6 ms·

DMCA is in no way pro web-host. You can send out mass takedown requests and some hosts will choose to remove the content without even contacting the host of sai

DMCA is in no way pro web-host. You can send out mass takedown requests and some hosts will choose to remove the content without even contacting the host of said infringing content.

metaphorm 12y ago
its pro-webhost with respect to generally not holding hosts liable for damages as long as they comply with DMCA requests.
rhino369 12y ago
The alternative was holding them liable for anything they put on their servers.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  That alternative isn't even plausible. Hosts have no practical way to determine whether the users own or have licensed the content they post so it makes no sense to impose liability on them. The realistic alternative is the CDA safe harbor which has no takedown procedure. If you have e.g. a libel claim you have to go after the actual poster. It also isn't clear whether they would even have any liability without the safe harbor, because it was put into place early enough that we don't really know what happens without it. But you don't generally expect the Post Office to be liable for what people send in the mail.
  - sp332 12y ago
    That's worse than the current system. In the current system, the host can just take down the infringing content (until the uploader challenges the takedown), and pass along a warning to the uploader. The person complaining about the infringement never gets personal info about who the uploader is. In your scenario, the webhost would leave the content up but they would have to identify the uploader.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      > In your scenario, the webhost would leave the content up but they would have to identify the uploader. What part of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230 do you read as a requirement to identify the uploader? Obviously a plaintiff who wants to sue the uploader might be able to get a subpoena (assuming the webhost can identify the uploader), but how is that different from the DMCA?

DMCA is in no way pro web-host. You can send out mass takedown requests and some hosts will choose to remove the content without even contacting the host of said infringing content.

metaphorm 12y ago

its pro-webhost with respect to generally not holding hosts liable for damages as long as they comply with DMCA requests.

rhino369 12y ago

The alternative was holding them liable for anything they put on their servers.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
That alternative isn't even plausible. Hosts have no practical way to determine whether the users own or have licensed the content they post so it makes no sense to impose liability on them. The realistic alternative is the CDA safe harbor which has no takedown procedure. If you have e.g. a libel claim you have to go after the actual poster. It also isn't clear whether they would even have any liability without the safe harbor, because it was put into place early enough that we don't really know what happens without it. But you don't generally expect the Post Office to be liable for what people send in the mail.
- sp332 12y ago
  That's worse than the current system. In the current system, the host can just take down the infringing content (until the uploader challenges the takedown), and pass along a warning to the uploader. The person complaining about the infringement never gets personal info about who the uploader is. In your scenario, the webhost would leave the content up but they would have to identify the uploader.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > In your scenario, the webhost would leave the content up but they would have to identify the uploader. What part of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230 do you read as a requirement to identify the uploader? Obviously a plaintiff who wants to sue the uploader might be able to get a subpoena (assuming the webhost can identify the uploader), but how is that different from the DMCA?