The issue is that nobody at the justice department seems to be interested in pursuing perjury, which is what filing a fake DMCA claim would be punished as.
It's difficult. Perjury requires intent. If a badly trained employee in a hurry makes a mistake that's not perjury.
This means it's legal, under the current law, to badly train your employees and to set them quotas for the amount of DMCA takedowns they have to serve.
They're not intentionally making false statements.
To stop this, you need to create new explicit penalties for bad takedown requests.
There's plenty of examples of companies intentionally filling DMCA claims to screw competitors. As far as I know nobody's ever seen any consequences for this. The law is broken when there's no actual punishment for abuse.
If it's repeated offenses like the example in the article, it's a little harder to prove it wasn't intentional.
I think the problem is that it shows irresponsibility, however the law requires intent. That's sadly - or well, I suppose overall it's a good thing! - a very different beast on a legal level.
Don't tell me this DMCA thing is just a broken USA thing that the rest of us are forced to endure?
I thought, being as it affects the entire globe's internet community so gigantically, it would be a legal framework agreed upon internationally.
If it's just some thing the Americans made up and fucked up implementing and that's why creators in my country and around the world suffer, that's shite.
It's a US law that basically any internet company just follows (or they implemented internal processes that just follow its guidelines where you don't even need to file an actual official DMCA request).
The issue is that nobody at the justice department seems to be interested in pursuing perjury, which is what filing a fake DMCA claim would be punished as.
It's difficult. Perjury requires intent. If a badly trained employee in a hurry makes a mistake that's not perjury.
This means it's legal, under the current law, to badly train your employees and to set them quotas for the amount of DMCA takedowns they have to serve.
They're not intentionally making false statements.
To stop this, you need to create new explicit penalties for bad takedown requests.
There's plenty of examples of companies intentionally filling DMCA claims to screw competitors. As far as I know nobody's ever seen any consequences for this. The law is broken when there's no actual punishment for abuse.
If it's repeated offenses like the example in the article, it's a little harder to prove it wasn't intentional.
I think the problem is that it shows irresponsibility, however the law requires intent. That's sadly - or well, I suppose overall it's a good thing! - a very different beast on a legal level.
Don't tell me this DMCA thing is just a broken USA thing that the rest of us are forced to endure?
I thought, being as it affects the entire globe's internet community so gigantically, it would be a legal framework agreed upon internationally.
If it's just some thing the Americans made up and fucked up implementing and that's why creators in my country and around the world suffer, that's shite.
It's a US law that basically any internet company just follows (or they implemented internal processes that just follow its guidelines where you don't even need to file an actual official DMCA request).