4 ms·

You better have legal fees awarded to you as part of the damages, or have pro bono representation... a $100k damages award isn't going to pay for the $1-$2mm in

You better have legal fees awarded to you as part of the damages, or have pro bono representation... a $100k damages award isn't going to pay for the $1-$2mm in costs to litigate a federal suit. For all practical purposes the 512f has proven to be a pretty pointless tool for holding large corporation accountable.

dweekly 14y ago
RE: damages, per above "...shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees..." Agreed that not enough people are actually suing companies for false 512f takedowns. Sounds like this could be an interesting business opportunity for an enterprising attorney.
- dweekly 14y ago
  I've just set up http://DMCAInjury.com http://DMCAInjury.com to report on false DMCA takedowns and possibly get you in touch with a lawyer.
daeken 14y ago
> For all practical purposes the 512f has proven to be a pretty pointless tool for holding large corporation accountable. That's because it's very difficult to prove that they did it knowingly, especially in an age of automated DMCA takedowns. It has nothing to do with the pain of a suit or any of that, but that you're likely to lose.
- CaptainZapp 14y ago
  I don't get why it should make any difference if a takedown is automated, or not. If you run an automated system that deals in any way, shape, or form with legally binding documentation and - entites, you should be liable for the consequences, period. If you're a financial institution, which runs an automated trading system you can't really argue that this trade, which just cost you a couple gazillions, is from an automated system and should thus be considered invalid. Any exchange and the regulating authorities will laugh you out of business. Why should different principals apply if you automate your legal bullying?
  - daeken 14y ago
    No no, you're missing the point. Making a mistake here is not actionable -- it's totally legal to make a mistake and file for the wrong things or thinking that you have the right to the material when you actually don't. Only if you knowingly file a false claim is it an issue. That's the fundamental flaw in the DMCA's takedown construct, IMO. Edit: To make an analogy, it's like me firing a gun in no particular direction. If I hit someone, it's at least manslaughter. But if it were like the DMCA takedown system, there would be two options: I didn't knowingly shoot at anyone in particular, so I get off with nothing, or I knowingly shot at them and was in the wrong, making it murder.
    - simonh 14y ago
      If you construct an automated DMC takedown system, even if you know that a certain proportion of those takedowns will be illegitimate you suffer no penalties, regardless of the fact that those illegitimate takedowns could be very onerous and costly for the victims. Conversely if you set up a gun in the roof of your house and have it randomly shoot into the street, lets see how long you get away with that for.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

dweekly 14y ago

RE: damages, per above "...shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees..." Agreed that not enough people are actually suing companies for false 512f takedowns. Sounds like this could be an interesting business opportunity for an enterprising attorney.

dweekly 14y ago
I've just set up http://DMCAInjury.com http://DMCAInjury.com to report on false DMCA takedowns and possibly get you in touch with a lawyer.

daeken 14y ago

> For all practical purposes the 512f has proven to be a pretty pointless tool for holding large corporation accountable. That's because it's very difficult to prove that they did it knowingly, especially in an age of automated DMCA takedowns. It has nothing to do with the pain of a suit or any of that, but that you're likely to lose.

CaptainZapp 14y ago
I don't get why it should make any difference if a takedown is automated, or not. If you run an automated system that deals in any way, shape, or form with legally binding documentation and - entites, you should be liable for the consequences, period. If you're a financial institution, which runs an automated trading system you can't really argue that this trade, which just cost you a couple gazillions, is from an automated system and should thus be considered invalid. Any exchange and the regulating authorities will laugh you out of business. Why should different principals apply if you automate your legal bullying?
- daeken 14y ago
  No no, you're missing the point. Making a mistake here is not actionable -- it's totally legal to make a mistake and file for the wrong things or thinking that you have the right to the material when you actually don't. Only if you knowingly file a false claim is it an issue. That's the fundamental flaw in the DMCA's takedown construct, IMO. Edit: To make an analogy, it's like me firing a gun in no particular direction. If I hit someone, it's at least manslaughter. But if it were like the DMCA takedown system, there would be two options: I didn't knowingly shoot at anyone in particular, so I get off with nothing, or I knowingly shot at them and was in the wrong, making it murder.
  - simonh 14y ago
    If you construct an automated DMC takedown system, even if you know that a certain proportion of those takedowns will be illegitimate you suffer no penalties, regardless of the fact that those illegitimate takedowns could be very onerous and costly for the victims. Conversely if you set up a gun in the roof of your house and have it randomly shoot into the street, lets see how long you get away with that for.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]