5 ms·

17 USC § 512(f), knowingly misrepresenting a DMCA takedown claim can result in liability for damage, attorneys fees, etc.

_jal 7y ago
Except I don't believe it ever has, even in egregious cases. However, there is a pending test case attempting to give it some teeth. I expect it will be entertaining, no matter how it substantively turns out: https://www.popehat.com/2019/12/13/randazza-confederates-doucette/ https://www.popehat.com/2019/12/13/randazza-confederates-dou...
- jkaplowitz 7y ago
  Yeah, very few enforcements, indeed. This was the first successful 512(f) verdict back in 2004, though it may still stand nearly alone, and did not yield enough in damages to affect megacorp behavior in the absence of a huge flurry of such lawsuits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebo....
- snuxoll 7y ago
  Lenz v Universal was fought over this, and has opened the floodgates for these claims. Copyright holders cannot just blanket issue DMCA takedowns without evaluating the supposedly infringing content, including consideration of fair use. While it’s not an easy case to win, it has teeth - unfortunately they are limited to ACTUAL damages, which does give companies incentive to file misrepresented claims as one cannot easily hire a contingent attorney without the possibility of a statutory windfall.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
No individual will ever pursue this in court because of the cost in time and money and the risk of being declared liable anyway. Corporations with legal departments are certainly capable of pursuing this against individuals. There's a significant power imbalance here.
robocat 7y ago
Get people with zero assets to write the notice - maybe pay them $20
- prirun 7y ago
  Probably not a good idea. Our f'd-up legal system would garnish their wages for the rest of their life to pay back the corporate attorneys.

_jal 7y ago

Except I don't believe it ever has, even in egregious cases. However, there is a pending test case attempting to give it some teeth. I expect it will be entertaining, no matter how it substantively turns out: https://www.popehat.com/2019/12/13/randazza-confederates-doucette/ https://www.popehat.com/2019/12/13/randazza-confederates-dou...

jkaplowitz 7y ago
Yeah, very few enforcements, indeed. This was the first successful 512(f) verdict back in 2004, though it may still stand nearly alone, and did not yield enough in damages to affect megacorp behavior in the absence of a huge flurry of such lawsuits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebo....
snuxoll 7y ago
Lenz v Universal was fought over this, and has opened the floodgates for these claims. Copyright holders cannot just blanket issue DMCA takedowns without evaluating the supposedly infringing content, including consideration of fair use. While it’s not an easy case to win, it has teeth - unfortunately they are limited to ACTUAL damages, which does give companies incentive to file misrepresented claims as one cannot easily hire a contingent attorney without the possibility of a statutory windfall.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

No individual will ever pursue this in court because of the cost in time and money and the risk of being declared liable anyway. Corporations with legal departments are certainly capable of pursuing this against individuals. There's a significant power imbalance here.

robocat 7y ago

Get people with zero assets to write the notice - maybe pay them $20

prirun 7y ago
Probably not a good idea. Our f'd-up legal system would garnish their wages for the rest of their life to pay back the corporate attorneys.