It's incredibly frustrating that these processes are so one-sided. There's no incentive for copyright holders to take care over getting this right, because there's no consequence to them getting...
It's incredibly frustrating that these processes are so one-sided. There's no incentive for copyright holders to take care over getting this right, because there's no consequence to them getting it wrong.
This case is particularly unusual in that it actually might generate a bit of negative press for Sega - even then, I doubt it'll be enough for them to even have a human review each letter, let alone make meaningful changes to how they approach DMCA notices.
Yup, these systems are assumed to run on a basic level of respect which plain doesn't seem to exist. I wonder how you could counter it? Measure the damage done by a fraudulent takedown request and...
Yup, these systems are assumed to run on a basic level of respect which plain doesn't seem to exist. I wonder how you could counter it? Measure the damage done by a fraudulent takedown request and require them to pay for it? Would they care (I also think SteamDM, amazingly, is free)? What about a smaller company sending a legitimate takedown request to a larger one, getting lawyered off, and now forced to pay some ridiculous "damages"?
Perhaps require all DMCA notices to be registered through a central clearinghouse and tagged by copyright holder? Have independent lawyers audit a randomised sample and levy significant fines (as...
Perhaps require all DMCA notices to be registered through a central clearinghouse and tagged by copyright holder? Have independent lawyers audit a randomised sample and levy significant fines (as in percentage of gross annual revenue) if they find more than a certain percentage from a given source to be meritless. Or even just suspend all further claims from that source, for a time period that doubles on each offence.
I'm sure there are holes, but something along those lines would be my starting point if the system were designed with balance in mind rather than as an incredibly transparent tool of the major media companies.
There is a counter claim process in the DMCA, the problem is, it's very expensive and not practical to make and defend a counterclaim against a company with enough money for lawyers.
There is a counter claim process in the DMCA, the problem is, it's very expensive and not practical to make and defend a counterclaim against a company with enough money for lawyers.
After initially being taken down by a DMCA, this page is now back up as the DMCA has been retracted.
SEGA statement:
Earlier this week, one of our games was incorrectly flagged on SteamDB. We utilize anti-piracy software to protect our games at a large scale, but sometimes it makes mistakes. SEGA will continue to fine-tune these systems to avoid this in the future and we appreciate SteamDB cooperating with us to resolve the issue quickly.
They're manned. There was some good discussion in a previous thread on HN, I don't remember what it was about, some archival site getting DMCA'd over decades old work. The problem is they're...
They're manned. There was some good discussion in a previous thread on HN, I don't remember what it was about, some archival site getting DMCA'd over decades old work.
The problem is they're outsourced companies with perverse incentives, that have to show reports like "hey, look how useful we are, we've done N successful takedowns".
It's incredibly frustrating that these processes are so one-sided. There's no incentive for copyright holders to take care over getting this right, because there's no consequence to them getting it wrong.
This case is particularly unusual in that it actually might generate a bit of negative press for Sega - even then, I doubt it'll be enough for them to even have a human review each letter, let alone make meaningful changes to how they approach DMCA notices.
Yup, these systems are assumed to run on a basic level of respect which plain doesn't seem to exist. I wonder how you could counter it? Measure the damage done by a fraudulent takedown request and require them to pay for it? Would they care (I also think SteamDM, amazingly, is free)? What about a smaller company sending a legitimate takedown request to a larger one, getting lawyered off, and now forced to pay some ridiculous "damages"?
It's ugly.
Perhaps require all DMCA notices to be registered through a central clearinghouse and tagged by copyright holder? Have independent lawyers audit a randomised sample and levy significant fines (as in percentage of gross annual revenue) if they find more than a certain percentage from a given source to be meritless. Or even just suspend all further claims from that source, for a time period that doubles on each offence.
I'm sure there are holes, but something along those lines would be my starting point if the system were designed with balance in mind rather than as an incredibly transparent tool of the major media companies.
There is a counter claim process in the DMCA, the problem is, it's very expensive and not practical to make and defend a counterclaim against a company with enough money for lawyers.
From the page claimed:
God I hate corporate lawyer-ese.
SEGA's unmanned DMCA takedown robot, more like.
They're manned. There was some good discussion in a previous thread on HN, I don't remember what it was about, some archival site getting DMCA'd over decades old work.
The problem is they're outsourced companies with perverse incentives, that have to show reports like "hey, look how useful we are, we've done N successful takedowns".
Ugh, that's even worse.