[LINK] DMCA: Horrors of a Broad and Automated Censorship Tool
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Fri Mar 9 17:40:53 EST 2012
On 8/03/12 2:53 PM, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> David Boxall wrote:
>> On 8/03/2012 9:15 AM, Kim Holburn wrote:
>>>> While we’re the first to admit that copyright holders need tools to protect their work from being infringed, mistakes and abuse as outlined above shouldn’t go unpunished. ...
>> Perhaps it's time for trillion-dollar fines for abuse or carelessness.
> Or perhaps the approach the Swedes take. If you knowingly wrongfully accuse someone
> of a crime, you could be facing the same penalty your hapless accused would have
> faced if the case is proven against you.
> The DCMA is a flawed piece of legislation since, as we all know, the accused is
> guilty until proven innocent.
Certainly I agree that the regime for false accusations of copyright
infringement is way too slack in Australia.
The only option the recipient of a threat has is to resort to a Section
204 (I think) notice, which is "OK, you're accusing me of infringement -
take me to court immediately or go away". That, of course, weighs things
in favour of big-accuse-little, because the individual can't afford the
This then morphs, in the case of businesses, into a regime under which
the professional indemnity insurer is most likely to take a settlement
rather than win a court case - so long as the plaintiff's damages
request isn't too high. If you keep your demands low, you won't lose a
court case, because there won't ever be a court case.
More information about the Link