Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xcde4c3db | Hacker News Reader

> We think the 1998 statute struck the right balance and is generally working well, a view shared by nearly all Internet platforms and users.

This might be peripheral to the main point, but I have a hard time believing this. Spurious takedowns have inspired multiple waves of invective on YouTube alone. It's a pretty common opinion (at least in my circles) that the current law unduly encourages copyright owners and their representatives to send vast numbers of notifications with no regard to their accuracy. Furthermore, the lopsided requirements of notification vs. counter-notification ("reasonably sufficient" contact information vs. name, address, and phone number) have been abused in order to dox people [1].

[1] https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-group-reveals-personal-...

View on HN

YouTube takedown waves are not examples of the DMCA. YouTube gives rights-holders far more power than the DMCA alone would give.

Which is a shame. If they used the DMCA and you had a video taken down for a spurious reason, you could claim fair-use or no-infringement, and the video could be restored. Then the rights holder would have to sue you personally to get it taken down, and you could potentially fight it.

Reminds me of this apt explanation of the situation: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTAVsMqa-U

Remember what they're fighting against:

> some incumbent rightsholders and their advocacy organizations disagree and think the system needs to be completely redone because it is too hard to police copyright infringement online

Compared to what the rightsholders want, I think the current system is a good compromise.

That's a reasonable stance as far as it goes, but in pragmatic terms I worry that now that there's a new round of debate, planting a flag at the status quo risks inviting a new compromise that's more restrictive.

edit: Basically, it means that the other side doesn't risk actually losing anything by picking fights again and again and again, while the Internet Archive's side has to fight just to stand still.

AKA shifting the Overton window, foot in the door/door in the face, camel's nose in the tent, etc.

Which is the plan. If people recall, the rights holders have never been happy with the status quo, which is one of the reasons copy right in America has constantly become longer, even though the creators have long since passed.

Copyright feels like its has lost its original intention of ensuring the creator of an idea or property is protected, and has become a way of permanently annexing an idea or IP forever.

And as long as the rights holders have more money, time and resources, there's no real reason they shouldnt stop pushing the enevelope.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com