DMCA notices in Second Life: A practical example

Reader Comments (2)

I have to admit, it's rather disturbing that someone could disrupt one's entire business and force you to reveal your private details, anonymously and without any base in fact, by submitting a simple online form. But this is nothing new; the DMCA has been doing that in SL for years.

More disturbing is that Linden Lab removed so much content, and disrupted business beyond what was necessary, despite FBG disabling access to the purportedly-offending content and filing a counter-notice, as was the proper response. And the permissions and UUID mishap is just groan-inducingly stupid of LL.

Seems the lesson is: comply or not comply, either way your livelihood is at the mercy of complete strangers. That's the sort of thought that helps you sleep at night, ain't it?

Reply

What irritates me is that a lot of the restrictions are not necessary under the act anyway. For instance it is not necessary to pass on the counter-filer's details to the filer - and _absolutely_ the wrong thing to do I would say - without a subpoena, and it certainly isn't necessary for the counter-filer to respond within two days. In fact unless I am misreading the Act, if LL refused to take into account a counter-filing after two days they would be in breach, as it doesn't specify a time period.

And as I said, it could certainly be argued that replacing the deleted content with broken content is not really restoring it at all, which also puts them in breach.

The thing is that as I said above they are no doubt aware that the chances of them being stung on a charge of removing inventory are pretty small.

Reply