2 ms·

> (f)Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1)that material or activity is infringing, or (2)that material o

> (f)Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1)that material or activity is infringing, or (2)that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. 512f is currently unenforced by the courts. Judges are not state machines, it matters not what the technically correct decision may be, they are not required to make it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.

Mindwipe 4y ago
> 512f is currently unenforced by the courts. It's not unenforced. It's just that there are basically no counterclaims because they're not worth doing.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > It's not unenforced. It's just that there are basically no counterclaims because they're not worth doing. Right, they're not worth doing because the cost of doing them won't be reimbursed. Unsure if you read the above link for the other court case, but moving in a different direction. There have been plenty of DMCA requests for 127.0.0.1 [1], there is no argument that those are in good faith. It would be easy money to get reimbursement for dealing with them but you won't because the courts do not have to give you it. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1&oq=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1 https://www.google.com/search?q=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1&o...

Mindwipe 4y ago

> 512f is currently unenforced by the courts. It's not unenforced. It's just that there are basically no counterclaims because they're not worth doing.

lesuorac 4y ago
> It's not unenforced. It's just that there are basically no counterclaims because they're not worth doing. Right, they're not worth doing because the cost of doing them won't be reimbursed. Unsure if you read the above link for the other court case, but moving in a different direction. There have been plenty of DMCA requests for 127.0.0.1 [1], there is no argument that those are in good faith. It would be easy money to get reimbursement for dealing with them but you won't because the courts do not have to give you it. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1&oq=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1 https://www.google.com/search?q=DMCA+request+for+127.0.0.1&o...