4 ms·

Is the DMCA geared up for a "guerilla war" - ie can a bunch of motivated people target (for example) government sites and send them a string of take-down notice

by jurjenh 17y ago

Is the DMCA geared up for a "guerilla war" - ie can a bunch of motivated people target (for example) government sites and send them a string of take-down notices? Other than the traditional one-rule-for-the-masses, but government is above-the-rules, is there any good reason this would not work? Common sense seems to dictate copyright ownership would need to be verified, but obviously this seems to be unnecessary for DMCA...

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Well, the government generally uses its own servers, I think, and not hosted servers. So they'd be getting and responding to the complaints directly, and they've got all the lawyers they need, thanks to our tax dollars. Plus, it just might backfire by destroying what little government transparency we've got through the web. It would be more interesting -- and directly painful -- to do this to political candidates' campaign sites. But of course, doing so would be fraudulent, and we'd like to take the high road.
drusenko 17y ago
Besides the fact that whoever sent out the DMCA notices would go to jail for 2-4 years (perjury sentence in the state of california), this probably wouldn't work because the owner of the allegedly infringing content (the person who received the notice) can just "instantly" file a counter-notice with themselves, or just not file the counter notice at all (probably don't need to send it to yourself if you're the owner, though I'm not positive on that one). Then they can go after the sender, and lock them up for a while.
- jrockway 17y ago
  4 years in prison in a bankrupt state for sending a letter claiming copyright infringement? Yeah right. The Unabomber sent bombs through the mail for years without being caught. If someone can do that, it should be trivial to send email to hosting companies without going to jail. Have you ever jaywalked? If so, you'll realize that not every law is enforceable.
  - drusenko 17y ago
    This email happens to include your full name, address, and other contact information. And it also certifies under penalty of perjury that you are telling the truth. If you don't believe that you can go to jail for 2-4 years in CA for committing perjury, google it. I'm not bullshitting you. Perjury is a serious offense. Clinton was impeached for it.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      You don't put your real contact information on fake letters you send.
      - drusenko 17y ago
        Then the original DMCA notice (with fake contact information) is invalid and doesn't need to be followed.
        jrockway 17y ago
        The sender knows it's invalid. How does the recipient know?
        drusenko 17y ago
        In this hypothetical scenario, the person affected could take a few minutes to verify the information, and then report back to the host that the contact information is invalid.
        jrockway 17y ago
        But obviously you would just use the address of some large corporation, which will not be able to determine if it sent the legal notice quickly.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]

by jurjenh 17y ago

CWuestefeld 17y ago

Well, the government generally uses its own servers, I think, and not hosted servers. So they'd be getting and responding to the complaints directly, and they've got all the lawyers they need, thanks to our tax dollars. Plus, it just might backfire by destroying what little government transparency we've got through the web. It would be more interesting -- and directly painful -- to do this to political candidates' campaign sites. But of course, doing so would be fraudulent, and we'd like to take the high road.

drusenko 17y ago

Besides the fact that whoever sent out the DMCA notices would go to jail for 2-4 years (perjury sentence in the state of california), this probably wouldn't work because the owner of the allegedly infringing content (the person who received the notice) can just "instantly" file a counter-notice with themselves, or just not file the counter notice at all (probably don't need to send it to yourself if you're the owner, though I'm not positive on that one). Then they can go after the sender, and lock them up for a while.

jrockway 17y ago
4 years in prison in a bankrupt state for sending a letter claiming copyright infringement? Yeah right. The Unabomber sent bombs through the mail for years without being caught. If someone can do that, it should be trivial to send email to hosting companies without going to jail. Have you ever jaywalked? If so, you'll realize that not every law is enforceable.
- drusenko 17y ago
  This email happens to include your full name, address, and other contact information. And it also certifies under penalty of perjury that you are telling the truth. If you don't believe that you can go to jail for 2-4 years in CA for committing perjury, google it. I'm not bullshitting you. Perjury is a serious offense. Clinton was impeached for it.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    You don't put your real contact information on fake letters you send.
    - drusenko 17y ago
      Then the original DMCA notice (with fake contact information) is invalid and doesn't need to be followed.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        The sender knows it's invalid. How does the recipient know?
        drusenko 17y ago
        In this hypothetical scenario, the person affected could take a few minutes to verify the information, and then report back to the host that the contact information is invalid.
        jrockway 17y ago
        But obviously you would just use the address of some large corporation, which will not be able to determine if it sent the legal notice quickly.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]