Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet EU Piracy Politics

EU Parliament Debates a DMCA Equivalent 73

Posted by timothy
from the stakeholders-sometimes-means-wooden-stakes dept.
bs0d3 writes "Right now what is lacking across Europe is a standard law to handle notice-and-take-downs of illegal sites like the U.S.'s DMCA. Right now illegal content across Europe is subject to non-standard takedown letters, some of which include no mention of what law was allegedly infringed, nor in which jurisdiction in Europe it's infringed, or who to contact in your jurisdiction to challenge the claim, or even which company it is that is being represented by the law firm that gets in touch with the [site owner]. They need a system so that the notices would have to include information that makes them verifiable as correct." Perhaps that will change; "The EU is holding a public consultation discussing notice-and-take-down laws."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Parliament Debates a DMCA Equivalent

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Don't do it,you'll be soooooorrrry!

    • Wouldn't DMCA analog in EU let me have all Thomas Aquinas' books taken down on account that it's Aristotle plagiarized?
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday July 23, 2012 @08:20AM (#40735213) Journal

    I wouldn't look to the DMCA for guidance on this one... It has, perhaps, inspired a slightly greater degree of verbosity in US takedowns; but it certainly hasn't done much for the legal quality of the genre. The effective pressure to get anything other than the 'this is a DMCA takedown notice' part of the takedown notice right is close to zero.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The EU has been asleep until it was too late and then some. The DMCA was a major leap forward for the US. I know that it's not a liked law in these circles, but without it, Youtube, Google itself and basically the whole internet would not have flourished like it has in the US. A standardized takedown procedure which, when followed, absolves hosters of all responsibility for third party content, has drastically reduced the risk for entrepreneurs. In effect, the DMCA has made more content available, even ille

      • by biodata (1981610)
        I think it's a bit much blaming DMCA for the growth of the internet. I think other forces were probably more important.
      • > Its potential for abuse is far outweighed by its benefits. Without it, anything that looks even remotely infringing won't find a host, but with the DMCA, the same material can at least be hosted until a takedown notice is received, rightful or not.

        Don't you mean:

        "Its abuse is far outweighed by its benefits. Without it, anything that looks even remotely infringing won't find a host, but with the DMCA, the same material can at least be hosted until a takedown notice is received, rightful or not."

        Because

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      I wouldn't look to ANY of them until there's some evidence that piracy costs the world more than making laws to fight it.

    • Across the EU there are individual countries laws some of which can cause a takedown however most cannot

      Copyright is a civil matter and so it is between the copyright holder and the alleged infringer, the ISP is not involved and have their own policies if they comply with takedown notices or not... none of this is a police matter

      Most of the takedown requests are DCMA (mostly mis-applied out of jurisdiction) or cite the wrong law or are badly worded .... so any cleanup of this would be appreciated, but a no

    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      Some of ye make a bigger deal of the DMCA then it really is. Here is how the process works:

      - You upload some video or audio or text to a website.
      - Some corporation or author sends a notice that it infringes their copyright.
      - You reply with "no it doesn't" and your uploaded content is restored.
      - The end

      It's a painless process that doesn't cost you anything, except maybe a few minutes responding to the DMCA notice. The alternative pre-DMCA was to have your video, audio, or text removed and No Way to have it

      • Correction: "You reply with 'no it doesn't' and your uploaded content is restored [after 10 to 14 days, and only if the service provider feels like it.]."

        • by cpu6502 (1960974)

          "only if the service provider feels like it".

          False. If they refuse to restore your content after you respond, "No this doesn't infringe," then they are committing a federal criminal act under the DMCA. You have the right to open a lawsuit against them. ISPs are well aware of this, which is why they never leave content permanently removed.

          • If they refuse to restore your content after you respond, "No this doesn't infringe," then they are committing a federal criminal act under the DMCA.

            I don't think so. All the DMCA does is hold ISPs harmless for the removal of content under the DMCA, provided they restore that content between 10 to 14 days after receiving a counter-notice. It is not a criminal act under the DMCA to refuse to restore such content, nor would they necessarily be held liable for the removal should the case end up in civil cour

      • Yeah, that only works in a perfect world - which this is not. People get stuff wrongly flagged, not always gettig it restored, companies abuse the DMCA blatantly w/o recourse.
      • "It's a painless process that doesn't cost you anything, except maybe a few minutes responding to the DMCA notice."

        It is nothing of the sort.

        I notice that you neglected to mention that little part about how the provider is required by law to wait a minimum of 10 days before restoring the content.

        It is a painFUL process, that [a] puts the burden on innocent parties and [b] has been horribly abused, in order to do everything from keeping people from putting up birthday messages with (fair use) music in them, to chilling political speech.

        The DMCA take-down process is an abomination that must end.

        "The alternative pre-DMCA was to have your video, audio, or text removed and No Way to have it restored."

        Nonsense. The alte

        • by cpu6502 (1960974)

          >>>the provider is required by law to wait a minimum of 10 days before restoring the content.

          Few do. I've seen youtube yank videos & then restore them the next day.

          • "Few do. I've seen youtube yank videos & then restore them the next day."

            Well, that's pretty weird, because they are required BY FEDERAL LAW to do so. Just look up the language of the DMCA yourself.

  • Well I filled out the form, unfortunately it will go under when the content-mafia activates their mechanical Turks to flood them with pro-content forms.

  • by Tim Ward (514198) on Monday July 23, 2012 @08:25AM (#40735237) Homepage

    ... if as the operator of some tiny UK web site for some voluntary community group you got a letter in dubious English from some foreign lawyer accusing you of something incomprehensible?

    OK, you'd probably ignore it, and quite often, perhaps usually, that would work. But if was serious, and you were actually in the wrong, what then?

    Some EU-wide law saying that such notices have to follow certain rules might help actually.

    (Last time I saw one of these - a letter in dubious English from some foreign lawyer accusing an organisation of something incomprehensible - it turned out to be cheaper to use Google than to pay our own lawyers to respond. The author of the letter turned out to have an "interesting" history, so the letter was just kept on file, in case it turned out to be useful evidence should the person involved try again using a less "interesting" UK firm.)

  • A hosting site or a service provider should not be responsible for the actions of their users, nor should they be forced to prove their innocence. In a real legal state, takedown notice laws can't exist.

    • by w_dragon (1802458)
      That's the whole point of notice-and-notice. The service provider doesn't know or care who owns the copyright, they get a notice that something is illegal and they take it down and notify the user that put it up. The user can the fill out a form to get the content put back up, which the provider will also do. If it is put back up then the provider will notify the entity that sent the take-down notice that the content is back up, and provide the contact information for the user allowing the company trying
      • by biodata (1981610)
        That all sounds very expensive and time consuming for both users and ISPs, and in many cases, probably unnecessary. How about this: if someone commits a crime the police investigate, the courts prosecute, and fines are paid/jailtime is done?
        • That all sounds very expensive and time consuming for both users and ISPs, and in many cases, probably unnecessary. How about this: if someone commits a crime the police investigate, the courts prosecute, and fines are paid/jailtime is done?

          Last I checked, copyright violation is a civil matter, which the police don't handle.

          • by biodata (1981610)
            Even better then. Let the injured parties sue the people who post the content and leave the carriers alone.
            • by Anonymous Coward

              Where do you think the copyright holders are going to get the information about who posted the content? Will this require all content providers to have verified personal information about who uploads content to their servers so they can pass it on? Otherwise what solution do you envision?

              I know DMCA isn't popular here, but you want a solution that requires a little work and is occasionally abused to be replaced by a non-system that you've neither though out nor considered the far greater ramifications of. U

            • by Shagg (99693)

              That's obviously the way it should be. Unfortunately, the entire point of the DMCA is to bypass the legal system. Concepts like "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" are too inconvenient.

            • by Elldallan (901501)
              As long as civil matters does not require guilty beyond reasonable doubt I prefer the regular courts.
  • by squash_me_quickly (663285) on Monday July 23, 2012 @08:45AM (#40735335) Homepage

    The problem with the DMCA is that, in every case where I have seen it used, ones content is blocked on the internet after lawyer are involved.
    It is then completely up to the owner of the site to prove that they have no infringing content on their site.

    The process of sending a DMCA complaint was free, the last time I checked. Go to DMCA.com... and fill out a form, quote from the site "The DMCA.com Takedown claim form takes about 3 minutes to fill out."

    If one is a victim of a bogus DMCA complaint, there is no easy help to find on their site. Once one finds the correct page one can read that a counterclaim can only be sent "after the DMCA Takedown has been submitted and after the content has been removed."

    Once on sends the the counterclaim to the ISP "they must wait 10-14 days" before they may unblock the content.

    Accused = sentenced immediately :(
    Exonerated = sorry, you got to wait 10-14 days :(

    • by Kjella (173770) on Monday July 23, 2012 @10:36AM (#40736309) Homepage

      Yes, I think this is a big flaw with the DMCA. If you have the chutzpah to file a signed counter-notice under penalty of perjury with your real name and address, then I say the ISP should be required to "act expeditiously to restore, or enable access to, the material" and let them battle it out in court, it's a civil matter and there should be no presumption to either side. Also you run the risk of perjury and they don't, the notice should require the "A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." to be under penalty of perjury. You might be wrong, but you must do so in "good faith" - right now you can send out anything you want as long as you don't "knowingly misrepresent" which is practically impossible to prove. If you have a stupid process with simple keyword searches and no QA you can be as reckless in sending out notices as you please and it's fully legal.

      • by Elldallan (901501)
        Personally I do not think the complaining party should have have a "in good faith" protection. If you want to take content down you better be 100% sure it is infringing and that the use is not permitted by fair use etc or you should not send the complaint.
        A counter claim should have a "in good faith protection" however because there should not be the same assumption that they know the law. And yes the content host should be required to restore the content with expediency(within 48h) if a counter claim is s
    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      >>>The problem with the DMCA is that, in every case where I have seen it used, ones content is blocked on the internet after lawyer are involved.

      Completely and totally
      WRONG.
      - You upload some video or audio or text to youtube or your ISP's hosting website.
      - A corporation or author sends a notice that it infringes their copyright.
      - You reply with "no it doesn't" and your uploaded content is restored.
      - The end

      This is a MUCH better process than what existed pre-DMCA when your video, audio, or text was

  • WARNING

    If you are playing this video game outside of the country of Japan. You are involved in a crime.

    STOP

    Use and export of this video game outside of the country of Japan is in violation of copyright law and constitues a criminal act.

    Media has said similar messages to this for at least decades. The DMCA are just another layer on top of already draconian copy right laws. It is just a case of, "First they came for, then they came for, then they came for me" type of issue. Most people have been breaking laws for years and didn't even know it. Why should the general populous care now?

    It is copyright infringment if you buy a book in France and then bring it back to the US to read it. It is copyright infringment to buy a DS game while in

  • Public consultations (Score:5, Informative)

    by Serpents (1831432) on Monday July 23, 2012 @09:13AM (#40735509)
    I wonder how "public" they're going to be. During the ACTA debacle the Polish government invited representatives of all movie/music/whathaveyou industry organizations and not a single NGO, representative of an alternative point of view or somebody who actually has some idea about how the Internet works and they called it "public consultations". I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar here
  • Right now what is lacking across Europe is a standard law to handle notice-and-take-downs of illegal sites like the U.S.'s DMCA

    Nah, we think we'll pass- Have a nice day.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Isn't this the article (with this exact title and summary, not a dupe of another one I'm sure) that in the submission queue the submitter had added a note apologising for his mistake in saying it was being considered by the Parliament and noting that it's actually being considered by the Commission? Is there a reason it's been put on the front page without correcting that?

  • Anyone who demands a takedown be taken out back and shot. We're supposed to fight censorship, not make it easier.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I hope they make sure to put *severe* penalties on notices sent in bad faith, i.e. for a home-made recording of birds singing outside allegedly infringing on some song.

    "oh, our automated system must have picked that up by mistake" is a textbook example of admitting to putting out a notice in bad faith (not properly verified), but somehow in the US the Lords and Ladies Rights Holders get away unpunished while they should have been hit with a $200,000 punitive damages order to be paid to the recipient of the

  • "Right now what is lacking across Europe is a standard law to handle notice-and-take-downs of illegal sites like the U.S.'s DMCA..." I always suspected the DMCA site was illegal.
  • an entire dreadful decade by now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Copyright_Directive [wikipedia.org]
    No need to make it any worse.

"Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it." -- Marvin the paranoid android

Working...