Florida Joker is in the news again, this time demanding to speak with Rockstar Games, or to be given $1-2 million over his likeness in GTA 6.

  • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The threat of legal action is the same with or without a formal letter. It’s 5 minutes of a lawyer’s time. The barrier is zero. Anyone can send one for any reason with no cause.

    The hosting provider is not obligated to investigate or defend against DMCA claims. If they receive a valid counter claim, they are permitted to host it again until actual legal action is initiated, in a courtroom. They don’t receive them for the exact same reason people don’t respond The barrier of a DMCA takedown after the trivial counter claim is much higher than a cease and desist.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The hosting provider is free to ignore counterclaims as well, and they frequently do. So I’m practice, the DMCA is much more effective than a cease and desist when it comes to major content hosts.

      Things rarely get to an actual, legally compelled takedown because content hosts so often voluntarily take down content even when there’s a valid counterclaim.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nobody is using DMCA requests on YouTube, your biggest example. YouTube has an easier process entirely unrelated to the DMCA.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Right, and that exists as a direct reaction to the DMCA. YouTube didn’t want to deal with the legal process of a DMCA takedown, so they provided a process to shortcut that. Unless I’m mistaken, without the DMCA, lawyers would need to go after content creators, not hosts, to get infringing content removed, so YouTube would not feel the need to automate the process as it has.

          That’s what I mean about the DMCA essentially causing this setup. It’s the same idea as a cease and desist scaring people into complying even when they’re within the bounds of fair use, except the host has little if any reason to resist spurious claims. If lawyers can go after hosts, hosts will protect themselves to avoid legal fights.

          • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Without the DMCA safe harbor provision, they’d be directly liable for content uploaded by users. Taking stuff down wouldn’t protect them.