3 ms·

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 copyrig

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.

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.