3 ms·

Is it illegal to claim something under DMCA when it does not in fact represent a DMCA claim?

by dhimes 9y ago

rnhmjoj 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332199
CWuestefeld 9y ago
Yes, but: A. Nobody - NOBODY - is ever punished for violating. B. The folks in question here think they have a colorable argument for why it really is DMCA. As linked from the OP, this is here [1]. (FWIW, I think it's silly) [1] http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating-the-dmca/ http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating...
- falcolas 9y ago
  Nobody is punished because the DMCA claim/counterclaim process gives them a chance to back out of the claim before it goes to court. And the word is that if it does go to court, proving that they willfully and intentionally misrepresented their ownership of the material under question is a very high bar; it would probably require some internal memo with content approximating "We know we don't own X but let's issue a DMCA against Y for hosting X anyways."
zanny 9y ago
In the US the "justice" system is predominantly accuse first ask questions later, and because legal council is insanely expensive (by design) in most cases all you have to do is accuse someone of something and it will either bankrupt them trying to defend it or they will pay you off to let them go. It is incredibly broken and corrupt, but like many things in the US nothing will be done about it because the elites have the money to defend themselves and enjoy the benefit of being able to ruin anyone they want who don't have access to similar financial resources that they wield. If you can afford the several hundred thousands to millions of dollars a protracted legal battle will take you can often get the costs dumped on the losing party. You just have to spend years getting there with your own money and time.
ubernostrum 9y ago
The problem here DMCA is that there is a way to prosecute for a false notice, but it's not the one people want it to be. Most people hear that DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury and think that means "if there's no reasonable claim of a copyright violation it's perjury". But the part of the notice that's made under penalty of perjury isn't the claim of violation, it's the assertion that the person sending the notice either holds copyright to the work in question or is authorized to act on behalf of the entity that does. So to nail someone for perjury from a DMCA notice, you have to prove that they don't hold a copyright, or aren't authorized to act on behalf of whoever does hold a copyright, to the work in question. "This isn't a copyright violation" doesn't do it.

Is it illegal to claim something under DMCA when it does not in fact represent a DMCA claim?

by dhimes 9y ago

Is it illegal to claim something under DMCA when it does not in fact represent a DMCA claim?

rnhmjoj 9y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332199

CWuestefeld 9y ago

Yes, but: A. Nobody - NOBODY - is ever punished for violating. B. The folks in question here think they have a colorable argument for why it really is DMCA. As linked from the OP, this is here [1]. (FWIW, I think it's silly) [1] http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating-the-dmca/ http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating...

falcolas 9y ago
Nobody is punished because the DMCA claim/counterclaim process gives them a chance to back out of the claim before it goes to court. And the word is that if it does go to court, proving that they willfully and intentionally misrepresented their ownership of the material under question is a very high bar; it would probably require some internal memo with content approximating "We know we don't own X but let's issue a DMCA against Y for hosting X anyways."

zanny 9y ago

In the US the "justice" system is predominantly accuse first ask questions later, and because legal council is insanely expensive (by design) in most cases all you have to do is accuse someone of something and it will either bankrupt them trying to defend it or they will pay you off to let them go. It is incredibly broken and corrupt, but like many things in the US nothing will be done about it because the elites have the money to defend themselves and enjoy the benefit of being able to ruin anyone they want who don't have access to similar financial resources that they wield. If you can afford the several hundred thousands to millions of dollars a protracted legal battle will take you can often get the costs dumped on the losing party. You just have to spend years getting there with your own money and time.

ubernostrum 9y ago

The problem here DMCA is that there is a way to prosecute for a false notice, but it's not the one people want it to be. Most people hear that DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury and think that means "if there's no reasonable claim of a copyright violation it's perjury". But the part of the notice that's made under penalty of perjury isn't the claim of violation, it's the assertion that the person sending the notice either holds copyright to the work in question or is authorized to act on behalf of the entity that does. So to nail someone for perjury from a DMCA notice, you have to prove that they don't hold a copyright, or aren't authorized to act on behalf of whoever does hold a copyright, to the work in question. "This isn't a copyright violation" doesn't do it.