81–90 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What about Steam takedowns?
My perspective: the fan is not "going rogue". This story is copyright itself brought to its objective conclusion. Everything here, the petty IP ownership claim, the expectation to have that ownership literally applied, the reactionary griefing, etc. is all baked in to what copyright is at its very foundations. This person is simply playing out the function of copyright as an ideology in their interactions with the ga…
If this attorney is filing BS DMCA claims, hopefully they'll give a gentle heads-up to his local bar association
Institutional remedies which require years of process for abuses that can be carried out in seconds or minutes are fundamentally inadequate.
My perspective: the fan is not "going rogue". This story is copyright itself brought to its objective conclusion. Everything here, the petty IP ownership claim, the expectation to have that ownership literally applied, the reactionary griefing, etc. is all baked in to what copyright is at its very foundations. This person is simply playing out the function of copyright as an ideology in their interactions with the ga…
No, it isn’t. The fact that you can make a false claim in copyright law and cause damage is not an indictment of the system of copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and it's only that assertion that is made under penalty of perjury, not the assertion that the targeted work actually infringes on that copyright.
So, if they aren't the copyright holder (as in this case) they have committed perjury by asserting they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people can file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero repercussions. Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder). A better system would be one that allows the uploader to take the takedown issuer to court, and if the takedown request was…
> The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people can file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero repercussions. The takedown process is part of, and only relevant to, the safe-harbor provision. > Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder). Because not complying with a correct-…
Yes, I'm aware - I'm saying that the fact that the law allows truly unvetted takedown requests is silly - there should be some method to disincentivize dodgy takedowns.
> You can do this ...
Realistically it's extremely difficult for this to occur, and the costs often are extremely high (relative to the returns).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it isn’t. The fact that you can make a false claim in copyright law and cause damage is not an indictment of the system of copyright.
What evidence do you have that the claim is false?
More importantly, I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far the only thing the've done is filing DMCA takedown requests. Which have a notoriously low bar for what constitutes "evidence", thus making it a very useful instrument for harassment.
Unless we discover that the developers simply lied in their official statement on the issue, the current situation seems like a fairly typical DMCA abuse case. Since they are planning to fight the DMCA takedowns, I expect we will find out the truth soon enough.
Disclaimer: I am not trying to write some anti-DMCA manifesto, but just to simply illustrate the reality of the situation. DMCA is an imperfect solution to a problem, and I believe it certainly could be done better and/or improved. However, it is easier said than done, as I don't have a proposal in mind for a better system. Getting rid of DMCA entirely without introducing a replacement mechanism is just going to open up another problematic can of worms, so I am not going to advocate for that until I have something better in mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people can file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero repercussions. The takedown process is part of, and only relevant to, the safe-harbor provision. > Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder). Because not complying with a correct-…
> Because not complying with a correct-in-form takedown puts them outside of the safe harbor. Yes, I'm aware - I'm saying that the fact that the law allows truly unvetted takedown requests is silly - there should be some method to disincentivize dodgy takedowns. > You can do this ... Realistically it's extremely difficult for this to occur, and the costs often are extremely high (relative to the returns).
Exactly what you say should be available is in the status quo. What is it that you want that is different?
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.
It arguably doesn’t actually allow sites very specifically like Youtube to do that, which is why YouTube has a separate and more draconian arrangement with major rights holders, created in response to previous litigation and litigation threats, and is also currently being sued by a variety of rights holders in a suit which hasn’t been easily been barred by the DMCA safe harbor.