4 ms·

While this incident is entertaining, as the article points out, more often it is damaging to the "offender" of an errant takedown. DMCA takedowns are filed unde

While this incident is entertaining, as the article points out, more often it is damaging to the "offender" of an errant takedown. DMCA takedowns are filed under the condition of perjury, I don't understand how a. you can meet the review standard for perjury in an automated fashion or b. how there isn't any punishment for those who file errant DMCA takedowns especially in an automated fashion.

daeken 13y ago
> DMCA takedowns are filed under the condition of perjury Which means that you must believe what you claim to be true. It doesn't mean there's any penalty whatsoever if what you're saying is found to be bullshit after the fact.
- eloisius 13y ago
  But there has to be some degree of good faith in what you believe. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/
- brokentone 13y ago
  Alright, even so, I don't understand how an automated system can "believe" anything, in which case, all automated filings would be in violation.
  - darkchasma 13y ago
    The same way a corporation is a person. It's an abstraction to make rich people richer while limiting liability.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
dragonwriter 13y ago
Punishment for filing false DMCA takedown notice would either require: 1) An civil action for damages by the harmed party, or 2) A criminal prosecution for perjury. I'm guessing that the vast majority of people harmed by false DMCA takedown notices either do nothing or, if they act at all, file a counternotice with the content host and leave it at that. The problem may not be the absence of available sanctions, but the fact that people don't seek to apply the available sanctions.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I wonder if it would be worthwhile to push for prosecution of perjury for automated takedowns, though. Automated detection with manual review seems more reasonable, though, insofar as copyright is reasonable to begin with.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    A takedown notice needs to be certified by a person. Sue that person, it's irrelevant if the search was automated. Next time they won't use automated and inaccurate takedowns.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      If they're certifying without actually checking anything, then they deserve perjury charges, yes.
- bigiain 13y ago
  Hmmm… I wonder what an "automated DMCA counternotice filing service" would look like? I wonder if there's some entirely legal and moral way to ensure erroneous DMCA takedowns have non-zero costs involved for the parties serving them (while having as-cloase-as-practcal to zero cost for innocent sites defending against them)?
  - waterhouse 13y ago
    Check out the DMCA link at the bottom of this very site. It's fairly awesome. "If you believe that content residing or accessible on or through the our website (“Services”) infringes a copyright, please send a written notice (by fax or regular mail) to the Designated Agent at the address below. You may not communicate the information specified below by email. Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorney’s fees) if you materially misrepresent that material is infringing your copyright(s)."

daeken 13y ago

> DMCA takedowns are filed under the condition of perjury Which means that you must believe what you claim to be true. It doesn't mean there's any penalty whatsoever if what you're saying is found to be bullshit after the fact.

eloisius 13y ago
But there has to be some degree of good faith in what you believe. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/
brokentone 13y ago
Alright, even so, I don't understand how an automated system can "believe" anything, in which case, all automated filings would be in violation.
- darkchasma 13y ago
  The same way a corporation is a person. It's an abstraction to make rich people richer while limiting liability.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

dragonwriter 13y ago

Punishment for filing false DMCA takedown notice would either require: 1) An civil action for damages by the harmed party, or 2) A criminal prosecution for perjury. I'm guessing that the vast majority of people harmed by false DMCA takedown notices either do nothing or, if they act at all, file a counternotice with the content host and leave it at that. The problem may not be the absence of available sanctions, but the fact that people don't seek to apply the available sanctions.

dllthomas 13y ago
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to push for prosecution of perjury for automated takedowns, though. Automated detection with manual review seems more reasonable, though, insofar as copyright is reasonable to begin with.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  A takedown notice needs to be certified by a person. Sue that person, it's irrelevant if the search was automated. Next time they won't use automated and inaccurate takedowns.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    If they're certifying without actually checking anything, then they deserve perjury charges, yes.
bigiain 13y ago
Hmmm… I wonder what an "automated DMCA counternotice filing service" would look like? I wonder if there's some entirely legal and moral way to ensure erroneous DMCA takedowns have non-zero costs involved for the parties serving them (while having as-cloase-as-practcal to zero cost for innocent sites defending against them)?
- waterhouse 13y ago
  Check out the DMCA link at the bottom of this very site. It's fairly awesome. "If you believe that content residing or accessible on or through the our website (“Services”) infringes a copyright, please send a written notice (by fax or regular mail) to the Designated Agent at the address below. You may not communicate the information specified below by email. Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorney’s fees) if you materially misrepresent that material is infringing your copyright(s)."