> I think overall this is a good thing for an internet that hosts user-created content
It would be, if fraudulent requests came with a penalty. They don’t. DMCA is a pure cancer the way it is.
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...