That's nice. Meanwhile, amongst people who engage in the production of IP, DMCA takedowns are a reasonably fair, easily challengeable method for dealing with copyright infringement.
The anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA are insane, but the takedown stuff isn't bad and benefits the little guy just as much as the big guy.
You're insane. DMCA takedowns have such absurd abuse potential that it completely overshadows any perceived "benefit" for "people who engage in the production of IP". To say that "big guys" and "little guys" are on equal footing with takedowns is to be willfully ignorant of reality.
This completely ignores the blatant due process issues.
Aside: WTF? Everyone produces "IP". These are not a separate class of people.
>"Aside: WTF? Everyone produces "IP". These are not a separate class of people."
I think he meant "people who produce IP professionally" or "people who earn a living off their IP". Certainly between here and reddit and other sites I've probably produced hundreds of pages of stuff, some of it even borderline insightful, and I'd be pissed if someone stole it, but it doesn't pay my rent or buy my dinner.
The DMCA provides that if you send a counter-claim, the content will be put back up.
> To say that "big guys" and "little guys" are on equal footing with takedowns is to be willfully ignorant of reality.
I'm not saying it's perfect, and I don't know overall whether I like that it exists or not. But I also don't see how it's as much of a problem as people make it out to be, and I don't see how it only favors the big guys.
Let's say you're a small time photographer, and someone steals your pictures and posts them online. A DMCA claim and you can have them taken down. That is in the interest of small folks, who may not be able to hire lawyers or file law suits in whatever jurisdiction is necessary to prevail.
Pure opinion, like this, with no explanation or justification, adds nothing to the discussion.
I have explained why I believe it helps small and large business equally. If you'd like to have a discussion, I invite to explain why you think what you think, and open yourself to criticism by the community.
What you think is the "reality of the situation" requires explanation. If you aren't willing to provide that explanation, this discussion forum may not be a good fit for you.
The reality is that the counter-notice process can leave content down for two full weeks. This means that a DMCA takedown can be used to silence important, time-sensitive information. Imagine there's an upcoming referendum on some major issue. The party with more lawyers can send DMCA notices to all the sites, YouTube videos, etc. opposing their view of the referendum a week before the vote, preventing voters from obtaining critical information.
FWIW, a counterclaim on YouTube took about two hours to process when I had to do one due to an incorrect DMCA claim. That may not be representative, but it was pretty quick.
It's certainly possible that actions like those you outline (which essentially amount to barratry) could happen. I never said that the content provisions were perfect; I'm not a big fan of some language and some behaviors that are in the content takedown sections of the DMCA. It could certainly be modified and improved, and I'd be all for that. But I'd argue that it, as-is, remains a useful course of action for the "little guy" IP producers who essentially have no other recourse, and that that outweighs the abuses perpetuated by a small group of content creators.
The reality where hosting companies and ISPs cave immediately to the side that has more lawyers. The reality where companies spray DMCA takedowns to intimidate lone hackers they dislike, in situations they would never dare actually take that person to court under. The reality where large companies form backroom deals to "streamline" DMCA takedowns so that dissident voices can be silenced with a keypress, limiting exposure.
"That reality? Because you're not entitled to your own."
