DMCA helps media companies fight copyright infringement.These include blocking access/removing material which infringes copyrights when they receive notification. As a result, service providers are prompt in taking action when they receive complaints under the DMCA
The immutable nature of blockchain provides an excellent way to validate proof of existence.The blockchain doesn't differentiate between big media companies and individuals; anybody can record the hash of a file on the blockchain.As i know,the biggest advantage of using the blockchain to record proof of existence is that it can be done almost immediately and at a very low cost. Arbitrators in disputes over copyright can use the blockchain to recognize ownership of intellectual property.
Topic: Blockchain and DMCA (Read 429 times)
I am curious on whether this might be legal or not for a decentralized version of YouTube. #wtfu
Let's say hypothetically someone created a video sharing site and each video's internet address corresponded to something like an ethereum address. Sort of like how ZeroNet addresses correspond to bitcoin addresses. After the site was registered as a "safe harbor" under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act a system of smart contract was set up to handle DMCA takedown and counter-notices.
The system works as follows: In order to create an account you had to have enough minimum ethereum to put into a new account's corresponding address and to have a video uploaded fully to the video site you have to deposit X amount of ethereum plus the transaction fee. The number of videos a user can upload to the video sharing site depends on the amount of ethereum in the main account address that can be divided
into number of video uploads plus transactions fee(s).
If someone wants to claim a video on the site infringes on their copyright they create a new user account for the video sharing site and deposit enough ethereum to cover the videos they want removed (equal to the amount of ethereum it takes to upload the videos plus transaction fee) and the alleged infringing videos are removed. There are a certain number of blocks time for the video poster to challenge the DMCA takedown and have the videos restored (e.g. a month or two). If the DMCA takedown isn't challenged the ethereum from the alleged infringing video address goes to the account of the person making the claim (minus a transaction fee). If however the DMCA is challenged with a counter-notice and a lawsuit isn't filed after around two weeks block time the ethereum from the account of the person making the claim goes to the site (e.g. maintenance cost for process, ect) or is split some way between the site and the accused uploader since the uploader is also damaged by having the content disabled.
This system would help discourage both copyright infringement and false copyright claims by putting an actual price to such activities.
What I am wondering is:
1. Is it possibly legal to require someone to put ethereum upfront to make a copyright claim since the money is returned if the copyright claim is validated by the system?
2. Would the site be legally justified in keeping or splitting the ethereum if the DMCA takedown was challenged and no lawsuit was filed (e.g. DMCA Section 512(f)?
Let's say hypothetically someone created a video sharing site and each video's internet address corresponded to something like an ethereum address. Sort of like how ZeroNet addresses correspond to bitcoin addresses. After the site was registered as a "safe harbor" under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act a system of smart contract was set up to handle DMCA takedown and counter-notices.
The system works as follows: In order to create an account you had to have enough minimum ethereum to put into a new account's corresponding address and to have a video uploaded fully to the video site you have to deposit X amount of ethereum plus the transaction fee. The number of videos a user can upload to the video sharing site depends on the amount of ethereum in the main account address that can be divided
into number of video uploads plus transactions fee(s).
If someone wants to claim a video on the site infringes on their copyright they create a new user account for the video sharing site and deposit enough ethereum to cover the videos they want removed (equal to the amount of ethereum it takes to upload the videos plus transaction fee) and the alleged infringing videos are removed. There are a certain number of blocks time for the video poster to challenge the DMCA takedown and have the videos restored (e.g. a month or two). If the DMCA takedown isn't challenged the ethereum from the alleged infringing video address goes to the account of the person making the claim (minus a transaction fee). If however the DMCA is challenged with a counter-notice and a lawsuit isn't filed after around two weeks block time the ethereum from the account of the person making the claim goes to the site (e.g. maintenance cost for process, ect) or is split some way between the site and the accused uploader since the uploader is also damaged by having the content disabled.
This system would help discourage both copyright infringement and false copyright claims by putting an actual price to such activities.
What I am wondering is:
1. Is it possibly legal to require someone to put ethereum upfront to make a copyright claim since the money is returned if the copyright claim is validated by the system?
2. Would the site be legally justified in keeping or splitting the ethereum if the DMCA takedown was challenged and no lawsuit was filed (e.g. DMCA Section 512(f)?
Jump to: