4 ms·

There's an interesting part of this DMCA process that expects the claimant to issue a good faith report, under penalty of perjury. The thing is, with full acces

There's an interesting part of this DMCA process that expects the claimant to issue a good faith report, under penalty of perjury. The thing is, with full access to the source code, they can't make any credible claim to Warner Bros. copyright being infringed. The punishment for lying to the government about this appears to be perjury. I would level an accusation of perjury at Warner Bros Group for deliberately engaging in anti-competitive and anti-social behavior by attempting to curtail the efforts of an innocent third party. IANAL but this looks illegal and the company should be forced to answer for its lying, at minimum.

buildbot 3y ago
Right, I don’t understand how this isn’t dealt with more harshly. It’s perjury.
- 14 3y ago
  Something something money something something more money
- EA-3167 3y ago
  "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the Law."
- nadermx 3y ago
  The only lawsuit I know of dealing with an issue similar as such is Yout v RIAA, which Yout lost in district court level and is now on appeals in US 2nd circut. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66697744/yout-llc-v-recording-industry-association-of-america-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66697744/yout-llc-v-rec...
- sgift 3y ago
  Cause the law is highly staked in the direction of the claimant with DMCA. First, only the real copyright owner can go to court against them (so, you cannot take look, find out they aren't the copyright holder and then sue them), then you need to see the case through and if there's anything these big companies have it's dozens and dozens of lawyers on the clock, while the other side will probably have to pay per hour. And even if you make it to the end they'll probably get off on some technicality, cause "oh, we really, really thought we had the copyright, we are so sorry" and even if not any damages will be laughable compared to the upside of them filing claims left and right. It's just a shitty system all around. Exactly as intended by the companies that pushed for it. (IANAL. All based on reading up on the topic once when I had the same thought)
- sneak 3y ago
  Laws against serious crimes are rarely enforced against the ownership class.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 3y ago
AFAIK the perjury bit pertains only to the declaration of being authorized by the "owner" of the named work. Not for any level of diligence when identifying URLs, nor for the claiming of infringement. There is very little equity in the DMCA - the law was essentially written and purchased by the media cartels. But it seems to be less lethal than the CFAA, so at least that is some kind of progress.
- robhlt 3y ago
  I believe that's how it works too, it's worded very conveniently for the copyright lobby. The rest of the DMCA notice just falls under "good faith belief". There is a section about misrepresentations that starts with "Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents...", but it would be up to the accused to prove the claimant intentionally lied.
charcircuit 3y ago
DMCA takedown requests are not submitted to the government. They would be lying to Google. >under penalty of perjury This is referring to lying about being authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf. and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  So I can issue frivolous DMCA complaints against, say, YCombinator, and by law it has to be taken down until a counterclaim or X amount of time has passed, putting the onus of responsibility on innocent people? And as long as I'm actually the rightsholder, government will do nothing to address bad faith claims? The standard for proof is practically impossible, and you don't need a valid claim to negatively impact innocent people. It's a law that has no business existing; I'd argue the moral solution is to simply not honor it. We need to push back against copyright and IP in its entirety because it's clearly not serving its purpose if you can just cancel some random guy's project because you don't like it.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > by law it has to be taken down until a counterclaim or X amount of time has passed Not quite. Nothing in the DMCA compels a takedown. What happens is that the free harbor granted under the DMCA (that it's illegal to sue Y Combinator for copyright violations in HN comments) is active only so long as HN takes quick and effective action to remove infringing materials. So what happens is that hosts of user-generated content (like HN comments, or Android TV Apps in the linked article) are naturally going to err on the side of a takedown just to be safe.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      > Not quite. Nothing in the DMCA compels a takedown. What happens is that the free harbor granted under the DMCA (that it's illegal to sue Y Combinator for copyright violations in HN comments) is active only so long as HN takes quick and effective action to remove infringing materials. Isn't that somewhat of a pointless distinction? The protection goes away if you don't take things down. Whether it's explicitly in law doesn't matter if it has the same effect. This reminds me of restaurants taking away their employees tips but saying "we're not forcing you to give up your tips, you'll just be fired if you try to keep them". Same thing.
jefftk 3y ago
> this DMCA process that expects the claimant to issue a good faith report, under penalty of perjury. This is a common misunderstanding, but if you read the text of the statute it's clear that the "penalty of perjury" only applies to having authorization: A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 c.3.A.vi
- CobrastanJorji 3y ago
  Even worse, punishment for misrepresentation requires proving that the DMCA filer "knowingly" materially misrepresents that the material is infringing (see f. "Misrepresentations"). Sloppiness and not double checking that your automatically-generated claims make any sense should be punished, but instead it's is a valid defense.
  - tpoacher 3y ago
    surely if they filed the same claim twice and it was labelled as bogus the first time this is enough to demonstrate the "knowingly" part, right?
sillysaurusx 3y ago
The remedy isn’t (currently) to punish the issuer. It’s to file a counter notice. I’ve been through this process against Meta. It sucked, and killed my project’s early momentum. But it was restored within a week or two after we filed. It may seem like this system isn’t fair. It certainly isn’t. But it’s the best we have, because the system was not designed for the modern era. https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU?si=sZS6s53w4mZrJ3Vk https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU?si=sZS6s53w4mZrJ3Vk It’s lucky we even have a recourse like filing a counter notice. I’ve wanted to make a non profit that offers up counter notices as a service. Basically, let people donate, and whenever someone’s project (like this unfortunate web browser) gets issued a DMCA claim, they’d be able to get a counter notice drafted and filed. It’s not cheap to hire a lawyer to do it, but you pretty much have to, which was the most unfair part. The companies filing the takedowns have lots of resources, but the targets often have substantially none. That idea is probably too much work, but someone should do it. We need an organization to go to bat for creators. Or at least an organization that gives the creator enough legal rope to hang themselves if the entity making the claim decides to file a lawsuit, which is sometimes a real possibility. But the creator should get to decide whether to take on that risk without having to pay thousands of dollars first.
- roelschroeven 3y ago
  > because the system was not designed for the modern era I don't think that's right; I believe the DMCA is designed for the modern era, and from the point of view of the large copyright holder companies and groups who pushed for it, is very much working as intended. It is completely unjust and unfair, no doubt. It was never intended to be.

buildbot 3y ago

Right, I don’t understand how this isn’t dealt with more harshly. It’s perjury.

14 3y ago
Something something money something something more money
EA-3167 3y ago
"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the Law."
nadermx 3y ago
The only lawsuit I know of dealing with an issue similar as such is Yout v RIAA, which Yout lost in district court level and is now on appeals in US 2nd circut. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66697744/yout-llc-v-recording-industry-association-of-america-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66697744/yout-llc-v-rec...
sgift 3y ago
Cause the law is highly staked in the direction of the claimant with DMCA. First, only the real copyright owner can go to court against them (so, you cannot take look, find out they aren't the copyright holder and then sue them), then you need to see the case through and if there's anything these big companies have it's dozens and dozens of lawyers on the clock, while the other side will probably have to pay per hour. And even if you make it to the end they'll probably get off on some technicality, cause "oh, we really, really thought we had the copyright, we are so sorry" and even if not any damages will be laughable compared to the upside of them filing claims left and right. It's just a shitty system all around. Exactly as intended by the companies that pushed for it. (IANAL. All based on reading up on the topic once when I had the same thought)
sneak 3y ago
Laws against serious crimes are rarely enforced against the ownership class.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mindslight 3y ago

AFAIK the perjury bit pertains only to the declaration of being authorized by the "owner" of the named work. Not for any level of diligence when identifying URLs, nor for the claiming of infringement. There is very little equity in the DMCA - the law was essentially written and purchased by the media cartels. But it seems to be less lethal than the CFAA, so at least that is some kind of progress.

robhlt 3y ago
I believe that's how it works too, it's worded very conveniently for the copyright lobby. The rest of the DMCA notice just falls under "good faith belief". There is a section about misrepresentations that starts with "Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents...", but it would be up to the accused to prove the claimant intentionally lied.

charcircuit 3y ago

DMCA takedown requests are not submitted to the government. They would be lying to Google. >under penalty of perjury This is referring to lying about being authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf. and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

zlg_codes 3y ago
So I can issue frivolous DMCA complaints against, say, YCombinator, and by law it has to be taken down until a counterclaim or X amount of time has passed, putting the onus of responsibility on innocent people? And as long as I'm actually the rightsholder, government will do nothing to address bad faith claims? The standard for proof is practically impossible, and you don't need a valid claim to negatively impact innocent people. It's a law that has no business existing; I'd argue the moral solution is to simply not honor it. We need to push back against copyright and IP in its entirety because it's clearly not serving its purpose if you can just cancel some random guy's project because you don't like it.
- ajross 3y ago
  > by law it has to be taken down until a counterclaim or X amount of time has passed Not quite. Nothing in the DMCA compels a takedown. What happens is that the free harbor granted under the DMCA (that it's illegal to sue Y Combinator for copyright violations in HN comments) is active only so long as HN takes quick and effective action to remove infringing materials. So what happens is that hosts of user-generated content (like HN comments, or Android TV Apps in the linked article) are naturally going to err on the side of a takedown just to be safe.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    > Not quite. Nothing in the DMCA compels a takedown. What happens is that the free harbor granted under the DMCA (that it's illegal to sue Y Combinator for copyright violations in HN comments) is active only so long as HN takes quick and effective action to remove infringing materials. Isn't that somewhat of a pointless distinction? The protection goes away if you don't take things down. Whether it's explicitly in law doesn't matter if it has the same effect. This reminds me of restaurants taking away their employees tips but saying "we're not forcing you to give up your tips, you'll just be fired if you try to keep them". Same thing.

jefftk 3y ago

> this DMCA process that expects the claimant to issue a good faith report, under penalty of perjury. This is a common misunderstanding, but if you read the text of the statute it's clear that the "penalty of perjury" only applies to having authorization: A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 c.3.A.vi

CobrastanJorji 3y ago
Even worse, punishment for misrepresentation requires proving that the DMCA filer "knowingly" materially misrepresents that the material is infringing (see f. "Misrepresentations"). Sloppiness and not double checking that your automatically-generated claims make any sense should be punished, but instead it's is a valid defense.
- tpoacher 3y ago
  surely if they filed the same claim twice and it was labelled as bogus the first time this is enough to demonstrate the "knowingly" part, right?

sillysaurusx 3y ago

The remedy isn’t (currently) to punish the issuer. It’s to file a counter notice. I’ve been through this process against Meta. It sucked, and killed my project’s early momentum. But it was restored within a week or two after we filed. It may seem like this system isn’t fair. It certainly isn’t. But it’s the best we have, because the system was not designed for the modern era. https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU?si=sZS6s53w4mZrJ3Vk https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU?si=sZS6s53w4mZrJ3Vk It’s lucky we even have a recourse like filing a counter notice. I’ve wanted to make a non profit that offers up counter notices as a service. Basically, let people donate, and whenever someone’s project (like this unfortunate web browser) gets issued a DMCA claim, they’d be able to get a counter notice drafted and filed. It’s not cheap to hire a lawyer to do it, but you pretty much have to, which was the most unfair part. The companies filing the takedowns have lots of resources, but the targets often have substantially none. That idea is probably too much work, but someone should do it. We need an organization to go to bat for creators. Or at least an organization that gives the creator enough legal rope to hang themselves if the entity making the claim decides to file a lawsuit, which is sometimes a real possibility. But the creator should get to decide whether to take on that risk without having to pay thousands of dollars first.

roelschroeven 3y ago
> because the system was not designed for the modern era I don't think that's right; I believe the DMCA is designed for the modern era, and from the point of view of the large copyright holder companies and groups who pushed for it, is very much working as intended. It is completely unjust and unfair, no doubt. It was never intended to be.