[ Edit: Also, you know how we name-and-shame Patent Trolls? This is the behavior of a Copyright Troll and we should call this behavior as such. And ultimately we need legislation against Patent Trolls and Copyright Trolls. ]
What do *you* have to offer?
I don't think this is a shallow or overly cynical dismissal. I think this is the core issue: this broken lobbying system, and the intellectual property industry's outstandingly effective methods for co-opting it. No one's going to solve IP laws until something changes about the fact that Disney's lawyers have more impact in government than all the rest of the democracy. The IP law problems reduce to a broader and more intractable political problem.
"A politician is talking" should also at a minimum be treated with the same skepticism as when you encounter any other form of advertising. Even assuming the person speaking is completely ethical and aligned with your specific interests, it's literally their job to convince people of things. Assuming their job is "making laws" or "governing" is a lies-to-children version, they have to get a group of people to agree on some specific set of laws or policy for any of that to happen.
Some of HN's readers are decently connected and don't have a conflict against dmca reform, but many probably are conflicted given how many startups in some way deal with IP.
I can try proposing this.
Or, or, here's an different idea. Every DMCA request gets $10K automatically put in escrow for a mandatory arbitration. If the violator is a no-show or the DMCA takedown is ruled "not frivolous" (regardless of how good it is, just not frivolous level), the money is returned to the DMCA filer. However, if the person slapped shows up and the arbitrator says "frivolous," the $10,000 is sent to the slapped person and the DMCA filer must do a full lawsuit to retrieve the $10,000 back, which will ultimately require full legal proceedings over the validity of the request. Or instead of $10K, make it $25K. If you truly believe your request is valid, what do you have to fear knowing the money will be returned?
The point is some system where the DMCA Filer must throw cash on the line from the beginning to prove good faith.
You could also make the amount required variable to company size. Small company under $1M in revenue? $500. $1-$100M? $5000. $100M+? $10000. IDK, just something.
A simpler fix imo would be to amend the "perjury" provision of the DMCA and append "or negligence". This clamps down on the most egregious abuses.
What I'm trying to get at though is that the creator filing the DMCA request should have to put something on the line to show they are operating in good faith, and I believe that something should be larger or smaller depending on the size of that creator.
The arbitrator in the picture is just to determine whether the DMCA has merit, in which case the something is sent back to the DMCA filer and it's a normal DMCA; or if the request does not have merit, in which case the something is sent to the person filed against.
If you're truly serious about pursuing political change, it can help to have some of the actors advocate for some truly radical change, so that the change that you really want starts to seem moderate and reasonable. Call it shifting the Overton window, or the "good cop, bad cop" strategy of politics.
They send a DMCA notice to a Hollywood studio... then what? Will production committee pull the movie out of cinema? Will they recall blu-ray disks from shops to destroy them?
DMCA offers no way to negotiate compensation or receive payment — "artists, musicians, and photographers" still have to sue to get paid.
In my theoretical example, let's say Disney slapped this person with a DMCA for the Loki look. Instead of just sending the DMCA request, they would also need to put $10,000 in escrow, and then open a meeting with an arbitrator for review.
The arbitrator's job would not be to assess it's validity, but would be to only determine whether the DMCA was frivolous or not. If the arbitrator rules it's frivolous, the $10,000 gets sent to the person pretending to be Loki. If the arbitrator rules not frivolous, the $10,000 that Disney put in escrow gets returned and it plays out like a normal DMCA.
The whole point is just that Disney, or the person filing the request, would be putting $10,000 on the line with the risk the arbitrator could rule it frivolous. If Disney disagrees, they can open a full lawsuit against the person, but that's a big risk on both sides that could still have abuse.
I'm just spitting out ideas. Maybe something like this could get refinement.
A few years ago, when I was in college, a friend had his art stolen from his website and reused on social media by a mid-sized company. A DMCA takedown solved the issue, but being a poor college student there is no way he could have found $10k lying around to use for takedown, even temporarily.
"You could also make the amount required variable to company size. Small company under $1M in revenue? $500. $1-$100M? $5000. $100M+? $10000. IDK, just something."
I'd also be open to doing the same for any of the monopolistic practices of other companies that stifle small creators and engineers.
DMCA needs to go.
I'm against the idea of DMCA for cosplay in general... But if he knew how the rules apply before, this seems like testing the boundaries / "I'm not touching you" game. He can contest the request through the standard procedure. It would get interesting if that gets rejected.
Also should change last name to Disney.
Disney s Loki
How about for the rest of his life? Names shouldn't be copyrightable like this.
Looks like this is an actual complaint from Disney, as opposed to the proactive content removals Redbubble has been sending and was discussed a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27551372
On the contrary: filing a false DMCA takedown notice opens you up to perjury.
...even if no-one has been prosecuted yet: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee...
Instead what happens is media-companies strong-arm content-hosting companies (YouTube, etc) to let them file informal takedown notices that don't open themselves up to perjury with much weaker protections for innocent people caught up in the collateral damage - what does YouTube etc get from it? I suspect it's something they agreed to do to sweeten their deal to keep Vevo and other brands' content mirrored on YouTube.
I would say the same even if the company were prosecuted and fined a tolerably small amount of money (which could easily be millions for these types of firms).
Disney market cap: $315 billion
Revenue in 2019: $70 billion
Alphabet market cap: $1,700 billion
Revenue in 2019: $162 billion
What manner of "strong-arming" did you have in mind?
All these comments which imply Disney pursued this takedown despite consideration of competing interests like supporting fans are a bit silly. First, Disney itself isn’t likely directly involved. Second, Disney is MASSIVE. Even if one of Disney’s marketing departments opposes such notices, they likely wouldn’t even know who to call to try to stop them.
Note: I dislike takedown notices as much as the rest of you.
I don't think copyright laws should be abolished, but this shit is getting ridiculous. Sending false copyright claims should be treated as a crime in it of itself. When falsely accused of a copyright claim, the recipient has to go through a process to try and get that pulled, costing time, effort and potentially money. And yet these corporations get no punishment for spamming legal threats to whatever their bots deem appropriate.
Like, I'm as much of a Disney hater as anyone, but you really should understand just how much money, time, and effort go into Disney productions. The amounts would blow your mind.
They spend a comparatively miniscule amount of money defending their intellectual property. This is what people should be up in arms about. It really shouldn't be this easy for them.
They have a whole section on Star Wars. It has everything, except the first Star Wars?
That said, you it is very family friendly. If I had children, I might only have Disney+ on my tv.
I guess those at Disney feel their brand is so good, they let their lawyers harass people?
(When I was a kid, my dad took us to Disney Land. It was the only time I saw him enthused over anything. He was shocked at the detail, and cleanliness of the LA park. He told us the Matterhorn will be last because of the line. At 10 minutes to closing they th old us to come back tomorrow. I've been meaning to go back. I still remember my first view of the park, and it was magical.)
They have all movies, including first. I've watched it there like a month ago.
Should he have to appeal and enter into a legal battle with one of the most dangerous and well funded legal teams on earth? No. It sucks. But the DMCA we have now probably cannot be improved and the safe harbor provisions are vital to the freedom of the net. Any attempts to change it for the better will just make it worse.
The best thing he can do, what he's done, is try to get wider public coverage of the stupidity in the hope that disney will try to avoid controversy.
Who would have thought that Tom Hiddleston's Loki would have gotten so popular?
It's so powerful that you should basically doubt any Disney products grass roots popularity as it's likely the results of PR.
And this is in no way exclusive to Disney, or PR. It's natural to want others to do something for you. PR is just the current legal way to describe this effort.
Those existed for ages in comic books, but I don't think mainstream / Disney would touch them.
As long as IP is an accounting asset, this isn't going to stop.