22 ms·

IANAL, but DMCA takedowns do not have "no repercussions" for false claims. If the DMCA takedown was actually baseless, they would be opening themselves up to da

IANAL, but DMCA takedowns do not have "no repercussions" for false claims. If the DMCA takedown was actually baseless, they would be opening themselves up to damage liabilities, as specified under 17 U.S. Code § 512 under section f[1]. This is different than YouTube copyright claims, which as far as I'm aware don't actually have any repercussions for false claims unless YouTube decides to take action[2], since copyright claims on YouTube are not DMCA takedown requests. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/youtubes-new-lawsuit-shows-just-how-far-copyright-trolls-have-go-theyre-stopped https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/youtubes-new-lawsuit-s...

dragonwriter 6y ago
> DMCA takedowns do not have "no repercussions" for false claims. They mostly do. > If the DMCA takedown was actually baseless, they would be opening themselves up to damage liabilities, as specified under 17 U.S. Code § 512 under section f[1]. The basis for liability there is knowing misrepresentation of infringement. So as long as RIAA believed (and that belief need not be reasonable) the legal theory of infringement that they advanced, there's not a liability problem. SUre, if they misrepresented their right to act on behalf of the legal owners of the works they claimed were infringed by it, or that would be an issue, but no one even suspects that they are doing that.
- qw3rty01 6y ago
  While this is true, I was responding to a post about abusing DMCA takedowns, which have the assumption that they're using it to knowingly misrepresent infringement. And even though most abusive DMCA takedowns end up without any counter action, the law does provide a way to fight them, which is the disincentive from "simply send a takedown for anything they don't like no matter whether it is legal or not"
ohazi 6y ago
> opening themselves up to damage liabilities Courts calculate damages for fucking with an open source software project as basically zilch. For all intents and purposes, that is "no repercussions" for a pile of lawyers like the RIAA. The damages need to be punitive.
- qw3rty01 6y ago
  Damages include legal fees in the case of DMCA.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> DMCA takedowns do not have "no repercussions" for false claims. They mostly do. > If the DMCA takedown was actually baseless, they would be opening themselves up to damage liabilities, as specified under 17 U.S. Code § 512 under section f[1]. The basis for liability there is knowing misrepresentation of infringement. So as long as RIAA believed (and that belief need not be reasonable) the legal theory of infringement that they advanced, there's not a liability problem. SUre, if they misrepresented their right to act on behalf of the legal owners of the works they claimed were infringed by it, or that would be an issue, but no one even suspects that they are doing that.

qw3rty01 6y ago
While this is true, I was responding to a post about abusing DMCA takedowns, which have the assumption that they're using it to knowingly misrepresent infringement. And even though most abusive DMCA takedowns end up without any counter action, the law does provide a way to fight them, which is the disincentive from "simply send a takedown for anything they don't like no matter whether it is legal or not"

ohazi 6y ago

> opening themselves up to damage liabilities Courts calculate damages for fucking with an open source software project as basically zilch. For all intents and purposes, that is "no repercussions" for a pile of lawyers like the RIAA. The damages need to be punitive.

qw3rty01 6y ago
Damages include legal fees in the case of DMCA.