Quote:
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
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!
|
but the reason for the safe harbor provision was to protect fair use of the copyrighted material.
Without such a clause, a take down notice would be a censorship tool.
If you were to "fight" like this the counter arguement is to hide directly behind the fair use.
Youtube is doing this now, one of their arguements is a fair use one, namely arguing to extend the definition of established fair uses like commentary (look at my favorite routine of quest crew) parody (downfall parodies), sampling (dancing baby lets go crazy).
add things like timeshifting, formating shifting and access shifting.
if you buried a host with DMCA take down notices, then rather then let you prove their business was infringing in nature they would simple have "weed thru" the fake by pointing out fair use court cases (like the timeshifting in a cloud ruling) and demand explict acceptance of the replacement cost (providing X^2 backup points where x was the number of content liciencee in the swarm) if they failed to prove in court that timeshifting in a cloud did not apply.
Any that failed to comply with the request could be ignored because acceptance of such liablity is a condition of a valid DMCA take down request.
Fighting is not the answer.
This is VCR type situation, one where you have to create a monetization policy that exploits the opp instead of trying to stop it.