5 ms·

Someone should make a bot that DMCAs accounts belonging to employees and their connections in the parent company. For each unverified DMCA they enact. They're

Someone should make a bot that DMCAs accounts belonging to employees and their connections in the parent company. For each unverified DMCA they enact. They're the employees who will have to get in and make changes to the system and they work for the companies that have to make noise and say no to the DMCA issuers. If they blanket exclude their own employees of the policies everyone else has to abide, well, that'll say something won't it. There seems to be no negative effect of making false DMCAs so play that game.

sneak 12y ago
> There seems to be no negative effect of making false DMCAs so play that game. Unprosecuted crimes (e.g. the perjury one must commit to file a false DMCA notice) have a strange way of suddenly becoming prosecuted crimes when people act in blatant disregard for the law.
- cowbell 12y ago
  I believe there's only a perjury penalty if you misrepresent the fact that you are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. So if you say, "I'm requesting you take this down because it infringes on Star Wars and I'm an authorized agent of Disney" when you have no relation with Disney, you're up for perjury. However, if you say, "I'm requesting you take this down because it infringes on blahblah.avi and I hold copyright to blahblah.avi" which is true, then no perjury penalty. Even if blahblah.avi has nothing to do with the github repo being taken down. "Oops, my bad, honest mistake, wink wink." The person on the receiving end of the DMCA still has to jump through all the hoops to get their own copyright material reinstated. So if you do your bot right, there's no penalty. None at all. If there is, I'd love to know about it, because these bots need to die in a fire.
  - paulgb 12y ago
    You can claim damages against a false takedown, it's just really hard. The only notable case I know of is OPG v. Diebold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold
    - cowbell 12y ago
      I wasn't aware of that case. Thanks. I found sec 512(f) here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f

sneak 12y ago

> There seems to be no negative effect of making false DMCAs so play that game. Unprosecuted crimes (e.g. the perjury one must commit to file a false DMCA notice) have a strange way of suddenly becoming prosecuted crimes when people act in blatant disregard for the law.

cowbell 12y ago
I believe there's only a perjury penalty if you misrepresent the fact that you are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. So if you say, "I'm requesting you take this down because it infringes on Star Wars and I'm an authorized agent of Disney" when you have no relation with Disney, you're up for perjury. However, if you say, "I'm requesting you take this down because it infringes on blahblah.avi and I hold copyright to blahblah.avi" which is true, then no perjury penalty. Even if blahblah.avi has nothing to do with the github repo being taken down. "Oops, my bad, honest mistake, wink wink." The person on the receiving end of the DMCA still has to jump through all the hoops to get their own copyright material reinstated. So if you do your bot right, there's no penalty. None at all. If there is, I'd love to know about it, because these bots need to die in a fire.
- paulgb 12y ago
  You can claim damages against a false takedown, it's just really hard. The only notable case I know of is OPG v. Diebold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold
  - cowbell 12y ago
    I wasn't aware of that case. Thanks. I found sec 512(f) here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f