Hacker News Reader

Comment by StudentStuff | Hacker News Reader

The enforcement mechanism relies on the receiving party (Twitter in this case) suing the fraudulent DMCA sender. This is troublesome, as these platforms have very little motivation to do anything beyond discarding fraudulent DMCA notices, and users of the platform that are the target of the DMCA notice might not have standing to take this matter into their own hands (IANAL).

Establishing certain mass-DMCA senders as often fraudulent would be risky to do without at least a summary judgment, so YouTube, Google, Twitter and ilk provide no pushback against repeat DMCA notice fraudsters as any perceived pushback could land them in court.

View on HN

Wait, it's up to Twitter to sue, not the person whose content was taken down? So there's no recourse at all for the actual victim?

That has been my interpretation of the DMCA notices I've received in the past, its an issue between the host of the content and whoever sent the DMCA notice.

This is incorrect - it's an issue between the copyright owner and copyright infringer, with the content host only acting as a relay.

Under Section 512 the only responsibility of the service provider is to remove the content, relay the notice to the actual copyright infringer, and allow them to file a counter-notice.

From there if the counter-notice isn't accepted by the copyright owner, they would have to file a lawsuit with the copyright infringer.

> From there if the counter-notice isn't accepted by the copyright owner, they would have to file a lawsuit with the copyright infringer.

But can you as the alleged infringer sue the claimant?

Yes but only for damages.

But if the platform ignores the DMCA takedown, the alleged infringer will never know, and so cannot sue.

I think the original question is if the platform can sue the person sending the DMCA takedown, for some kind of harassment. Because the platform itself will also investigate before taking content down.

As long as the platform follows a proper DMCA takedown, they cannot be sued for infringement. If, however, the platform ignores the DMCA takedown, they lose the protection they'd otherwise keep under the law and can themselves be held liable for the infringing copyright.

Ah, so they need to act as a relay. Now I get it. Thanks for the explanation.

The problem with the DMCA is that the platform has to immediately take down the content or they lose the protective aspect of the DMCA- I think (though not a lawyer) that more or less any analysis immediately strips protection.

Essentially the belief is that DMCA would never be abused for any reason so you need to penalize the platform but not the submitter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com