4 ms·

It would be fair to say google should put more work into vetting DMCA takedowns, but DMCA is a bad law, and it is enforced badly. A long term coordinated effort

by Zigurd 3y ago

It would be fair to say google should put more work into vetting DMCA takedowns, but DMCA is a bad law, and it is enforced badly. A long term coordinated effort at fraudulent takedowns should be criminal in several ways: The false report should be criminal. It should be a sworn statement. There should be a statutory penalty against the reporting party. Reporting parties should be bonded on a sliding scale. The criminality should not be able to hide behind the corporate veil.

gunapologist99 3y ago
Google is suing, and it's not even the harmed party. Obligatory IANAL disclaimer applies, but surely a strong first-party case could be made for, at least, tortious interference?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Google is suing, and it's not even the harmed party. Google is a harmed party; the false reporterts have engaged in the crime of theft (of services/labor) by false pretenses against Google. (Its true that that crime was merely instrumental to their goal of harming other businesses, but its a real crime and a real harm to Google.)
- blacksmith_tb 3y ago
  "A particularly damaging batch of fraudulent notices targeted more than 35,000 URLs operated by a Google customer that spends tens of millions of dollars per year on Google search ads. The effect was a significant drop in traffic during the holiday season, revenue losses for the customer and its sellers of $5 million, and a loss to Google of between $2 and $3 million." So you'd think the competitor firms could certainly sue also, if they were so inclined.
Twirrim 3y ago
> It would be fair to say google should put more work into vetting DMCA takedowns They're effectively not allowed to, by the law, that forces them to assume every take down is good, or they end up at legal risk of being liable for the content. DMCA is just fundamentally broken.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by Zigurd 3y ago

gunapologist99 3y ago

Google is suing, and it's not even the harmed party. Obligatory IANAL disclaimer applies, but surely a strong first-party case could be made for, at least, tortious interference?

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Google is suing, and it's not even the harmed party. Google is a harmed party; the false reporterts have engaged in the crime of theft (of services/labor) by false pretenses against Google. (Its true that that crime was merely instrumental to their goal of harming other businesses, but its a real crime and a real harm to Google.)
blacksmith_tb 3y ago
"A particularly damaging batch of fraudulent notices targeted more than 35,000 URLs operated by a Google customer that spends tens of millions of dollars per year on Google search ads. The effect was a significant drop in traffic during the holiday season, revenue losses for the customer and its sellers of $5 million, and a loss to Google of between $2 and $3 million." So you'd think the competitor firms could certainly sue also, if they were so inclined.

Twirrim 3y ago

> It would be fair to say google should put more work into vetting DMCA takedowns They're effectively not allowed to, by the law, that forces them to assume every take down is good, or they end up at legal risk of being liable for the content. DMCA is just fundamentally broken.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]