Hacker News Reader

Comment by gesman | Hacker News Reader

"...And if a takedown notice is wrong, a counter-notice can be sent by someone explaining that they own the work or that it’s not infringement..."

I think "if a takedown notice is wrong" - counternotice need to be sent back with a mandatory bill to pay to compensate for effort of receiving party to prove that takedown notice is invalid. This will curb down this BS practice of frivolous opportunistic notices.

View on HN

That's true of the American legal system as a whole. It generally seems to ignore the cost to the victim of dealing with the legal system...

There is no good solution to that problem. Loser pays is even worse as you have to risk the loss if you incorrectly lose in court.

Loser or taxpayer pays, based on the judgement of the court?

That means I as a taxpayer lose when someone screws up.

Some of the time, yeah. It seems a lot better for all of us to front theses costs of government operation rather than foisting all of that cost onto people who were unlucky enough to be wronged or wrongly sued, by no fault of their own.

Cheaper than the company hosting dealing with tons of lawsuits unfortunately.

This isn't a legal takedown notice though, it's facebook's own system to keep the record producers happy. They can do this with impunity because facebook/google's system is designed to help them takedown without having to go through legal notices, which i suspect would have to be filed by a human atleast.

Absolutely.

And an additional layer, if the victim has the time/resources to countersue, and can manage to prove malice or negligence behind the takedown, the punitive fine should be absolutely massive.

The best part is that the DMCA theoretically has provisions to protect you against fraudulent claims, but no platform holder implements them. You can get absolutely blanketed by fraudulent DMCA notices and you have no recourse because companies like Google refuse to provide you any way to sue the person who's violating the law to harass you, and the companies don't make any attempt to filter out fraudulent notices.

Some random kid in Iowa could cost you thousands of dollars in daily revenue for weeks (while you wait for your dmca'd content to come back up) and you have no recourse because the law doesn't have any teeth.

Thats because technically, a youtube takedown is not a DMCA request. Instead it is a request closely modeled on DMCA takedown requests.

This applies to other Google services without content ID, like their extension store and app store

And then you enter the realm of private settlements where the victim is given money to drop the suit and to never talk about what happened ever again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com