Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Maybe for you.  We have this thing here in the US called "free speech" 
> which means that the government cannot pass laws that restrict speech 
> here.  But SOPA/PIPA and similar laws (DMCA, anyone?) allow content to be 
> removed from the Internet (or would allow, in the case of laws not passed 
> yet) merely on the word of someone claiming copyright.  The burden of 
> proof is on the alleged infringer, not on the alleged copyright holder.

  In principle if a company sends a DMCA takedown notice eg. to YouTube,
if the alleged infringer makes a counter-claim then YouTube is obliged
to restore the material without question. It is then up to the copyright
holder to pursue the situation further via legal means. (YouTube cannot
start judging if something is or isn't copyright infringement because
else they'll lose their "safe harbor" status that protects them from
being sued for distributing copyrighted material.)

  One of the main drawbacks with this system is that it's a breach of
confidentiality rights. That's because if you want to issue a counter-claim,
you have to include your full personal details (name, address...) for the
claimant to see. This could, in principle, be misused by nefarious parties.
(And in fact, it has been misused. There are concrete examples.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message