To bad congress won't add a "three strikes and your out" to the DMCA for those that file false or incorrect claims to a web site.
If there was just one little addition to the law that said if a copyright claimant is incorrect about the claim, or not the legal copyright holder or authorized in writing to act on behalf of the rights holder, then such organization or person shall be barred from filing any future DMCA claims against any web site. Perhaps then they'd actually have a human screen the claims and verify the content before submitting it.
There is not any incentive for the claimant to be correct if there is not something to lose on their end. Losing future use of the DMCA for rights holder that file false or incorrect claims because of bot hits, and not having a human verify the claim before submitting it, would end most all abuses of DMCA. Everyone else on the receiving end of a DMCA notice has something to lose. That should work both ways.
If you're not on a data plan with AT&T and accidentally hit the web browser button on your AT&T phone, which happens often with some models, AT&T hits you with a $2.00 charge for internet access, even if you don't do anything but hit the AT&T mobile home page.
The $2 charge is for 2 megabytes of data, which is the minimum that AT&T charges now. It used to be a penny per kilobyte, so accidentally hitting the web button wasn't too costly. However, now, the minimum is $2. Of course, you can accidentally hit the web browser button a lot for that $2 during the billing period, but AT&T shouldn't charge anyone for just hitting their home page.
You'd think with all the class actions lawsuits around, something like this would be a slam dunk by a law firm for all the aggrieved AT&T customers. Guess there are smaller fish to fry that are easier to catch.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Tim.
A penalty is needed.
If there was just one little addition to the law that said if a copyright claimant is incorrect about the claim, or not the legal copyright holder or authorized in writing to act on behalf of the rights holder, then such organization or person shall be barred from filing any future DMCA claims against any web site. Perhaps then they'd actually have a human screen the claims and verify the content before submitting it.
There is not any incentive for the claimant to be correct if there is not something to lose on their end. Losing future use of the DMCA for rights holder that file false or incorrect claims because of bot hits, and not having a human verify the claim before submitting it, would end most all abuses of DMCA. Everyone else on the receiving end of a DMCA notice has something to lose. That should work both ways.
AT&T does the same thing
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Tim.
Submit a story now.