U.S. Copyright Office Undecided About Future of DMCA Takedowns

[HardOCP News]

The U.S. Copyright Office is asking for public input on reforming the DMCA safe harbor provisions and the future of copyright law. Got something to say? A brilliant idea? Now is the time to share it.

The U.S. Government's Copyright Office has launched a new consultation seeking guidance on the future of the DMCA's takedown process and safe harbor. Through a set of concrete questions, they hope to find a balance between the interests of copyright holders, Internet services and the public at large.

 

[Shotglass01]

I'd like to issue a takedown/staydown on the MPAA and the RIAA.

 

[Ur_Mom]

I'd like to issue a takedown/staydown on the MPAA and the RIAA.

That would be a good idea for those hacker groups. Set a bot net to issue takedown requests for legitimate links or videos. Thousands at a time. Google and others will get millions of requests, and as usual - they'll be taken down immediately until the other guy can prove they own it... Right?

 

[tetris42]

Easy. Make it worth both ways. Let companies continue to takedown whatever they want to protect their IP, but have legal consequences if erroneous ones are made. With most other laws, false testimony is considered a crime, but not when it comes to copyright...

 

[Merc1138]

Easy. Make it worth both ways. Let companies continue to takedown whatever they want to protect their IP, but have legal consequences if erroneous ones are made. With most other laws, false testimony is considered a crime, but not when it comes to copyright...

That is already the case with false DMCA takedown notices. The problem is that most of the people who get the false takedown notices against them do not have the means($$$$$$) to respond(sue) the people who issued the false claims. Even if you do have a good chunk of change and a copyright lawyer on retainer, you're not going to outlast Sony, Disney, etc. when it comes down to how long they can drag out a case in court.

 

[HoffY]

Merc1138,

So what you're saying is.... to be innocent until proven guilty one needs to be rich?

Just like nowadays all it takes is a claim of rape and a man is prosecuted and life ruined regardless of any proof and nearly 100% of the time in spite of the truth.

Great "laws" against false accusations. not.

 

[ChoGGi]

That is already the case with false DMCA takedown notices. The problem is that most of the people who get the false takedown notices against them do not have the means($$$$$$) to respond(sue) the people who issued the false claims. Even if you do have a good chunk of change and a copyright lawyer on retainer, you're not going to outlast Sony, Disney, etc. when it comes down to how long they can drag out a case in court.

From what I know of the DMCA; you can issue claims against other peoples work, you just can't lie about who you are / represent (which is why they spam them).
If you get a DMCA notice all you have to do is reply (within a certain time) that you own the copyright, and it'll be restored.
The company that issued it can then take you to court for a more permanent option (if they care to). Though different companies treat the DMCA differently (being more proactive like Youtube).
Of course you can sue whenever you want, but responding to a DMCA doesn't normally involve money/suing.

 

[Merc1138]

From what I know of the DMCA; you can issue claims against other peoples work, you just can't lie about who you are / represent (which is why they spam them).
If you get a DMCA notice all you have to do is reply (within a certain time) that you own the copyright, and it'll be restored.
The company that issued it can then take you to court for a more permanent option (if they care to). Though different companies treat the DMCA differently (being more proactive like Youtube).
Of course you can sue whenever you want, but responding to a DMCA doesn't normally involve money/suing.

When it comes to a false DMCA claim that results in a loss of income, yes it can involve money. Technically speaking, filing a false DMCA claim is perjury and punishable, the problem is that you'll need to get a lawyer and go to court over it.

Here's a scenario. You put up a video at random, it starts to go viral. Random company files a false DMCA claim against you, video/site/article/whatever gets taken down, now you don't get the hits and instead viewers go elsewhere to view the video. By the time you've made a counterclaim and had your content restored, the cash is gone because views/searches are already dropping. So not only did you miss out on income that was rightfully yours, you'll have to be out more money on top of that to actually file suit against the people who filed the false DMCA claim against you in the first place. Now on youtube there's a sort of "escrow" system now for DMCA claimed videos that were monetized, and technically youtube can delete the account of the entity filing the false DMCA claims, but youtube is not going to take legal action against them for you.

 

[ChoGGi]

When it comes to a false DMCA claim that results in a loss of income, yes it can involve money.

I was only talking about responding to it

Technically speaking, filing a false DMCA claim is perjury and punishable, the problem is that you'll need to get a lawyer and go to court over it.

The perjury only applies if you misrepresent yourself, you can still claim a property you don't have the copyright to without penalty

 

[Merc1138]

I was only talking about responding to it

The perjury only applies if you misrepresent yourself, you can still claim a property you don't have the copyright to without penalty

Actually, you can't since a DMCA takedown is effectively a mechanism within the legal system(so to speak) and as such filing a false DMCA claim is perjury. Claiming a property you do not have the copyright to actually is specifically misrepresenting yourself. As I previously mentioned though, pursuing legal action against someone who has made a false claim takes time and money that not everyone has, and depending on who it was that made the false claim may be futile depending upon the depth of their pockets due to there being no requirement for an expedient legal proceeding in court for such a matter.

 

[ChoGGi]

By misrepresenting yourself I meant you need to be honest about who you are / represent.

https://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cg...=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ304.105.pdf
"(v) A statement that the complaining party has
a good faith belief that use of the material in the
manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
‘‘(vi) A statement that the information in the
notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury,
that the complaining party is authorized to act on
behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

As long as you're acting as an agent of someone with some copyright you can claim it, there isn't a penalty that the copyright you're claiming is false, it's only for who you represent.