[dragonwriter]

> Google pretty often refuses to respond to counter-dmcas,

There is not requirement to respond to DMCA notices or counternotices, doing so merely protects against certain liability you might otherwise have. In the case of counternotices, there generally is no liability to protect against (because providers can usually structure agreements with users to avoid liability for takedowns), and thus no reason to respond.

[jrochkind1]

Hmm, hypothetically if you blanket refuse to respond to coutnernotices, could you lose your protection from liability under DMCA in general? Like even in cases where no notice has been followed? Don't you have to follow the procedures, including responding to counter notices, to be get the protection from liability under DMCA in the first place?

Even if in theory, in practice we know the risk is vanishingly low of actually being held liable for much.

[dragonwriter]

> Hmm, hypothetically if you blanket refuse to respond to coutnernotices, could you lose your protection from liability under DMCA in general?

No, DMCA safe harbor is transactional: if you respond to a particular takedown, you are protected from liability to the issuer of the takedown for the content. If you respond to a particular counternotice, you are protected from liability to that user for taking down the content addressed by the counternotice.

[thebean11]

> no reason to respond.

Sure maybe from a purely cynical profit-motivated standpoint. Even then there's the risk of pissing off your users.

[abakker]

the depressing reality is that most users who are pissed off still don't take their business elsewhere. There are few other choices for similar products that work as well.

[Retric]

Google lost me as a customer. That’s frankly meaningless on it’s own, but add up everyone making the same choice and it can quickly become meaningful.

[Bang2Bay]

there is of course the good old Yahoo!