I think overall this is a good thing for an internet that hosts user-created content, which includes comments, but they could definitely tidy up the implementation. As it stands you are allowed to reject the claim if you think you are in the right, and the company should restore the disputed content if you do so - but some like YouTube operate above and beyond the DMCA and seemingly intentionally blur the lines a lot so people blame the DMCA and not their custom process.
It would be, if fraudulent requests came with a penalty. They don’t. DMCA is a pure cancer the way it is.
If you're a service provider, you don't have to listen to a DMCA request; just the safe harbor the DMCA gives you evaporates and you're on your own (like service providers were before the DMCA).
I agree it would be good for the DMCA to be strengthened against abuse like this, but it's better for everyone than if we didn't have it.
The implementation may be mostly written by the copyright industry, especially the way spurious takedowns are completely legal, but we're better off with the DMCA than without. With the power copyright and trademark institutions have now grown to, I also don't think I would like a modern re-interpretation of the law.
The EU did some copyright rework. As expected, lobbyists turned copyright law into a shitfest designed to serve large companies with boatloads of IP. I would hate for the USA to also fall victim to that.
Wait, what? That seems at odds with section 230 of the CDA. What the DMCA established was the notice/takedown/counter-notice process. Section 230 makes hosts not liable for their users' content.
There are a few articles around discussing it like https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publishing-statements-and-c...
This in my opinion is a much neater solution than DMCA.
Citing from the related law:
>ARTICLE 2
>e) Access Provider means real persons or legal entities that provide access to Internet for its users,
>f) Content Provider means real persons or legal entities that create, amend or provide all kinds of information or data presented to users on the Internet,
...
>m) Hosting Provider means real or legal entities that provide or operate systems that host services and content,
...
>ARTICLE 5
>(1) Hosting provider is not obligated to check the content it provides or to investigate whether it is an illegal activity.
>(2) Hosting provider is obliged to remove the content that is against to law if it is notified according to Articles 8 and 9 of this Law.
>(3) Hosting provider is obliged to keep traffic information for the services it provides for a period of not less than one year and not more than two years, to be determined in the regulation, and to ensure the accuracy, integrity and privacy of this information.
...
>ARTICLE 8
>(2) The decision to block access is given by the judge in the case of the investigation and by the court in the case of prosecution. In case of any delay in the investigation, the public prosecutor may also decide to remove the content and/or to block access. In this case, the public prosecutor’s decision shall be submitted to the judge’s approval within twenty-four hours, and the judge shall make his decision within twenty-four hours at the latest. If the decision is not approved within this period, the measure shall be removed immediately by the public prosecutor.
>(3) A copy of the decision to remove the content and/or to block access given by the judge, the court or the public prosecutor shall be sent to the Authority for the further action.
>(4) The decision to remove the content and/or block access to publications whose content constitutes the crimes stated in the first paragraph shall be given ex officio by the President. This decision shall be notified to the relevant content, hosting and access provider and is asked to carry out its requirements.