I think one of the worst repercussions of the DMCA (there are so many), is how it seems to have perversely motivated tech companies to implement their own even worse bespoke processes for handling complaints--processes that are not actually DMCA. Like, DMCA is awful, but the process YouTube and others put you through is even worse, less transparent, and tend to put more, rather than less burden on the target/victim.

The processes are deliberately complex so that most people will just give up. Then YouTube doesn't even have to consider the claim.

Netlify will not spend money to figure out a more lightweight process in order to stay further from the edges of DMCA. DMCA is too scary to play with, so just they transfer the cost and risk by making the affected party file the form.

What contract does Netlify have with the EFF?

There's no contract to be in breach of.

What's likely to happen is SLAPP-esque legislation to stop platforms utilising its user base as its product, whilst simultaneously disenfranchising them from the moderation layer.

>Netlify made us go through the full DMCA counternotice process

You can call a spade an apple but it doesn't make it an apple.

In order to have a DMCA counter notice there needs to be a DMCA notice. Their complaint is that there never was a DMCA notice so its not responsible to apply a counter notice policy as you are not countering a notice.

If I make you go through the DMCA counternotice process for buying apples from me, that's not a problem with DMCA, it's me having an absurd process around purchasing apples. I don't see how people weirdly requiring this process shows an issue with DMCA.

Good grief. Is it not obvious that the DMCA's very existence has created a shield that enables such shenanigans?

Only in the same totemistic, cargo-cult quality that GDPR has for basic data operations tangential to PII.

In short, without explicit punitive penalties enshrined in the legislation itself, you will never be able to stop Corporations wielding consumer-facing legislation in an asymmetric and bad faith manner. This is as true of GDPR and AML/KYC legislation as it is of DMCA and similar abuses of copyright and IP laws by lobbyists.

It seems to me that these processes are generally following the intent of the DMCA process, which is very different from spiteful responses to GDPR.

I think a closer analogy to GDPR would be companies turning off tracking for a bunch of people outside the EU, and I would lay most of the blame/praise for that at the feet of GDPR.

It is a problem with the DMCA because the DMCA makes companies do this to CYA because your apple purchase might be circumventing copyright and it's easier just to assume it applies to everything than to narrow it to actual copyright violations. It is a very bad law, it should never have been written, and it, not Obamacare, should be repealed.

It could just as easily say "the full Turboencabultor Counternotice process" but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with anything.

With so many mentions of DMCA in the article, and the fact that the EFF had to go through a labyrinthine DMCA counter-notice process, you'd think I'd be allowed to comment about the DMCA...

Apparently not. Sorry.

Pedants will rage but you're spot on. The DMCA is a terrible law that has ended up causing lots of knock on bad effects, because there isn't enough incentive to prevent bad actors abusing it, and not enough incentive for companies not to do what Netlify did in this case.

The DMCA law did not _compel_ netlify to act this way, but the effects of DMCA did _cause_ netlify to act that way.

Okay, thanks for your valuable insight. Your comments have really contributed to the conversation.