I recently received a "cease and desist" from a company who competes with the company I work for with some subtle insinuations (without saying I personally would be in legal trouble... they imply it). It was sent to me via LinkedIn of all places. The company I work for has a valid mailing address that is easily googled, same thing with contact email address, phone numbers, etc. I suspect because I'm involved in web development they think I'll just take down the content they do not like / disable some things at their direction.
I ignored it, I had my employer contact them and respond as it's their deal. The issue the other company has is entirely BS. I am not a lawyer but I ran it by some lawyer friends who thought it was hilarious how misguided it was.
It seems like there should be some potential consequence to prevent threats that are that far off.
They also receive a large number of baseless complaints (IE are about re-litigating the case. For example, in a divorce, they often receive complaints about lawyers because the client lost, not because the lawyer did anything wrong. )
As such, they spend most of their time and energy mostly investigating egregious issues (IE stealing from clients, etc). They also get referrals from judges about bad or illegal behavior.
It is unlikely a complaint about DMCA behavior is going to go anywhere.
It is guaranteed that the lack of a complaint will not go anywhere. And legal processes tend to be VERY slow and inefficient but they thrive on formal documentation.
What you write is a truism, but i'm not sure it's that helpful. The post i responded to seemed to be trying to understand the tradeoff and likelihood it has an effect, which is what i was answering. You have not argued it will have an effect, actually, just said it's non-zero probability.
If it cost zero time/energy to file a complaint, sure, why not. That isn't the case here and most people want to understand the tradeoff, not the extreme.
Otherwise, you'd just do everything, regardless of time/cost/effectiveness.
Right now it's just one message on LinkedIn. If I hear form them again ... I'll have to think about it / contact a lawyer.
It's amazing how quickly some companies will respond to a succinct letter from a reputable law firm.
Establishing certain mass-DMCA senders as often fraudulent would be risky to do without at least a summary judgment, so YouTube, Google, Twitter and ilk provide no pushback against repeat DMCA notice fraudsters as any perceived pushback could land them in court.
Under Section 512 the only responsibility of the service provider is to remove the content, relay the notice to the actual copyright infringer, and allow them to file a counter-notice.
From there if the counter-notice isn't accepted by the copyright owner, they would have to file a lawsuit with the copyright infringer.
But can you as the alleged infringer sue the claimant?
I think the original question is if the platform can sue the person sending the DMCA takedown, for some kind of harassment. Because the platform itself will also investigate before taking content down.
Essentially the belief is that DMCA would never be abused for any reason so you need to penalize the platform but not the submitter.
The penalty wasn't big enough to have much of an impact on anyone involved, after lawyer fees. But damages were awarded.
EFF's legal director is quoted in that Wikipedia article discussing that case, so I presume EFF has either a legal or a strategic/PR/financial reason why they can't use that provision in this case.
I'm not a lawyer myself, though I have attended a year or so of law school and I have read the text of the DMCA.
I don't think I've heard of a single civil or criminal case under the DMCA's false notice provisions. It's effectively hot air.
I'm not saying the little guy shouldn't sue; people should stand up for themselves whenever they are accused of wrongdoing, and especially when they know for a fact they are innocent. The problem is, even when suing and winning sets a precedent, the big players just move the goalposts again. There's never going to be an easy solution that satisfies both content creators and content consumers short of massive copyright reform and hard criminal instead of soft civil penalties for making bogus DMCA claims.
Exactly. Of all the orgs to send a BS take down notice to, the EFF would be the last I’d pick a fight with.
I'm thinking Starz will back down fast, but we'll see.
That's all? They can't sue Starz for being idiots?