4 ms·

> This is a civil action seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 107, as well as injunctive relief and dama

> This is a civil action seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 107, as well as injunctive relief and damages for misrepresentation of copyright claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) Oh cool, so the EFF is gonna claim a false DMCA filing. I hope the student will be made whole financially after what he had to go through; apparently he's been fighting this for a year.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
They need to go after the lawyers who signed off on the notice. That is the only way to get real accountability.
- modsmustgo 5y ago
  ^Astrikes the portion of the law that says anything about responding to all claims "expeditiously", and replaces it with something that accurately represents the severity of the situation(s).^A edit: severity in relation to an actual copyright violation, not possible damages imagined in the accusers theoretical situation if the content was not removed. Some companies might gladly eat a fine if only 1/100 people challenge their sick interpretation of the law and it keeps the bad PR from getting out. I could bore you with far worse scenarios but I will not aid the authoritarians with any further information.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    The wording of the DMCA is irrelevant. All court officers take an oath to behave ethically. Submitting fraudulent documents because you're too lazy to exercise due diligence verifying the claim should result in meaningful punishment.
    - modsmustgo 5y ago
      Without reviewing the pasted code it's hard to know if the claim is fraudulent, but I can assure you the DMCA is not the right tool for the job as-is. Using the word "expeditiously" implies there is some immediate threat that must be dealt with to prevent grave damages to copyright holder. In reality maybe some sections of code were pasted for critique, clearly not to steal property from (c)holder. If only the most severe cases need to be handled "expeditiously" then MAYBE people wouldn't look at DMCA/DRM as a censorship tool. Right now though, its an automated nightmare which has no means for discriminating fair use of a small incomplete/unusable section of code vs someone posting full compiled binary. Great for them if they can prove the claim was fraudulent, it can only aid in the fight to fix this busted law that has been abused repeatedly to harm competition and critique. We have to fix it now before the cops start using it to shut down streamers by playing copyrighted music at them (oh wait this IS happening, we need to fix this stupid law already...).
- paulgb 5y ago
  I agree, especially considering that filing a proper false DMCA takedown requires perjuring yourself: > A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed. In these situations, lawyers are renting out their credibility to bully people who can’t afford to go to court even if they’re in the right.
  - phendrenad2 5y ago
    I think that being charged with perjury is a penalty too high for lawyers as a group to accept could be a consequence of simply filing a DNCA notice on behalf of a corporation. So I doubt it'll happen. If there were a special penalty, more of a slap on the wrist, but enough to inconvenience lawyers who sign off on these bogus claims, then I think that it would be, counterintuitively, more effective.
    - paulgb 5y ago
      I agree, I am not saying the lawyers should be charged for perjury necessarily, just that they know the seriousness of what they're doing when they do this.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

They need to go after the lawyers who signed off on the notice. That is the only way to get real accountability.

modsmustgo 5y ago
^Astrikes the portion of the law that says anything about responding to all claims "expeditiously", and replaces it with something that accurately represents the severity of the situation(s).^A edit: severity in relation to an actual copyright violation, not possible damages imagined in the accusers theoretical situation if the content was not removed. Some companies might gladly eat a fine if only 1/100 people challenge their sick interpretation of the law and it keeps the bad PR from getting out. I could bore you with far worse scenarios but I will not aid the authoritarians with any further information.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  The wording of the DMCA is irrelevant. All court officers take an oath to behave ethically. Submitting fraudulent documents because you're too lazy to exercise due diligence verifying the claim should result in meaningful punishment.
  - modsmustgo 5y ago
    Without reviewing the pasted code it's hard to know if the claim is fraudulent, but I can assure you the DMCA is not the right tool for the job as-is. Using the word "expeditiously" implies there is some immediate threat that must be dealt with to prevent grave damages to copyright holder. In reality maybe some sections of code were pasted for critique, clearly not to steal property from (c)holder. If only the most severe cases need to be handled "expeditiously" then MAYBE people wouldn't look at DMCA/DRM as a censorship tool. Right now though, its an automated nightmare which has no means for discriminating fair use of a small incomplete/unusable section of code vs someone posting full compiled binary. Great for them if they can prove the claim was fraudulent, it can only aid in the fight to fix this busted law that has been abused repeatedly to harm competition and critique. We have to fix it now before the cops start using it to shut down streamers by playing copyrighted music at them (oh wait this IS happening, we need to fix this stupid law already...).
paulgb 5y ago
I agree, especially considering that filing a proper false DMCA takedown requires perjuring yourself: > A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed. In these situations, lawyers are renting out their credibility to bully people who can’t afford to go to court even if they’re in the right.
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  I think that being charged with perjury is a penalty too high for lawyers as a group to accept could be a consequence of simply filing a DNCA notice on behalf of a corporation. So I doubt it'll happen. If there were a special penalty, more of a slap on the wrist, but enough to inconvenience lawyers who sign off on these bogus claims, then I think that it would be, counterintuitively, more effective.
  - paulgb 5y ago
    I agree, I am not saying the lawyers should be charged for perjury necessarily, just that they know the seriousness of what they're doing when they do this.