101–110 of 153 posts
I'm confused why the DMCA sender, Tracer AI, claims Vanuatu jurisdiction in the linked DMCA claim[0]. In separate recent claims, they have claimed US jurisdiction[1]. Is this possibly fraud? [0] https://lumendatabase.org/notices/93778051 [1] https://lumendatabase.org/notices/80387573
The answer here is simple: If you submit a content strike you must provide a bond. If the content strike is reversed the bond is used to pay damages. The argument of 'people must review' is really just an argument of cost. The amount of content on the web makes it impractical to pay that upfront but a bond makes it manageable.
The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corpor…
Although I suppose a fixed % would limit how many claims you can file, which might be an issue for megacorporations who actually deal with lots of infringement -- although it would definitely reduce spurious claims.
Hmm, maybe coming up with a good law is actually hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corpor…
Just make the bond a % of the entity's revenue. Like that (apocryphal?) story about how Nokia CEO got speeding ticket of several million dollars in Finland, due to the ticket being a % of income. Although I suppose a fixed % would limit how many claims you can file, which might be an issue for megacorporations who actually deal with lots of infringement -- although it would definitely reduce spurious claims. Hmm, may…
https://abcnews.com/ABCNews/finnish-businessman-handed-12100...
The answer here is simple: If you submit a content strike you must provide a bond. If the content strike is reversed the bond is used to pay damages. The argument of 'people must review' is really just an argument of cost. The amount of content on the web makes it impractical to pay that upfront but a bond makes it manageable.
The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corpor…
I know this isn't the point but this post is a master class in how to inform readers when you expect people from outside your community to read it. It explains what every element is, concisely but clearly. I now know exactly what Luanti is, who all the actors are in this conflict, and what the conflict is about. It clearly conveys the who, what, when, where and why of the situation. Also, DMCA is a damned mess, with…
Trending on HN: Blog post: Sneed now helps with your blargs
Then I go to their homepage and it's like https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/3219377-curtains-for-zoosha
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corpor…
It is not that society needs to be prisoner of small creators, every time there is some regulation the small creator and hobbyist come to the rescue cmon
I know this isn't the point but this post is a master class in how to inform readers when you expect people from outside your community to read it. It explains what every element is, concisely but clearly. I now know exactly what Luanti is, who all the actors are in this conflict, and what the conflict is about. It clearly conveys the who, what, when, where and why of the situation. Also, DMCA is a damned mess, with…
It's funny I've even seen landing pages / product launches that violate this. Trending on HN: Blog post: Sneed now helps with your blargs Then I go to their homepage and it's like https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/3219377-curtains-for-zoosha
I know this isn't the point but this post is a master class in how to inform readers when you expect people from outside your community to read it. It explains what every element is, concisely but clearly. I now know exactly what Luanti is, who all the actors are in this conflict, and what the conflict is about. It clearly conveys the who, what, when, where and why of the situation. Also, DMCA is a damned mess, with…
One of the issues is that these aren't proper DMCA claims, instead Google/Youtube do a weird pseudo-DMCA thing where they just agree to take down your content and make you argue about it. But the DMCA allows immediate countersuit for false notice with damages. If Google/Youtube actually just forwarded strict DMCA notices and no longer did takedowns once you counter-claimed, you could sue the trolls and collect damage…
It's a rigged game, its better not to engage with.
the specific laws and consequences from ai:
> Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), for a DMCA counter-notice to be legally valid, the person filing it must explicitly state in writing that they consent to the jurisdiction of a US Federal District Court.
> If you live in the US, you consent to the federal court in your local district.
> If you live outside the US, you must consent to the judicial district where the service provider (YouTube/Google) is located—which means the Northern District of California.
> For a creator living in Europe, Asia, or South America, filing a counter-notice means signing a document that legally exposes them to a federal copyright lawsuit in California. Even if the creator is 100% in the right (e.g., they used public domain footage or have clear Fair Use), the sheer financial threat of having to hire a US federal defense attorney to fight a lawsuit in California is often enough to make them abandon the dispute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
interesting interpretation. most other articles on the topic have a different interpretation. if the AI can not be the author, then who can? is writing the prompt enough to establish being the creator? i think we need a few more cases to get an answer to that.
Clicking a button is enough to become an "author" of the photo, and writing a prompt requires more skill.
The answer here is simple: If you submit a content strike you must provide a bond. If the content strike is reversed the bond is used to pay damages. The argument of 'people must review' is really just an argument of cost. The amount of content on the web makes it impractical to pay that upfront but a bond makes it manageable.
The essential idea here is that there is a real cost per DMCA notice that turns into a reward for those incorrectly accused. As the total number of DMCA notices go up the more bond money is floating around ready to pay those harmed by the system. DMCA takedown agents now have a real incentive to get it right. The better they are the more money they save. The trick is to set the bond high enough to turn it into a real value prop. The only thing missing, I think, is the upward pressure on the base bond. I think that should be set by the global ratio of successful to reversed takedowns. If the industry is spamming the bond goes up and payments go up. If the industry is policing itself the bond goes down.