|
|
|
|
|
|
by knowtheory
5078 days ago
|
|
|
How exactly is that incompatible with what I've said? The DCMA assumes that Apple, acting in good faith, will resolve Runic's issue by either taking down the infringing content, or putting them in touch with the supposedly infringing party. The infringing party, if they believe Runic to be incorrect can then counter-file, to ensure the content is not taken down, and then from there Runic and the infringing party are the ones responsible for dealing with the legalities of the issue not Apple. |
|
|
I believe I just gave a point-by-point of how that's incompatible with what you said. I'll be more explicit:
You said "through the DCMA ensure that the content is either taken down, or they are put in touch with the party". I said that putting you in touch with the party is not sufficient under the DMCA; it's not an either/or situation.
You said "from there on out, it is the responsibility of the two parties to work out". I said that Apple's responsibility does not end at the takedown notice, they're also responsible for handling the potential counter-notice and restoring access to the content.
Then you made some silly comment about governance by corporations, when the DMCA requires those corporations not decide the merits of either party's claims; in a dispute, it is required to leave the content available and force the parties to court to resolve the situation. If they don't do so, they retain full liability for the copyright infringement.
You didn't say all the other stuff you just edited into your comment, not that it corrects all the issues with your original statement.