4 ms·

The Diebold case is basically the only time anyone's ever made that work, though, because the bar for it is so high. It's not enough to prove "they made a compl

The Diebold case is basically the only time anyone's ever made that work, though, because the bar for it is so high. It's not enough to prove "they made a complaint and it turned out it wasn't their stuff". You have to prove that they knew, which is next to impossible unless you basically have a notarized statement from them saying "Yes, I was aware it was wrong and did it anyway", and the payout is a pittance. Meanwhile, the idea that DMCA notices carry some sort of super-strict ruinous penalty for errors remains completely false. And YouTube -- as I said in the original comment -- uses a separate takedown system governed by their terms of service, so the whole thing is moot.

chris_wot 9y ago
Well, that's not actually what you said. You actually said: > in a DMCA takedown notice the only thing asserted under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorized to act on behalf of, a copyright holder And the Diebold case didn't have anyone with a notarized statement that you speak about. I don't think what you are saying is necessarily supported by the facts of that case.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  It is true that the only thing asserted under penalty of perjury in a DMCA notice is that you are or are authorized to act on behalf of a copyright holder. The rest of the notice is not made under penalty of perjury. The notarized statement comment was hyperbole to make a point about how hard it is to prove, sufficiently for a court, that someone "knowingly" and "materially" misrepresented information in a DMCA notice in order to trigger 512(f). In the Diebold case you had the perfect storm, because Diebold's lawyers basically admitted to the court that they knew they were using the DMCA not for copyright enforcement but to take down something that embarrassed them. That is literally what it took to get a judge to nail someone for DMCA abuse. And even then: the judge only found that they knowingly/materially misrepresented for a subset of the material, and they only paid out $125k, which is literally nothing to a company of Diebold's size. Meanwhile, DMCA abuse remains routine and rampant today, in large part because it's next to impossible to get someone penalized for it.

chris_wot 9y ago

Well, that's not actually what you said. You actually said: > in a DMCA takedown notice the only thing asserted under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorized to act on behalf of, a copyright holder And the Diebold case didn't have anyone with a notarized statement that you speak about. I don't think what you are saying is necessarily supported by the facts of that case.

ubernostrum 9y ago
It is true that the only thing asserted under penalty of perjury in a DMCA notice is that you are or are authorized to act on behalf of a copyright holder. The rest of the notice is not made under penalty of perjury. The notarized statement comment was hyperbole to make a point about how hard it is to prove, sufficiently for a court, that someone "knowingly" and "materially" misrepresented information in a DMCA notice in order to trigger 512(f). In the Diebold case you had the perfect storm, because Diebold's lawyers basically admitted to the court that they knew they were using the DMCA not for copyright enforcement but to take down something that embarrassed them. That is literally what it took to get a judge to nail someone for DMCA abuse. And even then: the judge only found that they knowingly/materially misrepresented for a subset of the material, and they only paid out $125k, which is literally nothing to a company of Diebold's size. Meanwhile, DMCA abuse remains routine and rampant today, in large part because it's next to impossible to get someone penalized for it.