> There is stuff to complain about with the DMCA, but the core process is reasonable.

it absolutely is not in any way reasonable.

you must take down the content without question and then, after filing a counter-notice wait 10-14 days minimum before it can be restored [1]:

"After a counter notice has been received, a service provider must wait 10-14 days before they can reactivate the claimed infringing content."

frivolous complaints can completely cripple a business with little risk to the supposed claimant.

https://odinlaw.com/what-is-a-dmca-counter-notice/

That is, to be fair, an aspect that could be improved on.

However, how do you do this?

For example, perhaps a large-business exemption where they are required to follow through with legal proceedings if a claimant files a counter-notice (so they can't do the whole claim, counter-claim filed, they don't follow up, like with PopcornTime, usually because the DMCA was bogus).

But then this encourages further litigation, so it discourages people taking the risk to file a counter-claim. But unless they follow through with legal action, nobody can assess if the initial notice was "fraudulent". It's a real thorny problem.

There are many possible solutions, e.g.

- A company that files a fraudulent request loses DMCA rights (that way, it doesn't have to be proven repeatedly, just once)

- Liability for false takedowns w/ punitive damages, criminal liability with actual enforcement for malicious attempts or even negligence. Potentially a deposit requirement once a false claim has been made.

Those are good ideas, but the first one should have been:

- Nothing at all happens until a unbiased court issues an injunction.

In other words, the process that was in place before the DMCA was passed.

You should ask for immunity for tools that could potentially be used to infringe copyright, but that are not actually infringing copyright.

If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then certainly congress can accept that software doesn't pirate copyrighted works, people pirate copyrighted works.

Actually I found the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" very oxymoronic.

Sure one might argue that if you have the intent to kill, it's not necessary for one to use a gun, you have alternatives such as grenades, knives, chainsaw or even your bare hand if it's lethal enough. This is how you derive that "the gun is not evil, it's the people who are" statement.

But guns, under the category of firearms (not only guns, what about rocker launchers?), are almost-certainly designated to kill, and what is the top priority of firearm? Aim to be the most efficient killing machine.

So if you use a gun, it's not necessary that you are going to kill people, but it is very likely that you are imposing a threat to do so, regardless of if you're attacking/defending.

Therefore, trying to apply the gun analogy to current state of youtube-dl is an injustice to youtube-dl, as you compared an intrinsically evil entity to another.

There is nothing intrinsically evil about a gun. You might as well say that a knife, pen or any other inanimate object is intrinsically evil. Also, there is nothing intrinsically evil about defending yourself.

Oh, but in most cases there is something intrinsically evil about killing to defend yourself.

Like whenever you're not facing a murderous psychopath.

It's a tragedy when two people who have a gun feel the need to kill the other, over nothing more than the fear that the other might have and use one too. Even if one was breaking into the house of the other.

If you're a healthy human being you don't want to kill the intruder, you want to be safe. Neither does the intruder want to kill you, they want to get away with your stuff.

Two people not wanting to kill, being forced to kill simply by the presence, or even just the possible presence of a gun.

If you can't see the intrinsic evil in that, then I guess you must really think lightly about killing people.

I get the analogy, but guns are typically purposed for lethality.

Software is not typically purposed for piracy.

Maybe "trying to hit someone with your car"? Not sure.

It's a perfect analogy because it is so extreme. The powers that be have already accepted that way of thinking (because guns are not illegal) and it's therefore even less of a stretch to apply the same concept to software tools.

Exactly.

For one I’d like there to be some punishment for repeated abuse of DMCA. GitHub policies state that repeat offenders can get their accounts suspended/deleted. Why can’t repeat offenders (RIAA) get banned from the system at least? Some increasing back off after a rejected claim was posted? Anything that would make it un-economical to just spam the system with notices wherever you like it because there is no downside to it.

I wonder if anyone has written something to find and independently assess the validity of these bulk false DMCA take downs.

Honestly, I'm guessing a ambitious law firm could actually make a good class action suit against these offenders.

Seems like broad, real damages could be justifiably demonstrated.

If only we could retool SCO for a force-for-good?

Weren't there environmental laws that a private party could sue an offender over and would get a portion of the federal fines?

Seems like a free-market solution that the right would get behind. :)

The problem is that there is no penalty for fraudulently issuing claims.

Other than it being a felony in the US to issue a false claim with a jail time of up to 5 years aye

Reform copyright. It was based on the assumption that taxing copy production is a reasonnable way to fund creation. It was an incredibly good system in the days of the press where making copies requires heavy capital investment.

It is hilariously wrong nowadays when everybody own a copy-making machine in each pocket.

> It was an incredibly good system in the days of the press where making copies requires heavy capital investment.

It was never a good system, but it was certainly less obviously broken and destructive to society then than it is today.

But what part of it is copyrighted? URL? It does not contain copyrighted text, audio, video.

Information is on the plain sight, it is like banning base64. Any general purpose computing should be taken down as well. Browsers has DRM, as I know youtube-dl can't download Netflix, Youtube Premium etc.

For one, you could ask for due process, or the right to defend yourself before the takedown is executed.

Right now, DMCA is an accusation AND a sentence bundled into one. There's no review of its validity, you're instant guilt unless proven wealthy.

You missed the relevant part of the DMCA for this takedown, which makes bypassing "anti-circumvention' measures a crime. That section has caused nothing but problems.