Slashdot Mirror

You get 5 days to contest it before payment processors are barred from doing business with you and search engines must stop acknowledging your existence. That alone is alarming to me.

Which is a provision after a take down notice had been ignored if you read the SOPA legislation.

Even worse, however, is the provision that gives immunity to those who take that action with just reasonable belief of infringement

I have mentioned this in my own post that I am not happy with lack of evidence required to process such requirements. However, I did already note it was slightly better in the way that it requires a judge to approve the action.

now of anyone who's ever gotten even a slap on the wrist for sending out abusive takedowns?

I have seen counter actions (sample1, sample2), in summary, yes.

DMCA is already abusive as hell in that fraudulent claims can be made and the only recourse the attacked individual has is a counter-claim that might not even get the content reinstated.

Which is not always the fault of the law it self. Content hosting providers such as Youtube do choose not to host content for some people after receiving complaints, regardless of legitimacy involved - people agree to these terms when they signed up for the service. This is a different matter, it's not the law preventing the content to be returned at this point.

There is no mechanism for holding those who abuse the system accountable.

Apparently there is, because I linked some examples.

In the face of all that, what about the response seems hyperbolic to you?

Only thing I found annoying about your post is completely ignoring the good the DMCA has given, portraying it in a purely negative fashion.

It has been used to protect copyright holders, even GPL software. It has given small companies and individuals an out to deal with issues that would otherwise require very costly lawyers for very legitimate issues that without would have only been achievable if they were a large firm with deep pockets.

I feel these are genuine issues that need to be resolved, that said, I still don't agree with PIPA or SOPA legislation's methods and I still don't agree with what many are regurgitating (mainly misrepresenting what is intends to do and then going about saying it doesn't do that, then further blatantly lying about how certain things won't work).

This is one of the biggest problem with the DMCA. You have given all the power to the big conglomerates without making them risk anything in return. They just indiscriminately fire C&D letters like shotgun blasts and use them to anti-competitive effect.

Because they didn't do that with cease and desist letters before the DMCA existed? The threat of legal action on frivolous claims has always been a severe deterrent, even when the receiving party knows they have no merit. The reality is that the little guy can seldom even afford to win a lawsuit, much less lose it.

That said, I like the DMCA, at least as far as the takedown process is concerned. The problem is you have to understand it has little to do with the copyright holder and the person the notice is sent against. They file a takedown notice so you file a notice of "we coo', we coo'." The host (Google in this case) has immunity from whatever happens between you two, and it proceeds from there exactly as if the DMCA didn't exist; ie, they can choose to file a lawsuit against you or not. It's pretty fair process to me, and one which provides an important ability for places like Google to offer to host anything of yours at all.

I'd be less critical of the DMCA if they had a penalty, $10,000 plus costs, for reckless or malicious take-down notices

It does. For starters, the takedown notice is made under penalty of perjury. You're also allowed to file a lawsuit for damages against the party filing a false takedown notice, without needing to prove actual damages. A group called "Online Policy Group" won $125,000 from Diebold in 2004 for false notices.

That said, the penalties are probably not high enough and the burden to acquire them too high. That should be addressed.

So I take it you would be outraged if a US hospital voluntarily provides free healthcare to a bunch of people? If you are an ISP and someone sends you a notice that you are hosting warez, you may decide to take it down even if you are not legally required to. Then your customer can make a case that the notice is bogus and you put it back. Pretty much like DMCA notices work anyway.

As for intimidation, the owner of the material can just say no and the filer of the notice will be fined if obvious fair use of the material applies.

If you are against any sort of copyright, you can make your case and I may even agree with part of your reasoning. But ISP management which is not against all copyright will generally take down warez that it finds out about.

Enjoy!
http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/

Although Diebold has agreed not to take any further action in these cases, that doesn't make up for the fact that they have blatantly abused the DMCA provisions in the past. It's kind of like being run over by a car, and then having the driver say, "well, I won't drive anymore." It doesn't exactly make you whole.

Also, OPG has asserted an interference with contractual relations claim-- essentially saying that Diebold is interfering with the contract between Hurricane Electric (the ISP) and its client, OPG. See section 3 of the application for a temporary restraining order.

There are a few... the EFF released a position paper two years ago, and there's the Indymedia tech teams, the Shift Control Collective, OPG and others here and there. That said, I'll be going to Miami to participate in anti-FTAA actions when their ministerial meets this November with non-geeks, who are there for their own reasons.

Why is this? I don't think it's politics, because there are both left-wing and right-wing folks against the FTAA. Partially, I think it's because grassroots lobbying doesn't work on trade issues in urban areas where the geeks live. In part because geeks aren't organized around these issues.

Most geeks also seem to think that protesting is a waste of time. In most cases, I agree, but protests in Quebec City against the FTAA two years ago raised the issue's profile in the news. The draft text of the documents, previously secret if you weren't one of the corporate "consultants" to the ministerial, were released as a result of Canadian activists who occupied a goverment building. When they shouted, "This is what democracy looks like!" they weren't engaging in rhetoric - democracy is pointless if you can't see the laws, and their direct action to force openness on the part of their government was crucial.

Reply to this post if you want to do something.

Blurbage:

The Online Policy Group (OPG) is a nonprofit organization with the motto "One Internet With Equal Access for All." OPG focuses on Internet participants' civil liberties and human rights, like access, privacy, safety, and serving schools, libraries, disabled, elderly, youth, women, and sexual, gender, and ethnic minorities. OPG provides concrete services aimed at realizing a free and equitable Internet, including free Internet services, active research, and vigorous advocacy on behalf of our constituents.

For programmers, there's an ongoing open source project codenamed Calliope to provide free online community forums with strong privacy, content and participant list protection, and without commercial advertising. See http://calliope.sf.net/

Other OPG volunteer opportunities at https://www.onlinepolicy.org/services/opg-voluntee r-apply.shtml

More general info at http://www.onlinepolicy.org/

For programmers, there's an ongoing open source project codenamed Calliope to provide free online community forums with strong privacy, content and participant list protection, and without commercial advertising. See http://calliope.sf.net/

Other OPG volunteer opportunities at https://www.onlinepolicy.org/services/opg-voluntee r-apply.shtml

More general info at http://www.onlinepolicy.org/