3 ms·

Serious question: why aren't false DMCA claims prosecutable as fraud? The elements are there - a knowingly false representation, detrimental reliance, and mater

Serious question: why aren't false DMCA claims prosecutable as fraud? The elements are there - a knowingly false representation, detrimental reliance, and materiality.

wil421 3y ago
Because the DMCA is for them not us.
throwawaymobule 3y ago
I think it's only Nintendo that'd be able to go after someone sending claims in their name. It'd likely be hard to find whoever sent a false notice on general, since there's no identity or address verification needed to send one.
jsheard 3y ago
Garry has now clarified that the takedowns were in fact issued by Nintendo, contrary to earlier reports. https://twitter.com/garrynewman/status/1783501547361411494 https://twitter.com/garrynewman/status/1783501547361411494
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Hilariously, there are people there yelling it can’t be true. To which: A. Why would he have lied? B. This has had millions of views across all platforms. If it wasn’t real, don’t you think Nintendo would be calling up and telling him that it was fake?
  - kalium-xyz 3y ago
    Thought I don't think its rational to think its fake I do want to add: A: Its Garry. He used to go onto community servers and grief cause hes a troll and might find it funny to fan the flames. B: If people think they are doing it anyways they might as well actually start pressing claims.
davikr 3y ago
It should be required, by law, to accompany a DMCA claim with some kind of digital signature that can certify the issuer really owns the content (such as a company or law office certificate). Other than that, they're prosecutable as perjury, but in practice, no one ever inquires those cases.
Justsignedup 3y ago
The barrier of proof for a bogus DMCA is incredibly high. Even something like "our system sends out 100k takedowns a day, so it had to be automaded and sometimes we face false positives" is enough to shut down a case. DMCA has many problems and needs to be updated for 20 years now. Remember the DECSS issues faced?
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > we face false positives > enough to shut down a case ... It boggles my mind that this could ever be considered an acceptable defense in any court.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Because copyright monopolists have trillions of dollars which they use to pay lobbyists and essentially buy laws such as the DMCA which says that you can issue a take down and it's up to poor sap on the receiving end to either submit or fight a costly legal battle to prove not just their innocence but their bad faith.

Serious question: why aren't false DMCA claims prosecutable as fraud? The elements are there - a knowingly false representation, detrimental reliance, and materiality.

wil421 3y ago

Because the DMCA is for them not us.

throwawaymobule 3y ago

I think it's only Nintendo that'd be able to go after someone sending claims in their name. It'd likely be hard to find whoever sent a false notice on general, since there's no identity or address verification needed to send one.

jsheard 3y ago

Garry has now clarified that the takedowns were in fact issued by Nintendo, contrary to earlier reports. https://twitter.com/garrynewman/status/1783501547361411494 https://twitter.com/garrynewman/status/1783501547361411494

gjsman-1000 3y ago
Hilariously, there are people there yelling it can’t be true. To which: A. Why would he have lied? B. This has had millions of views across all platforms. If it wasn’t real, don’t you think Nintendo would be calling up and telling him that it was fake?
- kalium-xyz 3y ago
  Thought I don't think its rational to think its fake I do want to add: A: Its Garry. He used to go onto community servers and grief cause hes a troll and might find it funny to fan the flames. B: If people think they are doing it anyways they might as well actually start pressing claims.

davikr 3y ago

It should be required, by law, to accompany a DMCA claim with some kind of digital signature that can certify the issuer really owns the content (such as a company or law office certificate). Other than that, they're prosecutable as perjury, but in practice, no one ever inquires those cases.

Justsignedup 3y ago

The barrier of proof for a bogus DMCA is incredibly high. Even something like "our system sends out 100k takedowns a day, so it had to be automaded and sometimes we face false positives" is enough to shut down a case. DMCA has many problems and needs to be updated for 20 years now. Remember the DECSS issues faced?

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> we face false positives > enough to shut down a case ... It boggles my mind that this could ever be considered an acceptable defense in any court.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Because copyright monopolists have trillions of dollars which they use to pay lobbyists and essentially buy laws such as the DMCA which says that you can issue a take down and it's up to poor sap on the receiving end to either submit or fight a costly legal battle to prove not just their innocence but their bad faith.