they should change the DMCA that if a copyright troll purposely sends false/automated requests, forfeits their rights and can’t claim anything anymore for the next century. And google should automatically reject any request that contains any reputable website like bbc, microsoft or nasa. And hopefully flag the copyright troll so any future request has lower priority/automatically rejected
Since even inadvertent or unintentional copying can be punished as infringement, any takedown should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and false claims should be awarded statutory damages matching infringement of registered works, collectible by the party who’s non-infringing work was blocked, but actionable by any party who is denied access. So if you can’t get to content due to DMCA you can sue, but you cannot recover damages or expenses - if you win, the $175k(?) per fraudulent take down is payable to the content owner. In that way, it’s recognized that an individual looking for content is injured by the takedown, but there is no financial incentive for take-down vigilantism.
I mean, they do have to put in the notice that it’s accurate under penalty of perjury. Presumably if you received the notice and can be bothered, you can not only contest it but bring charges against them if it’s false.
they should change the DMCA that if a copyright troll purposely sends false/automated requests, forfeits their rights and can’t claim anything anymore for the next century. And google should automatically reject any request that contains any reputable website like bbc, microsoft or nasa. And hopefully flag the copyright troll so any future request has lower priority/automatically rejected
Since even inadvertent or unintentional copying can be punished as infringement, any takedown should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and false claims should be awarded statutory damages matching infringement of registered works, collectible by the party who’s non-infringing work was blocked, but actionable by any party who is denied access. So if you can’t get to content due to DMCA you can sue, but you cannot recover damages or expenses - if you win, the $175k(?) per fraudulent take down is payable to the content owner. In that way, it’s recognized that an individual looking for content is injured by the takedown, but there is no financial incentive for take-down vigilantism.
I mean, they do have to put in the notice that it’s accurate under penalty of perjury. Presumably if you received the notice and can be bothered, you can not only contest it but bring charges against them if it’s false.
Why haven’t we seen any of that happening?