|
|
|
|
|
|
by moremetadata
1210 days ago
|
|
|
> the 10-day counterclaim response window is required by law. Punitive towards individuals and small businesses. From what I can see, it seems to be a curated list of IPTV sources [1] Which puts it in search engine activity territory. I'm reminded that Github stood up to the UK's City of London Police who issued a DMCA for the PirateBay Proxy on GitHub. [2] However Law can be used to resource burn entities where no compensation for failed legal attempts exist as the City of London Police demonstrated with their actions. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0Ku53I...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34659768 |
|
|
take it up with Congress via your local representatives. I didn't write the law.
The DMCA makes almost no requirement that the claim be valid. It is only obviously invalid claims which are allowed to be ignored by the hosting provider receiving the DMCA claim. All other DMCA claims must result in the takedown of the cited content, and it doesn't matter if the claim is valid or not, it doesn't matter if there is precedent regarding other content; the only thing that matters when a claim is received is that it not be an obviously false claim.
There is no due process between the time a claim is received and the time of the takedown of the content cited in the claim. It is an assumption of infringement, with the 10-day thing I previously described being the only way out unless the victim chooses to sue.
I'm a bit annoyed that people (who were apparently educated on the DMCA by Slashdot comment sections alone) seem to have a lot of detailed knowledge about the DMCA but not about the portion of the DMCA which describes the 10-day counterclaim response window.