[JoshTriplett]

> A few dollars per false claim seems like a good starting point to consider from.

False claims cause content to be taken down before the opportunity to respond. Timeliness has value. Even if the content is restored later, the damage has sometimes already been done. "a few dollars" is not reasonable. "The cost of the damage done, plus a further penalty" is closer to reasonable.

[po1nt]

Arguing the "cost of the damage done" will ultimately require lawyers

[JoshTriplett]

Sure. But ultimately, the right fix would be to give time for counter-notice before taking the content down.

[deanishe]

Not really, no. The current kerfuffle is primarily over illegal streaming of live sports. The blocks need to be in place very rapidly to have any effect.

Some governments have given rightsholders the ability to order IPs blocked at short notice, and they've caused a lot of collateral damage, making thousands of unrelated sites unreachable.

[JoshTriplett]

> Not really, no. The current kerfuffle is primarily over illegal streaming of live sports. The blocks need to be in place very rapidly to have any effect.

They really don't. As has been repeatedly rediscovered in a thousand other cases: 1) a modest amount of friction will make most people not do it, 2) you will never stop everyone, and collateral damage will be too high ("the optimal amount of fraud is not zero", https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... ), and 3) "piracy is a service problem".

Some of the most effective mechanisms in history for shifting people away from copyright infringement have been iTunes and Netflix. Everything on both is readily available for free, but people for the most part don't. And when they do, more often than not it's a service problem: "use this offline", "take a screenshot for commentary", "they took the content down and now it's not available anywhere", "not available at all in some regions of the world".