5 ms·
> Holding Defendants Accountable > Those who knowingly make false statements in a DMCA notice can be held liable for damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In th
by ajsnigrutin 3y ago
> Holding Defendants Accountable
> Those who knowingly make false statements in a DMCA notice can be held liable for damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In this matter the defendants’ conduct is said to have caused Google to suffer economic harm due to lost advertising revenue, damage to business relations, and the allocation of significant resources to investigate their wrongdoing.
Does this apply only to "two vietnamese men" or also companies like sony, nintendo etc., when they happen to forget about the fair uses clauses?
- chii 3y ago> when they happen to forget about the fair uses clauses? oh those are just innocent omissions and no malice nor intent is implied!
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoI mean.. who could expect highly paid copyright lawyers in their massive legal teams to know such obscure rules such as fair use :)
- gjsman-1000 3y agoThey know about it; but I think they know: A. Are you going to fight it? B. Fair use, from a legal perspective, is much narrower than people think and narrower than the wording suggests. A reaction video is not considered sufficient commentary or criticism, for example. Making even a single word change to a cover song, even if you paid the compulsory license fee, is not fair use. Etc. C. Especially in video games, everyone loves quoting Sega v Accolade or Sony v Bleem as proof emulation is perfectly legal. There’s just one problem: Both of those cases were decided before the mother-of-all-DRM laws, the DMCA, was passed. They are both likely irrelevant cases now. This happens elsewhere too - quoting old cases as proof of legality without other modern developments.
- wang_li 3y ago>Especially in video games, everyone loves quoting Sega v Accolade or Sony v Bleem as proof emulation is perfectly legal. There's no need to prove emulation is legal. There's a need to prove it's illegal. There's a long history of making compatible things. Everything from toner cartridges to PC compatibles to auto parts. And especially in the context of copyright law, explain the possibility of a copyright violation in a piece of software written to emulate a hardware platform when there is no ROM or firmware distributed by the authors? Now how most people choose to run emulators is copyright violation from horizon to horizon, but I don't see how that has anything to do with people making emualtion products.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago> explain the possibility of a copyright violation in a piece of software written to emulate a hardware platform when there is no ROM or firmware distributed by the authors It specifically has to do with the DRM keys used for decrypting the games; which would appear to run afoul, in most cases, of the DMCA. It’s also not theoretical. Unauthorized DVD players and ripping software have had their authors legally prosecuted repeatedly (even big companies at the time, like RealPlayer). Gary Bowser also went to prison and had his fines set, in part, for violating that law (notice that it was a criminal case, not a civil one; Nintendo could not have dismissed those charges voluntarily.) Apple sent Psystar into bankruptcy for daring to use their keys to make macOS run on non-Macs as a commercial service. Psystar is actually the best example because they went through the entirety of the legal system to where there was nothing left but appeal to SCOTUS, and they still lost. I think that the biggest danger to emulation, by far, which archivists should be panicking more about, is the people who emulate to avoid buying a game. Which, according to most estimates, is 90%+ of emulation. On an old console who cares? On the Nintendo Switch though, that’s actual market harm (the lack thereof being one of the pillars of determining fair use in a courtroom).
- thwarted 3y agoMaking even a single word change to a cover song, even if you paid the compulsory license fee, is not fair use. Wouldn't obtaining a license supercede any claims of fair use? The defense wouldn't be "this falls under fair use", the defense would be "I've licensed this, there can't be any complaint".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- singron 3y agoYou just have to consider fair use to make a dmca claim. It takes 1 second in your head. The bar is very low.
- kmfrk 3y agoThe "DMCA abuse" rule feels a lot like perjury where it's technically illegal but a legal and prosecutorial mess that means it never rarely punished and makes headlines when it finally does.
- Andrex 3y agoIt's there to prevent the most obvious potential abuses. Very little in the copyright sphere is "obvious" though. Is this riff original or was it stolen? Etc.
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoThese four chords are totally unique and original! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ
- aidenn0 3y agoI like the live version of that better[1], and while the Axis of Awesome wins in the shear number of songs, I like Rob P's presentation[2] of the same idea more. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
- tyingq 3y agoUrgh, yeah. If you're trying to set an example, suing two individuals in a US court... individuals that don't even reside in the US, that's an odd choice. Suing an actual company and recovering some of the judgement would surely send a stronger message. Edit: maybe a more cynical view is that racking up default judgements is used as low-effort proof of "we're policing the system...see all of our lawsuits" if government or public pressure rises.
- AwaAwa 3y agoMight they be trying to set a precedent and receive a quick 'no show' judgement?
- jfoutz 3y agoThat's how it works though. You go after the weakest , least sympathetic, least able to respond, and set the precedent. Sorta like weev. There are plenty of reasons to not like the guy. But that's the case that made changing the numbers in a URL a possible felony. Anyway, once they get that first win, they pick on a slightly larger target, and cite the first win as precident.
- tyingq 3y agoDoes a default judgment (no show) set any citable precedent?
- jfoutz 3y agoNot a lawyer. I'd imagine if they rack up a bunch of no-shows They could change their dmca handling process. We're not honoring these without property X, because these last hundred or thousand or whatever turned out to be fake. I guess, I'd assert google lawyers are not dumb, and they probably have a reason to start stacking "wins". But I don't know what the strategy or end goal might be. I'm just some random guy on the internet with an opinion.
- tyingq 3y ago
- gumby 3y ago> Does this apply only to "two vietnamese men" or also companies like sony, nintendo etc., when they happen to forget about the fair uses clauses? Who advertises on Google: "two vietnamese men" or “companies like sony, nintendo etc”? Both cost Google money through bogus DMCA filings, but one cohort also brings in a lot of cash.
- xinayder 3y agoEveryone knows that rules don't apply to big corpos because they have the monies and lawyers.
- kozinc 3y agoWell, they do, technically, the issue is that they aren't enforced... because they have the monies and lawyers. :(
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- eli 3y agoNope. The part of a DMCA notice that is under penalty of perjury is that you own the copyright in question. That's what the defendants here lied about. You can't get sued if you believe something is infringement but the person using the copyrighted material believes it's fair use. Honestly I'm not even sure how that could work.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]