8 ms·
Why not just write it into Federal law that a site can act as its own registered DMCA Takedown Agent, instead of having everyone go through additional red tape
by Scott_MacGregor 16y ago
Why not just write it into Federal law that a site can act as its own registered DMCA Takedown Agent, instead of having everyone go through additional red tape and pay a $105 fee to run a blog.
In a way it seems like the fee to register is a freedom of speech issue. Pay an inconsequential tiny fee to run a blog, or potentially suffer huge financial losses. Kind of like the old Poll Tax from years ago.
It seems like being proactive as builders and maintainers of the internet, and getting a new field added to the WHOIS data for a DMCA takedown email addresses would make the process easier to administer for the complaintants, and more in keeping with Freedom of Speech that the United States is founded on.
- wmf 16y agoAIUI the $105 fee is to register as your own DMCA agent. Presumably it would cost much more to hire someone to handle DMCA requests for you. I don't understand the legalities about registration, but there have definitely been problems about sending DMCA notices to the right place. In many cases attackers send the notices to your hosting company who just nukes your server and then notifies you later (or nukes your DSL and sends email to an address you've never used). Would they have sent the notice directly to you if you registered? Putting abuse contacts in whois is a good idea; it's already done for IP addresses but not for domains. http://www.fr2.cyberabuse.org/whois/?page=abuse-contact http://www.fr2.cyberabuse.org/whois/?page=abuse-contact
- rhizome 16y agoMy domains have my actual contact info on them including my name and address of service, I can't imagine a court wouldn't find that a sufficient substitute for the $105 listing. At least, that's the angle I would take if I found myself in that position.