this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
73 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37719 readers
400 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
they should change the DMCA that if a copyright troll purposely sends false/automated requests, forfeits their rights and can't claim anything anymore for the next century. And google should automatically reject any request that contains any reputable website like bbc, microsoft or nasa. And hopefully flag the copyright troll so any future request has lower priority/automatically rejected
Since even inadvertent or unintentional copying can be punished as infringement, any takedown should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and false claims should be awarded statutory damages matching infringement of registered works, collectible by the party who’s non-infringing work was blocked, but actionable by any party who is denied access. So if you can’t get to content due to DMCA you can sue, but you cannot recover damages or expenses - if you win, the $175k(?) per fraudulent take down is payable to the content owner. In that way, it’s recognized that an individual looking for content is injured by the takedown, but there is no financial incentive for take-down vigilantism.
I mean, they do have to put in the notice that it's accurate under penalty of perjury. Presumably if you received the notice and can be bothered, you can not only contest it but bring charges against them if it's false.
Why haven't we seen any of that happening?
Because who's going to bother?
I got false DMCAed on a mod a while back by someone I literally hired to do development and server hosting for me who then violated our contract and ran off with a month's fees after shutting down the server. The code he tried to DMCA me over (which was made to my specifications at my request and adjusted by me) was written under a paid contract. So not only could I have gone after him for the false DMCA, I probably could have gotten a year of server fees out of him.
But like, why? He's that kind of petty, certainly, but I can't be bothered with that shit. It was a blip. We recoded his tiny little half-assed mod that was already 90% a pre-existing mechanic, reuploaded, and waited the couple of weeks to be able to get our original back up. Whatever.
I think most people who are targeted by false DMCAs just don't feel like wasting their time in the court system over some petty (if malicious) inconvenience.