the court case and quite possibly get your attorney fees back.

Thanks for patient explanation. I guess, to sum up, the current system enables smaller players (commenters, vloggers, site authors) to publish on the Web through intermediaries of all kinds (like Linode or YouTube). Those intermediaries want to make sure they don’t get sued for the content they host, so they use safe harbor and observe DMCA. Those enjoying more direct access to the backbone (metaphorically and possib…

That’s essentially right but the ability to use takedowns to bully the smaller fish comes from a slightly different source.

What the DMCA safe harbor provisions both try and succeed to do is remove those intermediaries from potential copyright proceedings. This allows them to flourish but also disincentivizes them from providing legal assistance to their customers— the ultimate lawsuit will be not be Giant Media Conglomerate vs Comcast ISP, it will be Giant Media Conglomerate vs John Doe.

So the fundamental problem here doesn’t really have anything to do with copyright, but rather the reality that fighting a lawsuit can ruin you even if you’re in the right.

Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down

#79

Post by delta1 »

vuyani wrote: post #77
delta1 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems extremely obvious. ZA domain, ZA relevant content, predominantly ZA readers (presumably) - why host in the US?

Load shedding South Africa has had constant power outages http://www.eskom.co.za/documents/LoadSheddingFAQ.pdf

I'm well aware of that. The question was "why host in the US" - not implying that hosting should be done in South Africa.

Re: How the “Mail & Guardian” got taken down

#80

Post by TeMPOraL »

RandomInteger4 wrote: post #52
Cogito wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube take downs are usually done without DMCA, right? Are you saying that the DMCA is explicitly being invoked by Nintendo and others, or are you talking more generally and including, for example, YouTube's Content ID system?

YouTube's content ID system is in place to facilitate DMCA takedowns. Folks such as Nintendo can go either the route of filing a claim to take the ad revenue of a video, or filing a copyright strike claim to have the video removed. Whichever variation that is used is up to the copyright holder (legitimate or otherwise), and both are definitely used by legitimate actors for sometimes the most ridiculous of copyright c…

AFAIK Content ID is an entirely extralegal system applied instead of DMCA, executed as a part of YouTube's TOS. It's used because copyright bullies would prefer not to involve courts if they can avoid it, and I suspect it exists to prevent MAFIAA from utterly destroying YouTube, as most of its value (until recently) came from copyright violation.
Post reply on HN