4 ms·

Wouldn't this qualify as impersonating a copyright owner, though?

by darawk 8y ago

xoa 8y ago
I'm not a lawyer and I honestly don't know exactly how to parse WB's argument there, it really needs to go to trial. If interpreted liberally does it mean that anyone representing any copyright owner at all, so long as they're not lying about who they're representing even if they're completely lying about what they own, passes? I hope not! But I can't tell, it seems like it could if the perjury language is interpreted solely and exclusively to apply to the statement of who is requesting action, not at all about the substance of said action? I would hope it'd go to trial and result in precedent, but from the article it sounds like they settled, which to be clear is totally understandable for a client first perspective. Not everyone wants or can afford to fight the good fight at any expense. But I don't know where that leaves the "perjury" side of things specifically, beyond the same take home we've had for a while: the DMCA's process is too prone too abuse. On the other hand it definitely would appear to be a slam dunk on the bad faith part, but again there don't seem to be any really clear, really significant penalties on that side. Someone who goes through all the massive expense and trouble of challenging it could win 100% of the time, which would mean the content could be reinstated. But can they even get all their expenses back, let alone enough multiplier penalties to deal with missed enforcement or get lawyers interested in doing it on contingency? At some level of abuse courts might have other tools, maybe it can start to get into other higher level laws covering fraud or something, but that seems like it'd be a harder case by definition vs specific language of the direct law in question. Even if it's clearly defeatable, if the cost is high enough that may not matter in practice. One thing though that is always possible is to at least generate political outrage, and in that case the more egregious and the more clearly they get away with it the better. There have in fact been multiple attempts to reform the DMCA in Congress including some really good language, but none of them have gotten through. That doesn't mean it's not worth continuing to bring up when the right examples present themselves that are extra photogenic. I've printed out some excerpts of this and I'm going to send it to my rep and Senators tomorrow along with some other collected concerns and a list of previous legislative efforts. I don't expect any action in an election season but sometimes pebbles add up. All the protection laws we have didn't come out of nowhere and didn't come up with zero opposition from entrenched interests after all.

Wouldn't this qualify as impersonating a copyright owner, though?

by darawk 8y ago

Wouldn't this qualify as impersonating a copyright owner, though?

xoa 8y ago

I'm not a lawyer and I honestly don't know exactly how to parse WB's argument there, it really needs to go to trial. If interpreted liberally does it mean that anyone representing any copyright owner at all, so long as they're not lying about who they're representing even if they're completely lying about what they own, passes? I hope not! But I can't tell, it seems like it could if the perjury language is interpreted solely and exclusively to apply to the statement of who is requesting action, not at all about the substance of said action? I would hope it'd go to trial and result in precedent, but from the article it sounds like they settled, which to be clear is totally understandable for a client first perspective. Not everyone wants or can afford to fight the good fight at any expense. But I don't know where that leaves the "perjury" side of things specifically, beyond the same take home we've had for a while: the DMCA's process is too prone too abuse. On the other hand it definitely would appear to be a slam dunk on the bad faith part, but again there don't seem to be any really clear, really significant penalties on that side. Someone who goes through all the massive expense and trouble of challenging it could win 100% of the time, which would mean the content could be reinstated. But can they even get all their expenses back, let alone enough multiplier penalties to deal with missed enforcement or get lawyers interested in doing it on contingency? At some level of abuse courts might have other tools, maybe it can start to get into other higher level laws covering fraud or something, but that seems like it'd be a harder case by definition vs specific language of the direct law in question. Even if it's clearly defeatable, if the cost is high enough that may not matter in practice. One thing though that is always possible is to at least generate political outrage, and in that case the more egregious and the more clearly they get away with it the better. There have in fact been multiple attempts to reform the DMCA in Congress including some really good language, but none of them have gotten through. That doesn't mean it's not worth continuing to bring up when the right examples present themselves that are extra photogenic. I've printed out some excerpts of this and I'm going to send it to my rep and Senators tomorrow along with some other collected concerns and a list of previous legislative efforts. I don't expect any action in an election season but sometimes pebbles add up. All the protection laws we have didn't come out of nowhere and didn't come up with zero opposition from entrenched interests after all.