3 ms·

This is just a symptom of the wider problem out there that the world is wildly unprepared to deal with cases of industrial-scale fraud. The DMCA takedown proce

This is just a symptom of the wider problem out there that the world is wildly unprepared to deal with cases of industrial-scale fraud. The DMCA takedown process assumes that nobody would make false declarations under the assumption that there would be consequences to doing so. For a while, this worked - the consequences (or the mere possibility of them) - kept everyone more or less honest. The problem nowadays is that bad actors are starting to see through the illusion. This is not limited to DMCA takedowns either - corporation-against-consumer fraud has also been normalized.

olliej 3y ago
There was never a penalty for incorrect DMCA claims. Unless you mean perjury? Perjury does not have any meaningful penalty because you can always claim "I honestly believed this claim was correct, but now I see how I was wrong" - e.g the numerous takedowns against material that is clearly fair use. Then even the blatantly incorrect claims have to be responded to with an immediate takedown because the DMCA not only doesn't allow the processing organization to confirm the claimant owns the IP, or represents the firm that owns the IP, it doesn't even provide the option to confirm the claimant is a real legal entity that exists. If the claimant doesn't even legally exist, then even if they are committing perjury there's no one to bring the claim against. It's also again kind of moot, because making these complaints realistically requires getting a lawyer, but the DMCA again does not provide any mechanism to recover legal fees arising from incorrect or fraudulent claims. When the DMCA was passed everyone with half a brain was saying that it was clearly trivial to abuse.
- masklinn 3y ago
  The DMCA also does not put the accuracy of the claim itself under penalty of perjury, so false claims have no penalty whatsoever under the DMCA, not even perjury, only performing a takedown while not authorised by the rightsholder.
- miki123211 3y ago
  This also assumes that the claimant is even under US jurisdiction. Let's say you are affiliated with the <insert dictatorship here> government and want to censor memes critical of <insert dictator>. You can pretend you're John Appleseed, living at 123 Church Street in Maine, and that the memes are copies of your own work, posted without attribution. If anybody dares to file a counterclaim, they have to provide all their personal details. If they post <insert dictator here> memes, it's likely they have some connection to your country, either by straight up living there or having family members. You can exploit those connections and do whatever dictators like to do with people who like to post memes critical of them. If you find an actual American with no connection to your country who isn't afraid to disclose their personal details to you, they can sue. They can probably even win, possibly in a default judgment, as you're not from the US and therefore unlikely to show up in an American court. That, however, doesn't matter much, as there's no way the US can do anything to you. Even if they figure out who you are, they can't forcibly take money out of a bank account in <insert dictatorship here>.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  I think the answer is a fraudulent DMCA complaints are wire fraud. With the addition that you can be charged if there is a pattern of recklessness.
- ajross 3y ago
  > the DMCA not only doesn't allow the processing organization to confirm the claimant owns the IP This isn't a correct way of understanding things. The DMCA is silent about what the hosting provider is "allowed" to do. It simply says that IF you take it down following a DMCA claim THEN you cannot be held liable for any infringement that occurred while you hosted it. If the claimant doesn't hold the copyright, then there can't have been any such infringement anyway. But yes: if you do your own due diligence about the IP ownership and get it wrong, then you can be found liable for copyright infringement. So most providers are trigger happy out of an abundance of caution.
masklinn 3y ago
> The DMCA takedown process assumes that nobody would make false declarations under the assumption that there would be consequences to doing so. That is dubious, given the DMCA does not define any consequences for false declarations. It does mention penalty of perjury but that's not even for accuracy of claim, it's only for the complaining party being "authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." DMCA abuse took off almost immediately, here's a 2005 study: > Examining the characteristics of the targets of the notices—the alleged infringers—we found that 41% of all Google notice targets can be classed as competitors of the complainants. Fig. ES-4. This is particularly significant for Google 512(d) complaints regarding links in the index, where 55% of all notices relate to competitors. A significant percentage of the 512(c) and (d) notices sent to Google 21%—target hobbyists, critics, and educational users.
- rkagerer 3y ago
  Yeah's there just too low a bar and not enough friction to issue a complaint and get it acted on without a fair playing field for the victim to make their case.
superkuh 3y ago
Require KYC laws for DMCA (and other legal) claimants.

olliej 3y ago

There was never a penalty for incorrect DMCA claims. Unless you mean perjury? Perjury does not have any meaningful penalty because you can always claim "I honestly believed this claim was correct, but now I see how I was wrong" - e.g the numerous takedowns against material that is clearly fair use. Then even the blatantly incorrect claims have to be responded to with an immediate takedown because the DMCA not only doesn't allow the processing organization to confirm the claimant owns the IP, or represents the firm that owns the IP, it doesn't even provide the option to confirm the claimant is a real legal entity that exists. If the claimant doesn't even legally exist, then even if they are committing perjury there's no one to bring the claim against. It's also again kind of moot, because making these complaints realistically requires getting a lawyer, but the DMCA again does not provide any mechanism to recover legal fees arising from incorrect or fraudulent claims. When the DMCA was passed everyone with half a brain was saying that it was clearly trivial to abuse.

masklinn 3y ago
The DMCA also does not put the accuracy of the claim itself under penalty of perjury, so false claims have no penalty whatsoever under the DMCA, not even perjury, only performing a takedown while not authorised by the rightsholder.
miki123211 3y ago
This also assumes that the claimant is even under US jurisdiction. Let's say you are affiliated with the <insert dictatorship here> government and want to censor memes critical of <insert dictator>. You can pretend you're John Appleseed, living at 123 Church Street in Maine, and that the memes are copies of your own work, posted without attribution. If anybody dares to file a counterclaim, they have to provide all their personal details. If they post <insert dictator here> memes, it's likely they have some connection to your country, either by straight up living there or having family members. You can exploit those connections and do whatever dictators like to do with people who like to post memes critical of them. If you find an actual American with no connection to your country who isn't afraid to disclose their personal details to you, they can sue. They can probably even win, possibly in a default judgment, as you're not from the US and therefore unlikely to show up in an American court. That, however, doesn't matter much, as there's no way the US can do anything to you. Even if they figure out who you are, they can't forcibly take money out of a bank account in <insert dictatorship here>.
Gibbon1 3y ago
I think the answer is a fraudulent DMCA complaints are wire fraud. With the addition that you can be charged if there is a pattern of recklessness.
ajross 3y ago
> the DMCA not only doesn't allow the processing organization to confirm the claimant owns the IP This isn't a correct way of understanding things. The DMCA is silent about what the hosting provider is "allowed" to do. It simply says that IF you take it down following a DMCA claim THEN you cannot be held liable for any infringement that occurred while you hosted it. If the claimant doesn't hold the copyright, then there can't have been any such infringement anyway. But yes: if you do your own due diligence about the IP ownership and get it wrong, then you can be found liable for copyright infringement. So most providers are trigger happy out of an abundance of caution.

masklinn 3y ago

> The DMCA takedown process assumes that nobody would make false declarations under the assumption that there would be consequences to doing so. That is dubious, given the DMCA does not define any consequences for false declarations. It does mention penalty of perjury but that's not even for accuracy of claim, it's only for the complaining party being "authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." DMCA abuse took off almost immediately, here's a 2005 study: > Examining the characteristics of the targets of the notices—the alleged infringers—we found that 41% of all Google notice targets can be classed as competitors of the complainants. Fig. ES-4. This is particularly significant for Google 512(d) complaints regarding links in the index, where 55% of all notices relate to competitors. A significant percentage of the 512(c) and (d) notices sent to Google 21%—target hobbyists, critics, and educational users.

rkagerer 3y ago
Yeah's there just too low a bar and not enough friction to issue a complaint and get it acted on without a fair playing field for the victim to make their case.

superkuh 3y ago

Require KYC laws for DMCA (and other legal) claimants.