3 ms·

Sadly, that's not how it works. The claimant just has to have authorization on behalf of the work they are claiming is being infringed upon. Essentially makin

Sadly, that's not how it works. The claimant just has to have authorization on behalf of the work they are claiming is being infringed upon. Essentially making this part of the law useless. IMHO, it was just added to make the layman think there is some protection or responsibility on behalf of the people making the claim.

nashashmi 3y ago
Not sure why the sad unfortunate face here. If you know of a work that is copyrighted and you find this work on a website that is not given the license to the copyright, and you are not the copyright holder but instead the copyright holder is your cousin, you should not have the authority to issue a DMCA takedown noticem, even if you may be aware of who your cousin gave the license to. Instead, only your cousin should have this authority and the people your cousin assigns.
- notatoad 3y ago
  i think the scenario prompting the sadface is that the law doesn't prevent your cousin from picking any random URL on the internet and claiming that his copyright (which he does legitimately own the rights to) is being infringed on that page. even if he knows perfectly well that it's not his content on the page. what the parent comments seem to be saying is: not perjury: "i own this content (true) and it's available at this unauthorized url (false) and i want it taken down" perjury: "i own this content (false) and it's available at this unauthorized url (true) and i want it taken down" but both statements have the same effect of getting the url taken down.
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    A copyright holder identifies (with a DMCA filing) a copyright violation on the partial publishing of his copyrighted work. Technically, the publishing is not violating the copyright rules (because of some exception in the law). This DMCA filing would be incorrect. That is a difficult problem to solve if we want to add penalty and responsibility. If the error was done intentionally, we ask this to be considered perjury. Of course, if the error was done unintentionally, then it should not be perjury. Typically, this would be called a "false filing". False filing (of any document) is not "perjury" in law books. If the filing is done intentionally with error or malice, the false filing rule would/should cover such cases. If it is done negligently, it should be documented in record and held against the DMCA filer in the case of future submissions. If it is done irresponsibly, then there should be a fine/ticket. If it is done with malice, the affected party should sue for damage including punitive damages including but not limited to the loss of copyright work. Of course, accusations like this need a heavy amount of proof, else it would adversely affect both the copyright holder, the DMCA filer, the producer, and the publisher.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  The problem is there's no penalty for blatantly lying about whether the target content is infringing or even related.

nashashmi 3y ago

Not sure why the sad unfortunate face here. If you know of a work that is copyrighted and you find this work on a website that is not given the license to the copyright, and you are not the copyright holder but instead the copyright holder is your cousin, you should not have the authority to issue a DMCA takedown noticem, even if you may be aware of who your cousin gave the license to. Instead, only your cousin should have this authority and the people your cousin assigns.

notatoad 3y ago
i think the scenario prompting the sadface is that the law doesn't prevent your cousin from picking any random URL on the internet and claiming that his copyright (which he does legitimately own the rights to) is being infringed on that page. even if he knows perfectly well that it's not his content on the page. what the parent comments seem to be saying is: not perjury: "i own this content (true) and it's available at this unauthorized url (false) and i want it taken down" perjury: "i own this content (false) and it's available at this unauthorized url (true) and i want it taken down" but both statements have the same effect of getting the url taken down.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  A copyright holder identifies (with a DMCA filing) a copyright violation on the partial publishing of his copyrighted work. Technically, the publishing is not violating the copyright rules (because of some exception in the law). This DMCA filing would be incorrect. That is a difficult problem to solve if we want to add penalty and responsibility. If the error was done intentionally, we ask this to be considered perjury. Of course, if the error was done unintentionally, then it should not be perjury. Typically, this would be called a "false filing". False filing (of any document) is not "perjury" in law books. If the filing is done intentionally with error or malice, the false filing rule would/should cover such cases. If it is done negligently, it should be documented in record and held against the DMCA filer in the case of future submissions. If it is done irresponsibly, then there should be a fine/ticket. If it is done with malice, the affected party should sue for damage including punitive damages including but not limited to the loss of copyright work. Of course, accusations like this need a heavy amount of proof, else it would adversely affect both the copyright holder, the DMCA filer, the producer, and the publisher.
Terr_ 3y ago
The problem is there's no penalty for blatantly lying about whether the target content is infringing or even related.