[timr]

Another, related issue is that the takedown mechanism becomes a de facto censorship mechanism, as anyone who has dealt with DMCA takedowns and automated detectors can tell you.

Someone reports something for Special Pleading X, and you (the operator) have to ~instantly take down the thing, by law. There is never an equally efficient mechanism to push back against abuses -- there can't be, because it exposes the operator to legal risk in doing so. So you effectively have a one-sided mechanism for removal of unwanted content.

Maybe this is fine for "revenge porn", but even ignoring the slippery slope argument (which is real -- we already have these kinds of rules for copyrighted content!) it's not so easy to cleanly define "revenge porn".

[bluGill]

DMCA isn't directly that bad. DMCA is under penalty of perjury, so false take downs are rare.

The problem is most take downs are not actually DMCA, they are some other non-legal process that isn't under any legal penalty. Though if it ever happens to you I suspect you have a good case against whoever did this - but the lawyer costs will far exceed your total gain. (as in spend $30 million or more to collect $100). Either we need enough people affected by a false non-DMCA take down that a class action can work (you get $0.50 but at least they pay something), or we need legal reform so that all take downs against a third party are ???

[timr]

> DMCA is under penalty of perjury, so false take downs are rare.

Maybe true with the platonic ideal "DMCA takedown letter" (though these are rarely litigated, so who really knows), but as you note, they're incredibly common with things like the automated systems that scan for music in videos (and which actually are related to DMCA takedowns), "bad words" and the like.

> The problem is most take downs are not actually DMCA, they are some other non-legal process that isn't under any legal penalty.

It's true that most takedowns in the US aren't under DMCA, but even that once-limited process has metastasized into large, fully automated content scanning systems that proactively take down huge amounts of content without much recourse. Companies do this to avoid liability as part of safe harbor laws, or just to curry favor with powerful interests.

We're talking about US laws here, but in general, these kinds of instant-takedown laws become huge loopholes in whatever free speech provisions a country might have. The asymmetric exercise of rights essentially guarantees abuse.

[worthless-trash]

I believe google issues legitimate dmca takedowns for copyright strikes, even when there is no infringement. They put the work to defend the strike on the apparent commiter, often with little to no detail.

While the false takedown may be rare. Using dmca as a mechanism to inflict pain where no copyright infringement has taken place is indeed common enough that it happens to small time youtubers like myself and others I have talked to.