Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulgb | Hacker News Reader

The current system is incredibly one-sided. I had a company remove a video that was saying negative things about it with a fraudulent takedown. It eventually went back up, but they were able to keep it offline for 10+ days and I had no recourse.

I wish the free speech caucus realized how it can be weaponized to suppress speech. Sometimes I wish someone would DMCA a bunch of congressional campaign ads, because if pols realized how one-sided and ripe for abuse the system is they might actually fix it.

View on HN

> Sometimes I wish someone would DMCA a bunch of congressional campaign ads, because if pols realized how one-sided and ripe for abuse the system is they might actually fix it.

By giving themselves an exemption, like the anti-telemarketer laws.

Importantly, I think there is a useful parallel here with the behavior that led to SLAPP laws which now exist in most states.

I was working for a start up company that had internal documents leak and got published by the media. The DMCA takedown requests were ignored by the big tech companies hosting the documents.

If the big tech companies apply human review to takedown requests against major media clients - I have no idea if they do despite having previously worked for one of them in an entirely unrelated role - they may have concluded that the posted leaked document was non-infringing fair use under the law.

Of course, they could be right or wrong, but you’re allowed to sue them in order for a court to decide that question if they decline to take it down. The takedown procedure is not legally mandatory, although the DMCA safe harbor limiting service provider liability does not apply without it.

I’m not a lawyer and am just discussing here for general information purposes rather than legal advice, so double check this with your own lawyer before filing any such lawsuit. But I am far more familiar with this area of law than most non-lawyers, for various reasons.

From what I see in the news from the US the free speech cause is basically about freedom to harass, so DMCA notices fit well into this narrative.

That is because good uses of free speech don't make the news. Anytime you see the news remember if it is common or good it isn't news.

Your news is biased and your intellectual discernment of motivation for free speech is that of a child (or slave, or wannabe tyrant).

You should reevaluate where you source your news from because that blatantly false. One of the biggest defenders of free speech in the US is the ACLU and that is a categorically incorrect assessment of their motivations and activities.

Solution: use fraudulent DMCA takedowns to take down harassers.

Your news sound quite biased.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com