[LINK] DMCA: Horrors of a Broad and Automated Censorship Tool

[Richard Chirgwin]

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.
>
>
> cheers
> rickw
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 
litigation.

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.

Utterly broken.

RC