Suggested Bill Edits by: John D.

  • (i) if the Internet site consists primarily of information or discussion about infringing activity, and does not directly host infringing content; or (ii) if the Internet site has a practice of expeditiously removing, or disabling access to, material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity after notification by the owner of the copyright or trademark alleged to be infringed or its authorized representative;
    John D.    Dec 9th, 2011 7:32 pm
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
  • (10) OPERATOR. The term operator when used in connection with an Internet site, includes any person with authority to operate create or update the content of the Internet site.
    John D.    Dec 9th, 2011 7:41 pm
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes

Comments by: John D.

  • While I appreciate the desire, especially in the current political climate, to create a self-funding mechanism for OPEN enforcement, I don't believe filing fees are the way to do this. Would it be OK to require a fee for calling the police to report a robbery? I also don't think, as some others have suggested, that a filing fee will deter frivolous or fraudulent complaints. They will simply be treated a cost of doing business by litigious rights holders. The way to deter bogus complaints is to *heavily* punish them when they occur. I think the sanctions needs to be proportional to the size of the company, and escalate rapidly for repeat offenders. If it were up to me, Viacom (just to pick one example) would face a billion dollar fine the next time they issued a bogus DMCA takedown.
    John D.    Dec 9th, 2011 7:23 pm
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes