6 ms·

I wish, just once, that someone who sends bogus DMCA claims like this would actually get sent to jail for committing perjury.

m-p-3 4y ago
Or at least lose their ability to fast-track takedown requests.
tialaramex 4y ago
Perjury is fairly a steep evidential climb because it inquires as to what the accused believed, and it wouldn't apply here anyway because the DMCA specifically applies perjury to the question of authorisation to act for the owner. It does not apply to the other information. If I claim to be Disney and issue a DMCA takedown of somebody's video, that's perjury, because Disney did not authorize me to do that. If Disney's lawyers claim your video about how much you enjoy yoga is infringing on their animated feature film "Snow White" that's not perjury even though the claim is wrong and the worst that'll happen is if it went to court it gets dismissed and maybe a Disney lawyer gets slapped on the wrist for wasting a judge's time with this nonsense.
- t-writescode 4y ago
  In a case like this, I wouldn't be surprised if there's an email trail at that company demanding that they use a DMCA to take the video down for reasons that are not DMCA-related.
  - singron 4y ago
    Unfortunately they've all had the mandatory corporate training to commit crimes over the phone and not email.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> someone who sends bogus DMCA claims like this would actually get sent to jail for committing perjury DMCA claims aren’t made to a court, so perjury doesn’t make sense. If one could prove intent, perhaps fraud?
- williamscales 4y ago
  (not a lawyer) I wonder if wire-fraud applies because IIRC the DMCA claimant gets the video's ad revenue. You have an aspect of obtaining money, it happens over the wire, so...maybe?
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    DMCA 512 says nothing about ad revenue. It's purely "take down this video if you don't want to be legally liable for it". Though the law explicitly states that takedown misrepresentation is a form of perjury; and you can specifically sue for that... nobody bothers. YouTube built its own parallel claims system that does claim revenue, though they did recently change it to hold revenue in escrow while a dispute is processed. The implicit goal of this system is to take as many claims as possible out of the DMCA 512 system and into YouTube's hands, where they can then negotiate a different monetization agreement behind the uploader's back.
    - tadfisher 4y ago
      > The implicit goal of this system is to take as many claims as possible out of the DMCA 512 system and into YouTube's hands, where they can then negotiate a different monetization agreement behind the uploader's back. It's important to note that the video stays online instead of being removed as required under DMCA 512. This is of little consolation to the creator, of course, if they were looking to monetize the video.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      512 (f) Absolute provides a method for a person to claim damages for a misrepresentation of copyright in a DMCA Take Down The fact this provision is not regularly enforced is because it would be expensive to do so, often exceeding the damages in the first place. However I wish EFF and other organizations would start pushing back against companies like this using 512 (f) and get some case law and actual damages including legal fees against these copyright abusers
      - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
charcircuit 4y ago
[flagged]
- sebastien_b 4y ago
  It was a sponsored video, in partnership with the same actual company. Most definitely not something he didn’t have the rights to do.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      When you collaborate on a project it's pretty hard to argue it wasn't authorized.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      They asked him to broadcast it. They could have asked him to remove it. Instead they went for a strike on his channel.
- Keverw 4y ago
  I would think doing tutorials would be a form of fair use under education. Else I guess every university, Lynda, Pluralsight, etc either had to get permission or they would be breaking the law.
  - duskwuff 4y ago
    Using photographs or videos of a product in an educational work about that product is well within the bounds of fair use. Same goes for reviews.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    [flagged]

m-p-3 4y ago

Or at least lose their ability to fast-track takedown requests.

tialaramex 4y ago

Perjury is fairly a steep evidential climb because it inquires as to what the accused believed, and it wouldn't apply here anyway because the DMCA specifically applies perjury to the question of authorisation to act for the owner. It does not apply to the other information. If I claim to be Disney and issue a DMCA takedown of somebody's video, that's perjury, because Disney did not authorize me to do that. If Disney's lawyers claim your video about how much you enjoy yoga is infringing on their animated feature film "Snow White" that's not perjury even though the claim is wrong and the worst that'll happen is if it went to court it gets dismissed and maybe a Disney lawyer gets slapped on the wrist for wasting a judge's time with this nonsense.

t-writescode 4y ago
In a case like this, I wouldn't be surprised if there's an email trail at that company demanding that they use a DMCA to take the video down for reasons that are not DMCA-related.
- singron 4y ago
  Unfortunately they've all had the mandatory corporate training to commit crimes over the phone and not email.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> someone who sends bogus DMCA claims like this would actually get sent to jail for committing perjury DMCA claims aren’t made to a court, so perjury doesn’t make sense. If one could prove intent, perhaps fraud?

williamscales 4y ago
(not a lawyer) I wonder if wire-fraud applies because IIRC the DMCA claimant gets the video's ad revenue. You have an aspect of obtaining money, it happens over the wire, so...maybe?
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  DMCA 512 says nothing about ad revenue. It's purely "take down this video if you don't want to be legally liable for it". Though the law explicitly states that takedown misrepresentation is a form of perjury; and you can specifically sue for that... nobody bothers. YouTube built its own parallel claims system that does claim revenue, though they did recently change it to hold revenue in escrow while a dispute is processed. The implicit goal of this system is to take as many claims as possible out of the DMCA 512 system and into YouTube's hands, where they can then negotiate a different monetization agreement behind the uploader's back.
  - tadfisher 4y ago
    > The implicit goal of this system is to take as many claims as possible out of the DMCA 512 system and into YouTube's hands, where they can then negotiate a different monetization agreement behind the uploader's back. It's important to note that the video stays online instead of being removed as required under DMCA 512. This is of little consolation to the creator, of course, if they were looking to monetize the video.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    512 (f) Absolute provides a method for a person to claim damages for a misrepresentation of copyright in a DMCA Take Down The fact this provision is not regularly enforced is because it would be expensive to do so, often exceeding the damages in the first place. However I wish EFF and other organizations would start pushing back against companies like this using 512 (f) and get some case law and actual damages including legal fees against these copyright abusers
    - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

charcircuit 4y ago

[flagged]

sebastien_b 4y ago
It was a sponsored video, in partnership with the same actual company. Most definitely not something he didn’t have the rights to do.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    When you collaborate on a project it's pretty hard to argue it wasn't authorized.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    They asked him to broadcast it. They could have asked him to remove it. Instead they went for a strike on his channel.
Keverw 4y ago
I would think doing tutorials would be a form of fair use under education. Else I guess every university, Lynda, Pluralsight, etc either had to get permission or they would be breaking the law.
- duskwuff 4y ago
  Using photographs or videos of a product in an educational work about that product is well within the bounds of fair use. Same goes for reviews.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  [flagged]