3 ms·

I still don't understand how a bot can sign a takedown request that is executed under the penalty of perjury and why no one has gone after misfilings legally.

swasheck 12y ago
whom, or what, will be summoned if it's a bot?
- Nexxxeh 12y ago
  One would hope whomever's name is attached to the request, as they are responsible for that reqest.
- quux 12y ago
  The owner or operator of the bot.
- waps 12y ago
  Same as any other lawyer : sue the firm they represent.
- Natsu 12y ago
  Proper DMCA notices are supposed to have a signature. Under "Elements of Notification" you can find 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(i) - "A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." Ref: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
pyre 12y ago
Because there is no pay-out. You'd be fighting an uphill battle just to see someone get a slap on the wrist. In the legal profession you have to do someone extremely egregious to see any action taken against you. Just look at examples like Jack Thomas, or Prenda Law. It took extreme actions for Bar Associations and Courts to even consider the idea that a lawyer might not be acting in good faith.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Are you sure? I thought OPG v Diebold ended in a substantial payout after false DMCA filings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold
  - pyre 12y ago
    1. When you're talking at the company-level, $125k seems like a slap on the wrist. For example, do you think that Qualcomm would really change their practices to avoid a $125k fine rather than just accepting it as the cost of doing business? 2. Diebold probably spent significantly more than $125k just in defending the lawsuit, so the end result of forcing them to pay out $125k is more of a moral victory than anything else. 3. The Diebold case had the benefit of the content itself (internal emails discussing issues with voting machines) being unquestionably in the public interest.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  >>Because there is no pay-out. You'd be fighting an uphill battle just to see someone get a slap on the wrist. No, it's much more important than that. If you win, it would establish legal precedent, which would make companies think twice before pulling this type of shenanigans in the future.
josephlord 12y ago
If it is perjury can you make a criminal complaint to the police?
smackfu 12y ago
Only part of it is under penalty of perjury, and that's the part that is true in this case: "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and 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."

swasheck 12y ago

whom, or what, will be summoned if it's a bot?

Nexxxeh 12y ago
One would hope whomever's name is attached to the request, as they are responsible for that reqest.
quux 12y ago
The owner or operator of the bot.
waps 12y ago
Same as any other lawyer : sue the firm they represent.
Natsu 12y ago
Proper DMCA notices are supposed to have a signature. Under "Elements of Notification" you can find 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(i) - "A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." Ref: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

pyre 12y ago

Because there is no pay-out. You'd be fighting an uphill battle just to see someone get a slap on the wrist. In the legal profession you have to do someone extremely egregious to see any action taken against you. Just look at examples like Jack Thomas, or Prenda Law. It took extreme actions for Bar Associations and Courts to even consider the idea that a lawyer might not be acting in good faith.

wpietri 12y ago
Are you sure? I thought OPG v Diebold ended in a substantial payout after false DMCA filings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold
- pyre 12y ago
  1. When you're talking at the company-level, $125k seems like a slap on the wrist. For example, do you think that Qualcomm would really change their practices to avoid a $125k fine rather than just accepting it as the cost of doing business? 2. Diebold probably spent significantly more than $125k just in defending the lawsuit, so the end result of forcing them to pay out $125k is more of a moral victory than anything else. 3. The Diebold case had the benefit of the content itself (internal emails discussing issues with voting machines) being unquestionably in the public interest.
enraged_camel 12y ago
>>Because there is no pay-out. You'd be fighting an uphill battle just to see someone get a slap on the wrist. No, it's much more important than that. If you win, it would establish legal precedent, which would make companies think twice before pulling this type of shenanigans in the future.

josephlord 12y ago

If it is perjury can you make a criminal complaint to the police?

smackfu 12y ago

Only part of it is under penalty of perjury, and that's the part that is true in this case: "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and 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."