71–80 of 96 posts
The DMCA should be repealed, but won't be, so instead should be updated to make erroneous claims have a financial penalty. Nothing major at first, but ratcheting upwards for every false claim. Oh, and all legal expenses for the victim party of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you propose a group of 50,000 people interface with their elected congress critters? Individual email? A chosen spokesperson to 'lobby' their interest? If an individual company chooses one employee(say someone with a legal background) to interact with an elected official is that person a lobbyist or an employee? I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
>How do you propose a group of 50,000 people interface with their elected congress critters? Setting aside the reasons this situation exists and the problems it's creating, I believe the usual methods are mail, e-mail, and phone calls. Or if that doesn't work, then torches and pitchforks. Everyone who knew about the DMCA before it went into effect hated it, but the monied interests pushed it through. Corruption in ac…
It's America. I think the Matrix quote "guns; lots of guns" is more appropriate :)
How effective is the DMCA in being a force for good? I continue to see stories where it seems they combine all the fun of a jury summons with the customer service of google. To me, this SEGA claim seems to border on a perjury violation for false DMCA claims (IANAL). But in practice, the victim has neither the ability nor funding to utilize the legal mechanisms for discouraging this behavior. To say nothing of the sec…
Obviously the system isn't perfect (and there are absolutely better solutions), but it does have its merits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it’s nothing like patent trolling Sega has army of lawyers and probably massive budget for court fees vs a small 2 people run shop who are actually not infringing anything and don’t have any of those resources. You get where this is going?
I thought your stereotypical patent troll wasn't a firm with access to top notch legal resources, just some people slinging enough shit that eventually it stuck? This would be pretty firmly different, right?
The second are non-practicing entities that buy at least half-way decent portfolios for cheap and then sue big businesses for big settlements or big jury verdicts. Their lawyers can be very good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entirety of the Yakuza series is absolutely fantastic, especially the latest entry (Yakuza: Like a Dragon).
I tried to look it up on SteamDB, but it wasn't there...
However, if you search for the game in the SteamDB search bar (just enter "Yakuza", don't even need the full name), it will show up just fine, with a picture and all, you just won't be able to see the full page. That's how I found that link, so I have no idea how you missed it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a response would take about 30 minutes billed time to tell them that it's fair use. If Sega decided to drop their DMCA claim, I don't think the cost would exceed 2 hours billed time even if they decided to write back or schedule a conference call about it or whatever. Depending on the nature of the claim, Sega's real disposition, and what was on the page, a counternotice might have sufficed to clear it up wit…
Or they can skip the hiring a lawyer step, because it's a hobby project, and post something to Twitter and hope it gains momentum. Like it has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a nice theoretical definition of "fraudulent intent" but you're not going to get a court to agree with it, I don't think.
Really? You run something knowing that it's going to file invalid claims; how is that not intent to commit fraud?
"This process is inherently subjective, so creating perfect software while properly protecting our copyrights would be impossible. We determined that the false positive rate would be quite low, and had no intention of pursuing action against any invalid claims."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you knew that your algorithm produced false positives and you deployed it anyway, then you had fraudulent intent for the subset of automatically generated takedown notices which were false positives.
That's a nice theoretical definition of "fraudulent intent" but you're not going to get a court to agree with it, I don't think.
OK, we've established that delegating to an algorithm doesn't provide an impenetrable shield. Now it's just a question of how irresponsible you have to be for the court to go against you.
Now, is there any difference between the injured parties who are affected by your false positives when that rate is 1% versus 75%? For the subset of assessments affecting the injured party, your false positive rate is effectively 100%. Why should they bear your burden?
An algorithm can be used to identify prospects for takedown notices. If you choose not to vet those prospects, then any mistakes are on you. If you can drive down the false-positive rate low enough, you might choose to accept the costs every time you falsely accuse someone and turn the algorithm loose anyway. But if you can't absorb the costs of the algorithm's mistakes, don't rely on the algorithm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope they consider taking Sega to court over this. Sega’s behavior is clearly in violation of the law, and a precedent needs to be set. Perhaps the EFF or a similar organization would be willing to represent them. https://smallbiztrends.com/2015/05/fraudulent-dmca-takedown-...
Take their lawyers to court. They're the ones that need to experience a chilling effect for acting in bad faith by signing off on fraudulent claims.
I think that until the USA gets rid of legal lobbying from interest groups (aka, legalized corruption), this kinds of things will keep happening. Having to pull content down without any order from a judge is nonsense. These companies would be more careful if they had to go through some legal process instead of just ordering their lawyers to send empty threads to people that can't financially afford the economic burde…
I absolutely agree with your point that the laws need to be passed so that corporations can't threaten abusive litigation over this kind of crap. But muzzling organized advocacy isn't the answer.