2 ms·

You wouldn't believe the amount of crappy DMCA notices that get sent out by various bots. So far we've received ones for: 1) Our copy of jQuery (FOX claimed t

You wouldn't believe the amount of crappy DMCA notices that get sent out by various bots. So far we've received ones for: 1) Our copy of jQuery (FOX claimed they owned it) 2) Our contact page 3) Our custom written javascript includes 4) Our CSS 5) A daily notice for two weeks, even though the infringing file was removed within minutes of the first request It's utterly abusrd. There's really no way to make the crappy notices stop (you can't contact the company that sends them, they ignore email/phone calls).

gcr 14y ago
But sending out fake DMCA notices is perjury! And here companies are creating bots to do this? This is absotulely ridiculous.
- wtallis 14y ago
  The only part of a DMCA takedown notice that is under penalty of perjury is: "A statement [...] 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." If a takedown notice doesn't have meet all the requirements, it can be safely ignored (ie. you the ISP or host will still get sued, but might get it dismissed). Note that for a counter-notice, the penalty for perjury is somewhat broader, in that it includes your statement that you have a good-faith belief that the material was removed by mistake or due to mis-identification. This means that you technically cannot make a valid counter-notice for what you have reason to believe is a bad-faith takedown notice, even if that bad-faith notice does not carry the penalty of perjury for the sender. (The sender may still be liable for your legal fees.) This imbalance where the first to send notice in a copyright dispute has such a strong advantage and presumption of being right may even be a violation of the equal protection clause.
- devicenull 14y ago
  I'd say there's more bots sending out DMCA notices then actual people. There's essentially no penalty for sending out incorrect ones. We'd end up having to take the senders to court, which would end up being very costly.

gcr 14y ago

But sending out fake DMCA notices is perjury! And here companies are creating bots to do this? This is absotulely ridiculous.

wtallis 14y ago
The only part of a DMCA takedown notice that is under penalty of perjury is: "A statement [...] 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." If a takedown notice doesn't have meet all the requirements, it can be safely ignored (ie. you the ISP or host will still get sued, but might get it dismissed). Note that for a counter-notice, the penalty for perjury is somewhat broader, in that it includes your statement that you have a good-faith belief that the material was removed by mistake or due to mis-identification. This means that you technically cannot make a valid counter-notice for what you have reason to believe is a bad-faith takedown notice, even if that bad-faith notice does not carry the penalty of perjury for the sender. (The sender may still be liable for your legal fees.) This imbalance where the first to send notice in a copyright dispute has such a strong advantage and presumption of being right may even be a violation of the equal protection clause.
devicenull 14y ago
I'd say there's more bots sending out DMCA notices then actual people. There's essentially no penalty for sending out incorrect ones. We'd end up having to take the senders to court, which would end up being very costly.