18 ms·

Well, a DMCA takedown is an accusation of illegal conduct and Twitter is a very public place. File a defamation suit against them, and force the C-suite and th

by OldHand2018 6y ago

Well, a DMCA takedown is an accusation of illegal conduct and Twitter is a very public place. File a defamation suit against them, and force the C-suite and their lawyers to sit for depositions where they must justify their good-faith beliefs.

harry8 6y ago
What's your upside for doing this? The time, expense and stress is a pretty obvious downside for many if not most.
- smitty1110 6y ago
  Caveat Lector - IANAL Punitive damages. All you need to do is show the other party acted with malice or through fraud. Punitive damages are designed to be a punishment for the bad actor, you can net some nice coin that way if the judge is particularly unhappy with your opponent. Just get try to get in touch with the ACLU to see if they can give any advice before you file, the case law for this stuff is complicated last time I looked into it.
- OldHand2018 6y ago
  To be perfectly honest, it felt good to write. And that was enough for me. But... I just talked to an experienced litigation lawyer about this hypothetical, and was told that success really depends on how Twitter handles the notice - how public is it, do your friends and business associates see that you were subjected to a DMCA takedown, etc.
kevingadd 6y ago
If you have the kind of money it takes to file that suit and actually drag their C-suite into a courtroom, you aren't being inconvenienced by them throwing a DMCA takedown at you in the first place.
- nertzy 6y ago
  Maybe find a law office willing to take on the case for the chance at a cut of the penalty?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    So perform hours and hours of unpaid labor on the hope that years from now you can make some lawyers a good chunk of money.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ByteJockey 6y ago
      There's a certain personality type, that doesn't necessarily want to win, but just wants their opponent to lose. And is often willing to put in a lot of effort to make sure this happens.
      - dotancohen 6y ago
        Are you asking for my ex-wife's number?
        ByteJockey 6y ago
        We can use your ex-wife for good. We can use her to take down the RIAA.
        behringer 6y ago
        My ex wife would probably be found sleeping with the riaa
nullc 6y ago
California anti-slapp law has been interpreted so broadly that it is an almost complete shield against defamation claims in public. This fact has its plusses and minuses.
sebow 6y ago
>Twitter is a very public place These kind of comments always rub me the wrong way. My basic argument against this is: if Twitter/Facebook is a public space, then why are twitter/facebook/other staff allowed to restrict your access to it? There have been literally countless times that this has happened without people violating any laws that would apply in real life(or even their own TOS in some cases). This is to say that twitter is not run by the government,and while that idea sounds scary,the point is that a private citizen is not able to remove you/your speech from a public space in real life.This is besides the fact that these platforms claim both publisher status and the right to censor because "they're private companies"(which they are, but the contradiction is clear when we're talking about them being "hosting public places").Most people forget the uneven playing field because of their addiction to these platforms. We either treat them fully as private companies or begin developing a "bill of rights" on the internet, unless of course we keep treating everyone (including the government) as 2-nd class citizens compared to the owners of these platforms.(Who can de facto "virtually jail" everyone without repercussions)

harry8 6y ago

What's your upside for doing this? The time, expense and stress is a pretty obvious downside for many if not most.

smitty1110 6y ago
Caveat Lector - IANAL Punitive damages. All you need to do is show the other party acted with malice or through fraud. Punitive damages are designed to be a punishment for the bad actor, you can net some nice coin that way if the judge is particularly unhappy with your opponent. Just get try to get in touch with the ACLU to see if they can give any advice before you file, the case law for this stuff is complicated last time I looked into it.
OldHand2018 6y ago
To be perfectly honest, it felt good to write. And that was enough for me. But... I just talked to an experienced litigation lawyer about this hypothetical, and was told that success really depends on how Twitter handles the notice - how public is it, do your friends and business associates see that you were subjected to a DMCA takedown, etc.

kevingadd 6y ago

If you have the kind of money it takes to file that suit and actually drag their C-suite into a courtroom, you aren't being inconvenienced by them throwing a DMCA takedown at you in the first place.

nertzy 6y ago
Maybe find a law office willing to take on the case for the chance at a cut of the penalty?
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  So perform hours and hours of unpaid labor on the hope that years from now you can make some lawyers a good chunk of money.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    There's a certain personality type, that doesn't necessarily want to win, but just wants their opponent to lose. And is often willing to put in a lot of effort to make sure this happens.
    - dotancohen 6y ago
      Are you asking for my ex-wife's number?
      - ByteJockey 6y ago
        We can use your ex-wife for good. We can use her to take down the RIAA.
        behringer 6y ago
        My ex wife would probably be found sleeping with the riaa

nullc 6y ago

California anti-slapp law has been interpreted so broadly that it is an almost complete shield against defamation claims in public. This fact has its plusses and minuses.

sebow 6y ago

>Twitter is a very public place These kind of comments always rub me the wrong way. My basic argument against this is: if Twitter/Facebook is a public space, then why are twitter/facebook/other staff allowed to restrict your access to it? There have been literally countless times that this has happened without people violating any laws that would apply in real life(or even their own TOS in some cases). This is to say that twitter is not run by the government,and while that idea sounds scary,the point is that a private citizen is not able to remove you/your speech from a public space in real life.This is besides the fact that these platforms claim both publisher status and the right to censor because "they're private companies"(which they are, but the contradiction is clear when we're talking about them being "hosting public places").Most people forget the uneven playing field because of their addiction to these platforms. We either treat them fully as private companies or begin developing a "bill of rights" on the internet, unless of course we keep treating everyone (including the government) as 2-nd class citizens compared to the owners of these platforms.(Who can de facto "virtually jail" everyone without repercussions)