4 ms·
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 entert
by _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 agoYeah, 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 agoLenz 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.