Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
Can you explain how this will work and the financial consequences of such a malicious attack on a legal website?
I think you'll find the MPAA have to go to the courts with evidence. Go read the act.
I see lots of words like Court Order, Attorney General and filed with the court.
The way you talk it just needs someone to phone u a few people and tell them to take the site down.
When in fact they will have to perjure themselves in court. Grave consequences. I'm not a lawyer and neither are you of GG. I think the people who draw up this law have a better grasp than you make out.
With that in mind why are you against the law?
|
Quote:
|
Google asserted misuse of the DMCA in a filing concerning New Zealand's copyright act,[19] quoting results from a 2005 study by Californian academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse.[20] Takedown notices targeting a competing business made up over half (57%) of the notices Google has received, the company said, and more than one-third (37%), "were not valid copyright claims."[21]
|
the current DMCA requires a declaration of validity under penalty of perjury too
yet 1/3 are bogus
it obvious to anyone that the so called protections against abuse is no where close to enough given that fact
btw you dodged the question
if you truly believed that this law is not going to be abused what your problem with raising the penalty for making a bogus claim to complete loss of copyright.