21–30 of 132 posts
DMCA is such an epically shitty law. Only worse is that other countries are happily copying the law too.
If this attorney is filing BS DMCA claims, hopefully they'll give a gentle heads-up to his local bar association
Youtube takedowns aren't DMCA requests. There is no legal penalty for perjury. It's just a good old fashioned mob shakedown. In this case neither party is even subject to US law so even more irrelevant.
DMCA is such an epically shitty law. Only worse is that other countries are happily copying the law too.
Lets remember that the DMCA is what allows providers like youtube to host content without being liable to the copyright infringement of its users. The takedown provision sucks, but its an essential law for the open internet to even exist.
DMCA is such an epically shitty law. Only worse is that other countries are happily copying the law too.
Lets remember that the DMCA is what allows providers like youtube to host content without being liable to the copyright infringement of its users. The takedown provision sucks, but its an essential law for the open internet to even exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are but it requires the victim to have the time, energy, and of course, money to pursue it. It also needs to not be some "DMCA Lite" contractual mechanism like Youtube's shitty ContentID system. Only real bad faith DMCA requests need apply. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled b…
Yep! It isn't very hard to get someone punished for abusing the system if you have the resources. YouTube did it a few years ago [1] to a popular creator in the Minecraft community who was threatening creator's with Community Guideline Strikes in order to extort them for money. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/man-agrees-to-pa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are but it requires the victim to have the time, energy, and of course, money to pursue it. It also needs to not be some "DMCA Lite" contractual mechanism like Youtube's shitty ContentID system. Only real bad faith DMCA requests need apply. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled b…
> It also needs to not be some "DMCA Lite" contractual mechanism like Youtube's shitty ContentID system. Why not? By my reading of the section you quoted, it stands independently from its parent sections; anyone who makes a legal claim of copyright infringement, or pursues action under the principle that such a claim exists, would seemingly be liable for damages if they're "knowingly materially misrepresenting" the f…
The answer is right there, my emphasis added. YouTube’s internal mechanisms, a la ContentID, are not processes which are a part of the legal system. They’re corporate policies.
It is worth noting that this distinction is irrelevant to this article, however. As this article says this was a DMCA claim. So any potential false claims in this case do carry this potential penalty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are but it requires the victim to have the time, energy, and of course, money to pursue it. It also needs to not be some "DMCA Lite" contractual mechanism like Youtube's shitty ContentID system. Only real bad faith DMCA requests need apply. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled b…
> It also needs to not be some "DMCA Lite" contractual mechanism like Youtube's shitty ContentID system. Why not? By my reading of the section you quoted, it stands independently from its parent sections; anyone who makes a legal claim of copyright infringement, or pursues action under the principle that such a claim exists, would seemingly be liable for damages if they're "knowingly materially misrepresenting" the f…
Yeah, you can totally sue Disney or Warner Bros if they file a false infringement claim against you. You'll definitely not win unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to go up against their phalanxes of corporate lawyers.
The DMCA doesn't take into account unequal parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets remember that the DMCA is what allows providers like youtube to host content without being liable to the copyright infringement of its users. The takedown provision sucks, but its an essential law for the open internet to even exist.
I thought the reason was section 230 not dmca.