Re:YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
by tgsovlerkhgsel on Sunday October 25, 2020 @10:22AM
(#24886492)
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.
Re:YouTube-dl is now part of GitHub/dmca.git
by nybble41 on Monday October 26, 2020 @02:44AM
(#24893400)
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.
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.