Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
DMCA bombing like any Denial of service attack increase time demands, and therefore can justifiable increase "reasonable period of time". If they get bad enough, host can ask clarifying questions since they must only respond to valid take down request. Spelling out fair use ruling and demanding "confirmation" that they content producer explictly "accepts" the monetary damages for a false take down notice would be a counter solution to such an attack.
|
just to clarify, i by no means suggested "fake" DMCA takedown notices.
That they are to be legit and properly documented, but filed at the same time.
While the "defense" on the tube site in court might be that they got overwhelmed with requests, the real argument is to prove that if such a large amount of requests were proven needing to be taken down, then how can the site believe with blinders on that all of the "user uploaded content" was legal.
Alot of DMCA safe harbour is the putting on of blinders. That only when someone tells you something is wrong, that you turn your head and then your eyes are focused on the problem.. but under DMCA, the safe harbour clause is lost if you are knowingly aware that infringing material is present and is expected to be there for the business to be successful.
Fight the carpet bombing!