41–50 of 96 posts
A false DMCA takedown is equivalent to perjury. If SteamDB were to counter-sue Sega, Sega could be punished for perjury, forced to pay SteamDB's lawyers fees, and potentially lose their copyright on the content they claimed was violated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope they consider taking Sega to court over this. Sega’s behavior is clearly in violation of the law, and a precedent needs to be set. Perhaps the EFF or a similar organization would be willing to represent them. https://smallbiztrends.com/2015/05/fraudulent-dmca-takedown-...
Take their lawyers to court. They're the ones that need to experience a chilling effect for acting in bad faith by signing off on fraudulent claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any examples of this happening?
Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Incorporated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope they consider taking Sega to court over this. Sega’s behavior is clearly in violation of the law, and a precedent needs to be set. Perhaps the EFF or a similar organization would be willing to represent them. https://smallbiztrends.com/2015/05/fraudulent-dmca-takedown-...
Take their lawyers to court. They're the ones that need to experience a chilling effect for acting in bad faith by signing off on fraudulent claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe for all of the above to apply, it would have to be proven that the request was knowingly malicious, as in they had full knowledge that the page did not infringe but decided to send a takedown notice anyway. That's highly unlikely, and good luck proving it anyway. However, they are still liable and can absolutely be sued civilly for an improper takedown notice. But the penalty probably wouldn't extend beyond…
So the approach is to write a bot, do zero human checks and then say "well, see, yes, we sent this complaint, but we didn't actually send it ourselves, the bot did, so we didn't know that it was wrong, because we've decided to never check these things before sending them out"? It's weird, when you can write a program to do something in your name and as your agent, and then claim "it totally wasn't me, lol".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At what point does neglicent become knowingly malicious?
More generally: we need a legal framework that makes people deploying automation responsible for what the automation does to the same extent as they would be if they hired people to do the same work. "It's a false positive in an automated system" should never be acceptable justification for invalid legal action, nor should it be used as extenuating circumstances. Either you're prepared to pay for the mistakes of your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More generally: we need a legal framework that makes people deploying automation responsible for what the automation does to the same extent as they would be if they hired people to do the same work. "It's a false positive in an automated system" should never be acceptable justification for invalid legal action, nor should it be used as extenuating circumstances. Either you're prepared to pay for the mistakes of your…
If you knew that your algorithm produced false positives and you deployed it anyway, then you had fraudulent intent for the subset of automatically generated takedown notices which were false positives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take their lawyers to court. They're the ones that need to experience a chilling effect for acting in bad faith by signing off on fraudulent claims.
They would crush any small company in the prelude, even if they didn't intend to. I dont really think that copyright can be fixed, but at the very least we would need new laws to the effect of if you get sued for wrongful dmca, you pay the oppositions legal fees in addition to lost income and you risk losing the ability to make takedowns if the claim was in bad faith or negligent.
Did they address these issues by carefully vetting things they signed under penalty of purgery? Clearly not. The facts speak for themselves. Case closed, I think. I’m not sure you really even need a lawyer (though one would help).
I think that until the USA gets rid of legal lobbying from interest groups (aka, legalized corruption), this kinds of things will keep happening. Having to pull content down without any order from a judge is nonsense. These companies would be more careful if they had to go through some legal process instead of just ordering their lawyers to send empty threads to people that can't financially afford the economic burde…
If an individual company chooses one employee(say someone with a legal background) to interact with an elected official is that person a lobbyist or an employee?
I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
A false DMCA takedown is equivalent to perjury. If SteamDB were to counter-sue Sega, Sega could be punished for perjury, forced to pay SteamDB's lawyers fees, and potentially lose their copyright on the content they claimed was violated.
Really? If the risks for making a false DMCA takedown request were that high, I would expect to see less false takedown notices, and less aggressive bots. Or maybe the aggressors are just assuming that the victims don't have the resources to fight a megacorp in court? If it's the latter it seems like an organization like EFF should step in to fund such a fight.