Publish a definitive policy regarding DMCA and account suspension

[Hicleric]

I've recently heard rumblings that there's a new(ish?) suspension policy stemming from copyright strikes due to DMCA, yet there seems to be no mention of this in the TOS or applicable policies (including the community guidelines) aside from boilerplate. This seems like it could cause popular TLers to disappear in very short order. Is this an official change? Misrepresentation of how things are actually conducted? Result of outside counsel requiring an accountability system to appease DMCA?

And if this has officially practically changed, there should be a visible publication of the revised policy, no?

cough umpteenth request for More Transparency (TM) cough

 

[Tscheddov]

Technically speaking the digital millennium copyright act (DMCA) requires content hosts to implement some sort of "punishment" feature. So the assumption is that requirement drove this change.

As far as "we" can tell there was an API level change that was deployed in late July and early August. No one on the MD moderation team was made aware that this change was coming nor that it was pushed live. Around mid august the first victim of this change was confirmed and it was found out if a user has 30 chapters taken down by takedown requests their account would lose upload permissions. Yes, that was 30 chapters. Not being hit by 30 different takedown requests, but 30 chapters, of which all could be in one request... So pretty much anyone with a large number of chapters uploaded is an easy target.

As to why no announcement was made, I have my speculations (inset tin foil hat meme here) but I am not going to list them as I got in a lot of trouble the last time i did that...


That vague boiler plate is there for exactly these cases. Just pick out a couple seemingly unrelated section and bam, "we can ban you for whatever reason lmao" appears out of no where. So there is no "need" to update anything because you "agreed" to it already. (though vagueness is arguably a necessary evil)

One of the things about how this was implemented, other than no announcement, which annoys me, is that it applies to chapters uploaded before the great purge and change in policy (i.e. that checkbox when uploading). In my opinion those chapter fall under the previous policy and it was not made clear enough to users that all of those chapters they previously uploaded could get them in trouble even if they did not accept the current terms when uploading. To be clear I am not saying the chapters shouldn't be removed when there is a valid request, all I am saying is that they should not count as strikes against users. TLDR; chapters before may 2025, no strikes; everything after, strikes


LMAO
if this blows up there will be another month or two of transparency before its par for the course again

Disclaimer: Not a mod or staff of MD or NC. The above is the insane rambling of a schizophrenic terminally online individual. Please do not sue me.

so it is a matter of fact, that anyone who had 30 uploaded chapters removed due to dmca, loses the uploadpermissen permanently without an option to appael ?

did i get that right ?

 

[erellisae]

Yes, that was 30 chapters. Not being hit by 30 different takedown requests, but 30 chapters, of which all could be in one request... So pretty much anyone with a large number of chapters uploaded is an easy target.

Does this include chapters that were uploaded here when the series was not licensed, but that were subsequently claimed once a site licensed the rights to the manga?

 

[RogueKitsune]

so it is a matter of fact, that anyone who had 30 uploaded chapters removed due to dmca, loses the uploadpermissen permanently without an option to appael ?

did i get that right ?

That appears to be the case, but there has not been any official confirmation.

Does this include chapters that were uploaded here when the series was not licensed, but that were subsequently claimed once a site licensed the rights to the manga?

Any chapter, uploaded at any point, that gets taken down by request counts as a strike (even if the takedown request is completely invalid)

Edit: I don't know what happens if you delete an upload before a takedown request is filed and/or processed as the chapter would be "gone".

 

[erellisae]

Any chapter, uploaded at any point, that gets taken down by request counts as a strike (even if the takedown request is completely invalid)

lmao

Well, if that is the case, dissuading people from posting by making sure no-one ever knows if their currently-unlicensed content might get them banned years, months, or weeks down the line probably will help with bandwidth costs at least.

 

[Angry_Panda]

Does this include chapters that were uploaded here when the series was not licensed, but that were subsequently claimed once a site licensed the rights to the manga?

As an aside, a title not being licensed in a language is not a defense against copyright infringement. The right to translate exists in the original copyright, and a license merely grants that right to another party, rather than creating a previously non-existent right. So even the slop Xwitter comics that get picked up and TL'd would be subject to a DMCA request if they were done without permission and the author chose to file one. (Which would never happen, since everyone honestly checks the permissions box, right?)

 

[erellisae]

Ah, my bad. I guess that does make it a lot murkier.

 

[Hicleric]

Any chapter, uploaded at any point, that gets taken down by request counts as a strike (even if the takedown request is completely invalid)

Takedown requests are presumptively valid if they meet the requirements set forth, but can be reversed on appeal (at least theoretically). There is a takedown appeal process set forth in the DMCA policy and @Bartolumiu indicated that successfully appealed takedowns would not be counted against the strike limit.

 

[Bartolumiu]

Takedown requests are presumptively valid if they meet the requirements set forth, but can be reversed on appeal (at least theoretically). There is a takedown appeal process set forth in the DMCA policy and @Bartolumiu indicated that successfully appealed takedowns would not be counted against the strike limit.

For context, here's what a takedown request looks like on the receiving end:

And, the counter-notice form:

Pretty much the same form you'll find in every platform out there (I've had to deal with both Google Search Console's and Bing Webmaster Tools and they're worse... much worse)

 

[Tscheddov]

As to why no announcement was made, I have my speculations (inset tin foil hat meme here) but I am not going to list them as I got in a lot of trouble the last time i did that...

what trouble ?
you should be able to say waht you think openly . . .

That appears to be the case, but there has not been any official confirmation.

very sad.
i do not understand why there was no announcement about something important like this.

this should basically stop every poweruploder from uploading any new stuff.
i would really like to know how many lost the upload permission.

 

[Tscheddov]

True, I no longer see purple people online, no one should realise if you started a coup d'état...

purple people ?

Doesn't the removal of the work they did cleaning, redrawing, and translating the chapter qualify as punishment? I still think removing upload permissions is unnecessary.

i fully agree with you.

 

[Manko-sensei]

purple people ?

Admins, pink ones are developers (rarely seen as well) and red ones are moderators.

 

[RogueKitsune]

what trouble ?
you should be able to say waht you think openly . . .

You are free to say what you want and the private platform you are posting to is free to respond however they like...

i would really like to know how many lost the upload permission.

Unlikely that information will be made in an easy to access format publicly, but I believe you can do some API queries...

 

[Bartolumiu]

Unlikely that information will be made in an easy to access format publicly, but I believe you can do some API queries...

It's only available via admin endpoints, and hell nah, I'm not going to make well over 8.2M requests just to get the data...

 

[robertelch]

I mean, staff accounts can also get hit by takedown requests, so it makes sense they can also lose upload rights...
We're simply regular users with funny colours, after all

Couldn't a staff just give themselves the perms back?

 

[Manko-sensei]

@Bartolumiu what are the chances of The Hombre Incident happening again? Could you stop it?

 

[Beregorn]

And, the counter-notice form:
View attachment 68202

Yes, full name, mail, phone number and address: do they also need bank account, credit card and social security number? I have received mails from nigerian princes that were less obvious in their attempt...

 

[Bartolumiu]

Yes, full name, mail, phone number and address: do they also need bank account, credit card and social security number? I have received mails from nigerian princes that were less obvious in their attempt...

Required by DMCA, quoting 17 USC§512 G.3: Contents of counter notification

Contents of counter notification.—To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider’s designated agent that includes substantially the following:

• A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
• Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
• A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
• The subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512