5 ms·
Ah, yes, you know someone's desperate when you see a bogus DMCA claim like this. Not the first time this happened and definitely won't be the last. This also d
by pibaker 4mo ago
Ah, yes, you know someone's desperate when you see a bogus DMCA claim like this. Not the first time this happened and definitely won't be the last.
This also demonstrates why it is bad for a law to mandate private entities to do moderation, in this case taking down copyright infringement materials when reported. Google, like basically all big platforms, doesn't care if a claim is fraudulent because the parties impacted cannot hold it accountable — google will just tell you they are themselves victims of the fraudulent claim. And to be fair, they are. But it has to enforce the claims or else lose its safe harbor exemption. This practically allows bad actors to use platforms as their shields, and in the end no one but the victim suffers any consequences for their abuse of the copyright laws.
I think a more sane approach would to require every copyright takedown to require a court order. Granted, the legal system is not perfect, but judges are not incentivized to always side with the supposed copyright holder like online platforms do. They will not be letting someone claiming to be living on a deserted island to file a claim and even when fraud does occur, they will at least know where the claim is actually coming from and be able to punish the fraudster accordingly.
- abirch 4mo ago1)The legal system is not fast. 2) which jurisdiction should have the right to ask the judge to take down the material?
- b112 4mo agoThis could be like warrants and judicial overview. Warrants are not slow. This is only a gatekeep on "does this make any sense". And of course, the cost of the court system/overview/etc could be born by judgments against those found actually guilty.
- lxgr 4mo ago> I think a more sane approach would to require every copyright takedown to require a court order. In a country with an efficient legal system, maybe… Requiring the claimant to put something at stake (make it a nominal deposit you get back in case of either no challenge or the case actually going to court) seems more realistic, but I’m not holding my breath for a reform of the law to that extent.
- bluGill 4mo agoClaimants put something at stake: false DMCA takedowns are under prejury laws which carry prison sentences. I doubt this is really a DMCA case though. DMCA laws exist, but to invoke them requires some specific steps which Google prefers you skip. The fact that this probably isn't DMCA may leave Google open to being sued, but you would have to see a lawyer - be prepared to spend several million dollars to win a few thousand.
- plagiarist 4mo agoHas the US ever opened a single DMCA perjury case against anyone?
- tanseydavid 4mo agoIf a court order was involved then the offense would be "fraud on the court" -- and much scarier for the undecided fraudster.
- FireBeyond 4mo agoNot once, in the history of the DMCA.
- NetMageSCW 4mo agoWhy does DMCA need to be handled quickly?
- duskwuff 4mo agoBecause one of the requirements the law sets out is that the content be removed "expeditiously" upon receipt of a takedown notice.
- applfanboysbgon 4mo agoI fucking loathe the current DMCA regime with all of my being. That being said, it is currently the only chance of victims of revenge pornography getting any reprieve whatsoever. I think the solution needs to be to actually punish bad-faith actors rather than to make it more onerous to report violations. It is already illegal to file false DMCA claims, but it has literally never been enforced. Changing the laws doesn't help when the existing laws already have an answer for the problem but aren't being enforced.
- pseudalopex 4mo ago> That being said, it is currently the only chance of victims of revenge pornography getting any reprieve whatsoever. It was in many cases. But there is a federal law for this now.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAKE_IT_DOWN_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAKE_IT_DOWN_Act
- atombender 4mo agoA good start would be to require that claimants must verify their real identity. The claim in this case was made by an apparent pseudonym and their address is fictional. Both should themselves be reason to reject the claim. The fact that anyone apparently can submit claims to Google under false names seems insane to me.
- wizzwizz4 4mo agoWho decides what counts as a "real identity"? Fictional address, sure: that would, as I understand, be some kind of fraud, and can reasonably be prohibited if there's a mechanism to do so… but then you run into the problem that not everyone has an address.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- nkrisc 4mo agoEstablish the identities of people is something the courts have long had to deal with and is nothing new for them.
- wizzwizz4 4mo agoIndeed. But it's not something that Google can do, so bolting on an identity verification requirement to the DMCA process isn't helpful. Re-routing DMCA requests through the bureaucracy of the courts might work. If counterclaims require doxxing yourself under penalty of perjury, then I would assume that's still perjury even if the other guy started it, so just making the counterclaim process easier doesn't fix the problem.
- skeeter2020 4mo agofrom another perspective - who is better resourced than Google to determine if a person and place are real or fictitious? They make these decisions all the time when it suits them. And explain to me this population who is filing DMCA take-down requests that doesn't have an address? the Venn diagram seems shockingly small.
- RealityVoid 4mo ago> you know someone's desperate when you see a bogus DMCA claim like this I don't think this means desperation, it's just these assholes weaponize the law on a regular basis. Honestly, I usually like to give people the benefit of the doubt. But these Pollen guys seem like grade-A assholes. It is astonishing to me the gall to double charge people on the order or $3.2M and never return the money. I can't bear to not repay someone even a dollar, but intentionally doing stuff like this seems to be run of the mill for these guys. I can't even get in the headspace of people who would do this.
- chrisweekly 4mo agoAgreed 100%. Also (tangential nit for the sake of information-sharing), to "bare" oneself is to be vulnerable; you meant "bear" as in to be able to carry or support something -- and the "myself" is extraneous. So, "I can't bear to..." HTH! :)
- Geezus_42 4mo agoOur courts are already packed. You'd have to fix that first.
- bluGill 4mo agoWas this really DMCA? The article implies it is, but I don't see any evidence (maybe I missed it). There is discussion of what the DMCA says, and Google took the article down. However it is generally understood that DMCA rarely is used to take things down. Instead Google has a "I can't believe it isn't DMCA" process that looks similar, but in reality it isn't actually DMCA. If this is really DMCA then the author should press charges - DMCA take downs are done under penalty of prejury which is a criminal act. Since author legally has copyright they have legal protections under DMCA for exactly this. If this isn't DMCA then it is just Google decision not to index something. They have the right to not index anything they choose not to. Nothing the author can directly do about this - but indirectly they can be witness that Google isn't a "common carrier" since they choose not to index that wasn't copyright, so you just need to find some case where someone else sues google because they found something "harmful" (likely something like suicide instructions)
- andersonpico 4mo ago> but I don't see any evidence Isn't this screenshot on the article evidence https://storage.ghost.io/c/39/f8/39f85cc7-8637-40fc-a57c-f45754453717/content/images/size/w1600/2026/06/Screenshot-2026-06-27-at-21.19.04.png https://storage.ghost.io/c/39/f8/39f85cc7-8637-40fc-a57c-f45... ? Or could it still be the "I can't believe it's not DMCA" you've mentioned?
- bluGill 4mo agoI don't know how to tell the difference. Google has incentive to hide this
- pavlov 4mo agoIt reads multiple times “DMCA” on that page but you’re saying it could be some unspecified other type of complaint. If that’s really the case, isn’t Google a fraudulent party here by sending people DMCA notices that aren’t? The DMCA perjury penalty would seem to apply here as well (lying about receiving a third party notice).
- HillRat 4mo agoA middle ground (which wouldn't clog up an overburdened court system) would require a US attorney to draft and sign a complaint for a takedown request, putting their accreditation on the line.
- lokar 4mo agoYou could also require a signed letter that has been properly notarized. Again, adds an independent 3rd party with a verified identity and something to loose. And falsifying is a crime.
- stronglikedan 4mo agoNotaries aren't accountable for the content of the documents they notarize. They're only responsible for making sure the signatures they are witnessing come from the correct people. They'd be happy to notarize DMCA takedowns, since it's nothing more than income for them.
- lokar 4mo agoI understand, but then you know the real identity of the person requesting the take down, which was an issue in the story here.
- animuchan 3mo agoThat, and filing false claims should be incredibly punishable, like beyond all proportion. One disgusting CEO landing behind the bars over frivolous DMCA takedown would improve things dramatically, like for humanity (or a hefty chunk thereof that's browsing the web, anyway).