4 ms·

I believe this is what everyone has been suggesting someone do about fake DMCA for a while so, although it pains me to say it, thank you Google!

hnbad 3y ago
False DMCA claims are technically considered perjury I think. The problem is that most so-called DMCA claims are actually not using the DMCA mechanism at all: filing a bogus copyright claim on YouTube for example doesn't have to involve the DMCA at any point.
- sumtechguy 3y ago
  I have heard that perjury thing before. However, what is the actual consequence of doing that? Also in this particular type of thing? Is it a 'liar liar pants on fire' designation, or some sort of fine, or time in jail? What do the actual statutes say, and what is the case law here?
  - lazide 3y ago
    In California, perjury is a felony punishable by 2,3, or 4 years in jail. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=126 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....] Theoretically. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=5.&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...] It’s also explicitly listed as a deportable offense for Green Card holders.
    - beeboobaa 3y ago
      Let me know when Sony has been put in jail for 2 years. So far they've been getting away with bogus DMCA notices for years.
      - wredue 3y ago
        Sony lawyers represent Sony so don’t fall under the perjury rule.
      - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
        You, like many others, are misunderstanding the "perjury" part of the DMCA. It's only perjury if you're don't have legal authority to act on behalf of the company issuing the DMCA takedown. In other words, Sony falsely claiming to have ownership over something is not perjury. Some random person claiming to be working for Sony when they don't and claiming ownership and sending a DMCA takedown is.
      - lazide 3y ago
        Near as I can tell, almost no one wants to prosecute Perjury. Partially because lawyers are so good at weaseling out of it, but secretly I think it’s because lawyers are afraid of what would happen if it was consistently applied. For Family court in particular, I imagine it could turn 1/4 of the state into felons. The only cases I’m aware of were very high profile, ‘successful’ (as in folks believed it, and took action based on it) lies under oath with severe and high profile damages, that later evidence clearly showed was done in bad faith. And by severe and high profile damages, I don’t mean something as simple as a single (non famous) person being dead when they didn’t have to be, unless it’s a huge scandal anyway. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1142605 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1142605]
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    Perjury cases are very, very rarely prosecuted even in cases where the violation is blatant (from my experience). Occasionally the system works, though. I remember one suspect I knew defending himself against what he said were totally bogus domestic violence charges. The woman came and testified against him and he lost. A week after the trial, and before his sentencing, his lawyer came and told him the government had just disclosed that they had discovered the complainant had three separate perjury convictions in three other states for being caught lying in domestic violence testimony.
- tanaros 3y ago
  > False DMCA claims are technically considered perjury I think. The problem is that most so-called DMCA claims are actually not using the DMCA mechanism at all […] The other issue is that, if I recall correctly, the perjury penalty is not about whether the claim is accurate. It’s about whether you actually represent the rights holder of the content you claim is being infringed. That is, if I make a DMCA claim that says this video infringes on Frozen, it’s perjury only if I’m not the rights holder (or representative thereof) for Frozen.
- Suppafly 3y ago
  Whenever you see some small content creator complaining about people stealing their videos and such, they never actually file a DMCA to get relief, they just use youtube's bogus form and then complain when nothing happens.
jasode 3y ago
>I believe _this_ is what everyone has been suggesting someone do about fake DMCA for a while so, The problem is the "_this_" in this thread's example is a full-blown lawsuit by Google. Yes, this is a change from just blindingly obeying DMCA notices but filing lawsuits is not scalable to apply to all the other frivolous and illegitimate takedown requests. These 2 men just did it in high enough volume to attract the attention of Google's lawyers. An example of all the other illegitimate DMCA takedowns "flying under the radar"... A few years ago, I was selling some Total Training DVD tutorials of Adobe products on ebay like these: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=total+training+adobe+creative https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=total+training+adobe+cr... Ebay then mysteriously cancelled my listing after a few days. Why? Because Ebay has a VeRO (Verified Rights Owners) program and Total Training sent a DMCA takedown request to remove my legitimate listing. I then sent a harsh email with my invoice to Total Training that proved I bought the DVDs directly from them so they are not counterfeit pirate copies and warned them not to interfere when I re-listed it. They didn't takedown my listing so I was finally able to sell it. Total Training wasn't really trying to stop piracy; their real intention was to prevent lower-priced used DVDs from competing with the sales of their new DVDs by intimidating sellers on ebay. That's the type of small-scale DMCA abuse that happens constantly on Ebay, Youtube, Google search results page, etc. Abuse the DMCA to their advantage but not enough to attract lawsuits.

hnbad 3y ago

False DMCA claims are technically considered perjury I think. The problem is that most so-called DMCA claims are actually not using the DMCA mechanism at all: filing a bogus copyright claim on YouTube for example doesn't have to involve the DMCA at any point.

sumtechguy 3y ago
I have heard that perjury thing before. However, what is the actual consequence of doing that? Also in this particular type of thing? Is it a 'liar liar pants on fire' designation, or some sort of fine, or time in jail? What do the actual statutes say, and what is the case law here?
- lazide 3y ago
  In California, perjury is a felony punishable by 2,3, or 4 years in jail. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=126 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....] Theoretically. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=7.&part=1.&chapter=5.&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...] It’s also explicitly listed as a deportable offense for Green Card holders.
  - beeboobaa 3y ago
    Let me know when Sony has been put in jail for 2 years. So far they've been getting away with bogus DMCA notices for years.
    - wredue 3y ago
      Sony lawyers represent Sony so don’t fall under the perjury rule.
    - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
      You, like many others, are misunderstanding the "perjury" part of the DMCA. It's only perjury if you're don't have legal authority to act on behalf of the company issuing the DMCA takedown. In other words, Sony falsely claiming to have ownership over something is not perjury. Some random person claiming to be working for Sony when they don't and claiming ownership and sending a DMCA takedown is.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Near as I can tell, almost no one wants to prosecute Perjury. Partially because lawyers are so good at weaseling out of it, but secretly I think it’s because lawyers are afraid of what would happen if it was consistently applied. For Family court in particular, I imagine it could turn 1/4 of the state into felons. The only cases I’m aware of were very high profile, ‘successful’ (as in folks believed it, and took action based on it) lies under oath with severe and high profile damages, that later evidence clearly showed was done in bad faith. And by severe and high profile damages, I don’t mean something as simple as a single (non famous) person being dead when they didn’t have to be, unless it’s a huge scandal anyway. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1142605 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1142605]
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Perjury cases are very, very rarely prosecuted even in cases where the violation is blatant (from my experience). Occasionally the system works, though. I remember one suspect I knew defending himself against what he said were totally bogus domestic violence charges. The woman came and testified against him and he lost. A week after the trial, and before his sentencing, his lawyer came and told him the government had just disclosed that they had discovered the complainant had three separate perjury convictions in three other states for being caught lying in domestic violence testimony.
tanaros 3y ago
> False DMCA claims are technically considered perjury I think. The problem is that most so-called DMCA claims are actually not using the DMCA mechanism at all […] The other issue is that, if I recall correctly, the perjury penalty is not about whether the claim is accurate. It’s about whether you actually represent the rights holder of the content you claim is being infringed. That is, if I make a DMCA claim that says this video infringes on Frozen, it’s perjury only if I’m not the rights holder (or representative thereof) for Frozen.
Suppafly 3y ago
Whenever you see some small content creator complaining about people stealing their videos and such, they never actually file a DMCA to get relief, they just use youtube's bogus form and then complain when nothing happens.

jasode 3y ago

>I believe _this_ is what everyone has been suggesting someone do about fake DMCA for a while so, The problem is the "_this_" in this thread's example is a full-blown lawsuit by Google. Yes, this is a change from just blindingly obeying DMCA notices but filing lawsuits is not scalable to apply to all the other frivolous and illegitimate takedown requests. These 2 men just did it in high enough volume to attract the attention of Google's lawyers. An example of all the other illegitimate DMCA takedowns "flying under the radar"... A few years ago, I was selling some Total Training DVD tutorials of Adobe products on ebay like these: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=total+training+adobe+creative https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=total+training+adobe+cr... Ebay then mysteriously cancelled my listing after a few days. Why? Because Ebay has a VeRO (Verified Rights Owners) program and Total Training sent a DMCA takedown request to remove my legitimate listing. I then sent a harsh email with my invoice to Total Training that proved I bought the DVDs directly from them so they are not counterfeit pirate copies and warned them not to interfere when I re-listed it. They didn't takedown my listing so I was finally able to sell it. Total Training wasn't really trying to stop piracy; their real intention was to prevent lower-priced used DVDs from competing with the sales of their new DVDs by intimidating sellers on ebay. That's the type of small-scale DMCA abuse that happens constantly on Ebay, Youtube, Google search results page, etc. Abuse the DMCA to their advantage but not enough to attract lawsuits.