3 ms·

> If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was re

> If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification... http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf Not sure what you're disagreeing with me on here, since you go on to restate my point at greater length. There are penalties for falsely filing a counternotice; there are no penalties to me if I send Alphabet a DMCA claim about Google.com (or if WhiteHatJr files notice to YouTube). Edit: Ah, I see. It's correct that there is no need to provide evidence at the counter-notice stage, but it introduces a sentence of up to five years in prison just for lying in the counter-notice, which does not exist for the filer. Also, even if the everything is filed and processed in a matter of hours from notice to counter-notice, there is a 14-day period during which your material remains offline regardless. I stand by my point. The DMCA is a garbage law.

rndgermandude 6y ago
I prefer the Cornell online version instead of the gov pdf: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 Yes, you shall not be perjuring yourself. It is indeed lopsided that the counter notice must include "A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." The initial notice only has "under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed", but everything else like "A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law" has no threat of penalty. But you don't have to be right about the mistaken removal, just honestly believing you're right about it at the time you file the counter notice. Oh, and you'd be surprised on how many people perjure themselves in the initial takedown notice, knowing they are not in fact authorized by copyright owners, often even claiming they own the copyright when they know they do not.

rndgermandude 6y ago

I prefer the Cornell online version instead of the gov pdf: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 Yes, you shall not be perjuring yourself. It is indeed lopsided that the counter notice must include "A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." The initial notice only has "under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed", but everything else like "A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law" has no threat of penalty. But you don't have to be right about the mistaken removal, just honestly believing you're right about it at the time you file the counter notice. Oh, and you'd be surprised on how many people perjure themselves in the initial takedown notice, knowing they are not in fact authorized by copyright owners, often even claiming they own the copyright when they know they do not.