Hacker News Reader

Comment by rjbwork | Hacker News Reader

Can't they now be sued for invalid DMCA's? It's perjury to lie about those things I believe. One probably shouldn't fully automate something that perjures you if it's wrong.

View on HN

Sadly the law is set up so that total negligence is okay. As long as you don't specifically know it's invalid, you can send out all the DMCAs you want.

B-b-b-but I didn't know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So can we simply bulk-send registered letters to everyone involved so they know and we know they know?

Unfortunately, the only element of a DMCA notice that's made under penalty of perjury is the one least likely to involve perjury: the claim to be authorized to act on behalf of an entity which holds copyright. All the other elements of a notice you can lie about until you're blue in the face, and there is no perjury involved.

Not sure where you are getting this from.

Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification, is liable for any resulting damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) incurred by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider. (Section 512(f)).

"knowingly"

That's talking about being liable for damages.

The only thing that's asserted under penalty of perjury is that you're authorized to act on behalf of a copyright holder. If you lie about everything except that one fact, the only thing that can happen to you is someone can try (and good luck with that...) to claim damages from you. The only way you face perjury charges is if you lie about being authorized to act for the copyright holder.

I think that may have been added after the initial act.

It is my opinion that no one should accept an automated DMCA notice. Without human review, how can one attest to anything, especially since it is possible that fair use might apply.

Good luck telling the humans from the machine. Form demand/takedown emails are the norm amongst human lawyers, and for good reason.

If you're a search engine and I send you a billion takedown notices, of which one is legitimate, and you don't comply with that one, then you will be liable for infringement. Is it worth the risk?

Here's an even better question: Why should search engines be complicit in DCMA takedowns? They're link aggregators only. Send the DCMA requests to the websites directly.

Torrent websites are "link aggregators" only as well, yet they get taken down.

I don't think it's not the same if you mostly link to infringing torrents or link to a lot of the Internet which might include infringing files..

Unrelated: I wonder why the textarea for posting comments on HN turn orange when you click on it? It is really annoying....

You should not be able to send automated takedown requests either in the first place

That's the point. Email spam works because sending a billion emails costs nearly nothing, and these companies in effect spam takedown notices that clearly have no basis in reality. A DMCA takedown is supposed to be a legal document, I've never once heard of legal documents that it's ok to just throw into the fucking wind with a minigun, that metaphor working both for quantity and accuracy here.

This is similar to the problem where YouTube content claims cause all video revenue to be diverted to the complainant, before any review has actually occurred and leaving no recourse to the victim. There's literally zero downsides to filing the claim, so why not do it? Why not claim everything?

Why not play their own game and submit a takedown notice for everything on YouTube.

To sue you need to articulate some form of damages. Im not sure a no-traffic website can do that. This isnt much different than the dozens if spam emails i get from "banks". Sure, what they are doing is fraud, but that doesnt mean i have grounds for a lawsuit without me first falling for the con.

Is it perjury if you were never sworn to not perjure yourself?

No. It's called Fraud instead.

A valid DMCA notice requires just such a declaration.

Which means either:

- It does not contain a declaration of truth under penalty of perjury in which case it is invalid - It contains an automated declaration of truth under penalty of perjury. I believe even an automated declaration opens up the declarer to perjury. If it does not, then it is a fraudulent DMCA notice. - It contains manual declaration of truth under penalty of perjury, which would require a human to have reviewed the document and made such a declaration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com