> I think it is, because the core problem is not the wrongful takedown of a single repository itself, it's the outlook that the only way to get these "mistakes" reversed is the hope that it will reach the news, Youtube/Google shows us what the latestage of this nightmare looks like.
YouTube/Google is bad because they use their own system instead of or in addition to the system required to get the DMCA safe harbor.
For sites that simply follow DMCA, such as GitHub, there is no need for the issue to reach the news. There is no need to be popular or have any reach. The most obscure poster with no audience can easily get their content restored. Here is what happens at such sites:
1. Someone claiming to represent the copyright owner files a take down request.
2. The site temporarily takes the content down, and notifies whoever posted the content.
3. The poster files a counter-notice saying that they have the legal right to post the content.
4. The site put the content back up, and notifies the party that filed the take down notice, telling them who filed the counter-notice.
The site is then out of the loop. The content is back up, and the party claiming copyright violation cannot sue the site over this. The site is now in the DMCA safe harbor. If the party claiming violation wants to take it farther, they need to go to court and sue the party that posted the content.
The counter-notice is trivial to fill out and file. Here's the one for this case [1] if you want to see how simple the form is.
YouTube/Google is bad because they use their own system instead of or in addition to the system required to get the DMCA safe harbor.
For sites that simply follow DMCA, such as GitHub, there is no need for the issue to reach the news. There is no need to be popular or have any reach. The most obscure poster with no audience can easily get their content restored. Here is what happens at such sites:
1. Someone claiming to represent the copyright owner files a take down request.
2. The site temporarily takes the content down, and notifies whoever posted the content.
3. The poster files a counter-notice saying that they have the legal right to post the content.
4. The site put the content back up, and notifies the party that filed the take down notice, telling them who filed the counter-notice.
The site is then out of the loop. The content is back up, and the party claiming copyright violation cannot sue the site over this. The site is now in the DMCA safe harbor. If the party claiming violation wants to take it farther, they need to go to court and sue the party that posted the content.
The counter-notice is trivial to fill out and file. Here's the one for this case [1] if you want to see how simple the form is.
[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2...