5 ms·

The Torrence Boone thing is quite remarkable. Considering a fake DMCA carries the same penalty as perjury (correct me if I'm wrong) then I would have expected

The Torrence Boone thing is quite remarkable. Considering a fake DMCA carries the same penalty as perjury (correct me if I'm wrong) then I would have expected Google to have taken some action. A suspension pending an internal investigation or something similar. Have they made any public statements on the matter?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ubernostrum 8y ago
Considering a fake DMCA carries the same penalty as perjury (correct me if I'm wrong) The only part of a DMCA takedown that's under penalty of perjury is the assertion that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. The infamous Diebold case -- where they did get penalized for a false DMCA notice -- involved Diebold more or less admitting openly in court "yeah, we knew it was wrong but we sent a notice anyway". Which means it's extremely difficult to get someone on a false DMCA notice.
- hyperpape 8y ago
  Isn’t this a case where they’re falsely claiming to be a copyright holder?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
  > The only part of a DMCA takedown that's under penalty of perjury is the assertion that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. But that's exactly the fradulent claim, and unlike other cases that are understandable genuine mistakes (even though the mistakes would be avoidable if the claimants put a reasonable amount of care into checking their claims), in this case, it's clear that the claimant knew the claim was false, and they falsified documents to support that claim. I highly doubt courts would appreciate this sort of behavior, it's just that the victims of the censorship likely don't know, don't care, don't have the resources to fight, or don't catch it before the statute of limitations expires. Unfortunately, it seems like the maximum penalty for perjury is five years, and I assume it's rare that anything near that is imposed, so I guess someone decided it's worth it.
xoa 8y ago
>Considering a fake DMCA carries the same penalty as perjury (correct me if I'm wrong) My understanding is that regrettably you're wrong, definitely at least in practice if not in theory. First on the theory side of things, Warner Bros at least argued in the countersuit Hotfile filed against them for abuse of takedowns that when it came to the DMCA: >"The DMCA’s language applies only to impersonating a copyright owner or sending notices on their behalf without authorization; mere misidentification of the files being taken down or the works represented therein are at most incorrect ‘statements’." Unfortunately the settlement Hotfile made in the original suit against it by the MPAA also ended its countersuit so Warner Bros arguments were not put to the test. If anyone else knows of a subsequent case that'd be good to read, but I can't remember any. If there's nothing at all then hard to say either way, but there is at least a strong colorable argument that it either doesn't mean what a lot of people think it should period or it's too ambiguous to have any real teeth. And speaking of real teeth anyway, there do not seem to be any fixed consequences for perjury, and I do not think there has ever been a single prosecution for it in the now 20 year history of the law. In fact the sole and only victory of any kind I can remember of even a flagrantly abusive act of political censorship was years when WordPress won a default judgement against "Straight Pride UK" [1] (which had already gone dark of course). Lenz won vs UMC, but I don't think won any actual damages? And further the standard set there was that actual bad faith by the rights holder would need to be shown, which is yet another hurdle. I think only something like Diebold rose to that level. Edit: ubernostrum beat me to it and mentioned Diebold and that perjury is about who you're representing not what you're asserting too. So at the end of the day there just has never seemed to be any significant consequences to abuse (or "mistakes"), and the result has been as would be expected given the incentives and interests involved. ---- 1: https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/9/8175491/wordpress-automattic-wins-dmca-takedown-straight-pride-uk-case https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/9/8175491/wordpress-automatt...
- darawk 8y ago
  Wouldn't this qualify as impersonating a copyright owner, though?
  - xoa 8y ago
ams6110 8y ago
I think it's only perjury if you're making the claim in court. If you're making the claim to Google, you're just lying.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ubernostrum 8y ago

Considering a fake DMCA carries the same penalty as perjury (correct me if I'm wrong) The only part of a DMCA takedown that's under penalty of perjury is the assertion that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. The infamous Diebold case -- where they did get penalized for a false DMCA notice -- involved Diebold more or less admitting openly in court "yeah, we knew it was wrong but we sent a notice anyway". Which means it's extremely difficult to get someone on a false DMCA notice.

hyperpape 8y ago
Isn’t this a case where they’re falsely claiming to be a copyright holder?
tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
> The only part of a DMCA takedown that's under penalty of perjury is the assertion that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. But that's exactly the fradulent claim, and unlike other cases that are understandable genuine mistakes (even though the mistakes would be avoidable if the claimants put a reasonable amount of care into checking their claims), in this case, it's clear that the claimant knew the claim was false, and they falsified documents to support that claim. I highly doubt courts would appreciate this sort of behavior, it's just that the victims of the censorship likely don't know, don't care, don't have the resources to fight, or don't catch it before the statute of limitations expires. Unfortunately, it seems like the maximum penalty for perjury is five years, and I assume it's rare that anything near that is imposed, so I guess someone decided it's worth it.

xoa 8y ago

>Considering a fake DMCA carries the same penalty as perjury (correct me if I'm wrong) My understanding is that regrettably you're wrong, definitely at least in practice if not in theory. First on the theory side of things, Warner Bros at least argued in the countersuit Hotfile filed against them for abuse of takedowns that when it came to the DMCA: >"The DMCA’s language applies only to impersonating a copyright owner or sending notices on their behalf without authorization; mere misidentification of the files being taken down or the works represented therein are at most incorrect ‘statements’." Unfortunately the settlement Hotfile made in the original suit against it by the MPAA also ended its countersuit so Warner Bros arguments were not put to the test. If anyone else knows of a subsequent case that'd be good to read, but I can't remember any. If there's nothing at all then hard to say either way, but there is at least a strong colorable argument that it either doesn't mean what a lot of people think it should period or it's too ambiguous to have any real teeth. And speaking of real teeth anyway, there do not seem to be any fixed consequences for perjury, and I do not think there has ever been a single prosecution for it in the now 20 year history of the law. In fact the sole and only victory of any kind I can remember of even a flagrantly abusive act of political censorship was years when WordPress won a default judgement against "Straight Pride UK" [1] (which had already gone dark of course). Lenz won vs UMC, but I don't think won any actual damages? And further the standard set there was that actual bad faith by the rights holder would need to be shown, which is yet another hurdle. I think only something like Diebold rose to that level. Edit: ubernostrum beat me to it and mentioned Diebold and that perjury is about who you're representing not what you're asserting too. So at the end of the day there just has never seemed to be any significant consequences to abuse (or "mistakes"), and the result has been as would be expected given the incentives and interests involved. ---- 1: https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/9/8175491/wordpress-automattic-wins-dmca-takedown-straight-pride-uk-case https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/9/8175491/wordpress-automatt...

darawk 8y ago
Wouldn't this qualify as impersonating a copyright owner, though?
- xoa 8y ago

ams6110 8y ago

I think it's only perjury if you're making the claim in court. If you're making the claim to Google, you're just lying.