5 ms·

A company can send non-legally binding notices to copyrighted content it does not own? What legally stops me from filing it against all of Warner Bros' legitim

by Joakal 15y ago

A company can send non-legally binding notices to copyrighted content it does not own? What legally stops me from filing it against all of Warner Bros' legitimate content like trailers then?

drivebyacct2 15y ago
That's the point of the suit. The DMCA leaves you open to penalty if you submit false claims.
- Joakal 15y ago
  I looked around for costs; basically the original copyright holder has to prove damages. Since most people using Youtube, et al, are not making that much profit, the DMCA-issuers won't face significant penalties for misusing DMCAs. Seems like I won't get much penalties for taking down the trailers because it's hard to prove damages. http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/02/27/the-economics-of-accusation-penalty-for-false-dmca-claims-is-low/ http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/02/27/the-economics-of-... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0432448359.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0432448359.shtml
  - politician 15y ago
    "Hard to prove damages" hasn't stopped the RIAA and Sony from claiming $750 per song and winning.
    - Natsu 15y ago
      They have statutory damages for that, so they do not need to prove actual damages most of the time. I say "most of the time" because I think there are a few cases where statutory damages can become unavailable. I don't remember the details, but I think I heard once that someone mucked up registering their copyright and was unable to claim statutory damages because of that.
  - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
    > Since most people using Youtube, et al, are not making that much profit, the DMCA-issuers won't face significant penalties for misusing DMCAs. Issuing a false DMCA takedown is perjury, and the victims may have standing for a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations civil lawsuit with substantial damages.
- nobody3141592 15y ago
  And those penalties are based on the cost to the other guy. So if warner falsely demands your youtube video is taken down - you lost no money so even if they lied the penalty is zero. If you request a Warner file to be removed they will prove that they lost $billion dollars. After all, an industry that claims star wars made a loss can prove anything.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    > And those penalties are based on the cost to the other guy. So if warner falsely demands your youtube video is taken down - you lost no money so even if they lied the penalty is zero. DMCA notices include the required text "under penalty of perjury". Perjury qualifies as a criminal felony, quite aside from any financial penalties. Unfortunately, nobody has ever enforced that requirement; someone ought to. Perhaps with the parties responsible for sending such notice imprisoned for up to five years (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1621.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1621.html), they'd think twice about sending false takedown notices.
    - narcissus 15y ago
      I read once that the 'under penalty of perjury' was 'linked' to the statement that you were an authorised representative of the company making the claim, not 'linked' to the claim itself. Having said that, it's been a long time since I've seen a notice :)
      - nobody3141592 15y ago
        There is a similar clause in patent applications but I have never heard of a defeated patent involving a prosecution for perjury! I suspect the burden of proving that it was a deliberate lie to damage the other guy , in a criminal trial, is rather too high.
      - JoshTriplett 15y ago
        It specifically says "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." So, if you're not the copyright owner...
rmc 15y ago
A company can send non-legally binding notices to copyrighted content it does not own? The DMCA tale down notice requires you to swear under penalty of perjury. So, if you claim something that's not yours it's like lying under oath. Whether or not Big Media will be held to this standard depends on how cynical you are.

by Joakal 15y ago

A company can send non-legally binding notices to copyrighted content it does not own? What legally stops me from filing it against all of Warner Bros' legitimate content like trailers then?

drivebyacct2 15y ago

That's the point of the suit. The DMCA leaves you open to penalty if you submit false claims.

Joakal 15y ago
I looked around for costs; basically the original copyright holder has to prove damages. Since most people using Youtube, et al, are not making that much profit, the DMCA-issuers won't face significant penalties for misusing DMCAs. Seems like I won't get much penalties for taking down the trailers because it's hard to prove damages. http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/02/27/the-economics-of-accusation-penalty-for-false-dmca-claims-is-low/ http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/02/27/the-economics-of-... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0432448359.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0432448359.shtml
- politician 15y ago
  "Hard to prove damages" hasn't stopped the RIAA and Sony from claiming $750 per song and winning.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    They have statutory damages for that, so they do not need to prove actual damages most of the time. I say "most of the time" because I think there are a few cases where statutory damages can become unavailable. I don't remember the details, but I think I heard once that someone mucked up registering their copyright and was unable to claim statutory damages because of that.
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago
  > Since most people using Youtube, et al, are not making that much profit, the DMCA-issuers won't face significant penalties for misusing DMCAs. Issuing a false DMCA takedown is perjury, and the victims may have standing for a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations civil lawsuit with substantial damages.
nobody3141592 15y ago
And those penalties are based on the cost to the other guy. So if warner falsely demands your youtube video is taken down - you lost no money so even if they lied the penalty is zero. If you request a Warner file to be removed they will prove that they lost $billion dollars. After all, an industry that claims star wars made a loss can prove anything.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  > And those penalties are based on the cost to the other guy. So if warner falsely demands your youtube video is taken down - you lost no money so even if they lied the penalty is zero. DMCA notices include the required text "under penalty of perjury". Perjury qualifies as a criminal felony, quite aside from any financial penalties. Unfortunately, nobody has ever enforced that requirement; someone ought to. Perhaps with the parties responsible for sending such notice imprisoned for up to five years (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1621.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1621.html), they'd think twice about sending false takedown notices.
  - narcissus 15y ago
    I read once that the 'under penalty of perjury' was 'linked' to the statement that you were an authorised representative of the company making the claim, not 'linked' to the claim itself. Having said that, it's been a long time since I've seen a notice :)
    - nobody3141592 15y ago
      There is a similar clause in patent applications but I have never heard of a defeated patent involving a prosecution for perjury! I suspect the burden of proving that it was a deliberate lie to damage the other guy , in a criminal trial, is rather too high.
    - JoshTriplett 15y ago
      It specifically says "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." So, if you're not the copyright owner...

rmc 15y ago

A company can send non-legally binding notices to copyrighted content it does not own? The DMCA tale down notice requires you to swear under penalty of perjury. So, if you claim something that's not yours it's like lying under oath. Whether or not Big Media will be held to this standard depends on how cynical you are.