Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DMCA Takedown Scandal, Part Two

Posted by kdawson on from the trying-harder dept.

pmdubs writes "Following up on our earlier discussion, Michael Freedman updates us on experience with dubious DMCA takedown notices. As a result of the publicity his initial post received, the Video Protection Alliance has dropped Nexicon, the company to which they had outsourced infringement detection. In this case, while there may be little legal recourse to issuing invalid DMCA notices, the threat of bad press seems to have reined in highly questionable practices."

14 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The proper way to solve these problems is to establish legal precedent, not to give them bad press. They'll just find someone else to do their dirty work now, and we're still as fucked as always in the eyes of the braindead laws.

    1. Re:Not a solution. by siloko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The proper way to resolve this is to make the penalty for falsely sending DMCA takedown notices equal to that of actually committing an infringement. In some cases this can amount to millions of dollars ;)

    2. Re:Not a solution. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gotta disagree. The Sakdoctor is on target here. Laws that infringe on the people's rights are wrong. DMCA most definitely infringes on people's rights. No court in America should ever have approved of any DMCA law, period. Making up more new laws to make DMCA work better is not the correct route. Just repeal it, and make the "rights holders" do some real work to enforce reasonable law.

      Reasonable law, by the way, would see everything copyrighted before about 1970 in the public domain - and possible some things even later than 1970.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Not a solution. by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      while there may be little legal recourse to issuing invalid DMCA notices...

      You can't sue the organization issuing a bogus take-down notice? Tortious interference? Shouldn't be too tough to show actual damages, tripled in this state if it's deliberate. Or is there some incredibly high bar for damages?

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    4. Re:Not a solution. by sxeraverx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't just repeal the DMCA. Completely reverse it. I have every moral right to make a copy of something I own for my own personal use. Any DRM that tries to make that more difficult should be outlawed.

      Hello, "DMCA2 put up notice"?

    5. Re:Not a solution. by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there already harsh penalties for sending out false DMCA takedown notices in the law already? Also isn't it the case that these penalties have NEVER been applied? Without any sort of check or balance it is an unjust law, and if there are theoretical checks and balances that are never applied it is still an unjust law.

    6. Re:Not a solution. by Anpheus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Careful, DMCA also provides for safe harbor provisions. If we strike down the DMCA completely without replacing it, you can kiss Youtube, Slashdot, and every other user-contribution based site goodbye.

      I could post the first ten pages of a book on Slashdot and they would be legally liable.

    7. Re:Not a solution. by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're in favor of a forty year copyright term? IMO that's far too long. Anything before 1989 should be in the public domain. The original US copyright term was 14 years.

      And I'd like to see a DMCA that states that DRM itself is illegal, as it prevents fair use as well as the work never being able to enter the public domain. If you add DRM your work would automatically enter the public domain, and if someone breaks that DRM (DRM can never really work anyway) you're fuX0red.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. Repeal the law... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, now that we've had over a decade with the DMCA, haven't lawmakers seen that it doesn't work and ends up being a pain to the purchaser more than the pirate? Since the DMCA, how many fewer movies have been pirated? My guess is none. What about music? Nope. However, how many purchasers of content really wanted to strip out DRM and other nonsense from the things they bought but can't legally? My guess is just about everyone who has purchased DRM-ed content and wants to use it in some way.

    The internet is overwhelmingly against the DMCA, why keep it?

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Repeal the law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because most people on the Internet are just normal citizens and not executives or lobbyists of major corporations, and thus under the current American system of government have absolutely no say?

    2. Re:Repeal the law... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, now that we've had over a decade with the DMCA, haven't lawmakers seen that it doesn't work and ends up being a pain to the purchaser more than the pirate?

      Yeah, and then they will disband the TSA too!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  3. The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The DMCA take down system isn't inherently bad. It protects ISPs and various hosts from what would otherwise be severe liability. Wikipedia and Youtube would never be able to function if they didn't have the liability protection they get from the system as long as they comply promptly with reasonable requests. The system does need some reform but reform is not abolition.

    1. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only reason there's any positive at all to the DMCA is because of the ridiculous copyright system already in place.

  4. Re:Little recourse?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Filing a false notice is a fucking FELONY (17 USC 512)

    No it isn't.

    Someone who knowingly makes misrepresentations is liable for damages and attorney's fees (section f), which is a civil matter. But that doesn't apply if you're merely careless.

    Falsely claiming to be acting on behalf of the specified copyright holder is perjury, but that isn't the case with the notices which the article was discussing.

    > Call the police and press charges.

    OTOH, calling the police may well be a criminal offence (filing a false report).