11–20 of 87 posts
I think "used" needs be replaced with the word "abused". It's appropriate here. With no penalty for false DMCA claims, it's a "stop us if you can" mentality. The real reason may have been the conclusion that "Ciphercloud is NOT doing homomorphic encryption" ? (but google cache still works)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't DMCA takedowns required, under penalty of perjury, to assert a non-frivolous copyright claim? Is there any recourse for what appears to be clear abuses of the DMCA?
There is recourse against truly false claims made in bad faith, but it's not the penalty of perjury part. All you swear under penalty of perjury is that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of some copyright allegedly infringed (i.e. you're not filing a claim about someone else's work). Here's the actual recourse created by the bill: > (f) MISREPRESENTATIONS- Any person who knowingly materially misreprese…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's on copyright grounds, I think it's on circumvention grounds.
The DMCA notice/counternotice system is only about copyright infringement. They wouldn't get one for the circumvention prohibitions; or if they did, it would be an illegal use of those notices.
Note that the answer below the question contains this link to the Google cache of the original article that was taken down: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYBbAFU... There doesn't seem to be anything in there that looks like an infringement of anyone's copyright.
Their likely justification is the use of those image snippets which appear to come from their manual. Realistically, those small captures represent fair use (though I am not a lawyer so can't speak legally).
[1] http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/...
I think "used" needs be replaced with the word "abused". It's appropriate here. With no penalty for false DMCA claims, it's a "stop us if you can" mentality. The real reason may have been the conclusion that "Ciphercloud is NOT doing homomorphic encryption" ? (but google cache still works)
The penalty for materially misrepresenting a DMCA claim is actual damages plus costs and attorney fees. That's automatic, written into the bill, unlike many other torts/crimes where you need exceptional circumstances to get attorneys fees in addition to the damages.
Are there lawyers who will take on cases for consignment only?
It's a calculation that little people will not be able to take on the big people.
This is why corporations have zero fear of incorrectly killing individual content on youtube, little chance of penalty and they can smother any attempt to fight them.
I think "used" needs be replaced with the word "abused". It's appropriate here. With no penalty for false DMCA claims, it's a "stop us if you can" mentality. The real reason may have been the conclusion that "Ciphercloud is NOT doing homomorphic encryption" ? (but google cache still works)
The penalty for materially misrepresenting a DMCA claim is actual damages plus costs and attorney fees. That's automatic, written into the bill, unlike many other torts/crimes where you need exceptional circumstances to get attorneys fees in addition to the damages.
[1] http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/04/another_512f_cl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The penalty for materially misrepresenting a DMCA claim is actual damages plus costs and attorney fees. That's automatic, written into the bill, unlike many other torts/crimes where you need exceptional circumstances to get attorneys fees in addition to the damages.
So years later you can get content restored? Are there lawyers who will take on cases for consignment only? It's a calculation that little people will not be able to take on the big people. This is why corporations have zero fear of incorrectly killing individual content on youtube, little chance of penalty and they can smother any attempt to fight them.
YouTube is not responding to DMCA notices, it's given media companies direct access to take down content through their own system, and it can do this because it has no obligation to host your material for free in the first place, infringing or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The penalty for materially misrepresenting a DMCA claim is actual damages plus costs and attorney fees. That's automatic, written into the bill, unlike many other torts/crimes where you need exceptional circumstances to get attorneys fees in addition to the damages.
So years later you can get content restored? Are there lawyers who will take on cases for consignment only? It's a calculation that little people will not be able to take on the big people. This is why corporations have zero fear of incorrectly killing individual content on youtube, little chance of penalty and they can smother any attempt to fight them.
Nope, all you are supposed to have to do to get the content restored is submit a counter-notice. And it should be back in two weeks, not years.
But you can be sued by the rightsholder for posting infringing material.
The DMCA is really about protecting the ISP/host. The ISP can't be sued for hosting your infringing material -- so long as they take it down when receiving a takedown notice; and even when they put it back up after receiving the counter-notice from the original poster.
But YOU (the poster) can still be sued.
I am not sure how often ISPs/hosts have clearly identified counter-notice procedures, but that's the way the law is written.
See for some further explanation: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-not...