DMCA Copyright Complaint to Google

Post by asuffield » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:47 AM UTC

jeswin wrote: post #86

nl wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, and perhaps I'm missing something. Why is it necessary to post the lawyer's address and point out that it appears to be their home too?

I disagree with you. These people seem to be fine with taking out perfectly legit content from the internet because they haven't done their research properly. This impacts the hard work so many people have put in, but the complainant hasn't broken the law. The comment you were replying to hasn't broken any laws either. The DMCA take down system is flawed, and invalid take downs should be penalized at $x.xx per blocke…

Post by tacticus » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:51 AM UTC

dangrossman wrote: post #51

usbreply wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google cannot afford the legal liability of taking decisions on whether a DMCA notice is valid or invalid. They will take down everything specified in every DMCA notice even if it is obviously bogus, because not doing so opens them up to a lawsuit. (a lawsuit alleging malafide intentions or a lawsuit for harm if they should make a mistake in deciding which part of the DMCA notice to honor and which to ignore.) It is…

You only have to send a counternotice and the content is restored after 10 business days. With most companies, you can just send a properly worded e-mail. Others, like Google, have a web form you fill in. The DMCA never forces content in dispute to remain offline indefinitely even if you have zero resources; the complaining party has to go to court to make that happen.

Post by MichaelGG » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:54 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #49

dangrossman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

17 U.S. Code § 512(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or…

Nobody has successfully gotten anyone fined/real damages for this provision yet. Partially because it requires knowing misrepresentation, not just negligent or even grossly negligent misrepresentation.

Post by kibwen » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:59 AM UTC

crazysim wrote: post #79

crazysim wrote: post #10

I posted this in #rust because I was having trouble with rustc and targets. Thanks for posting this!

I must say though. This was unnoticed for a week if I first reported this! https://botbot.me/mozilla/rust/2015-01-07/?msg=28933399&page...

Post by MichaelGG » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 6:04 AM UTC

otterley wrote: post #70

declan wrote: post #55

If you send bogus DMCA takedown notices, and this qualifies as one, there can be legal consequences. The DMCA requires: "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." Whoops! This particular list of "infringing" URLs wasn't actually, well, accurat…

The "under penalty of perjury" phrase modifies the second clause, not the first. In other words, it's not perjury if the information in the notice is inaccurate -- it's perjury if you falsely claim you are authorized to act on behalf of the grieving party.