Hacker News Reader

Comment by nl | Hacker News Reader

I'm sorry, and perhaps I'm missing something.

Why is it necessary to post the lawyer's address and point out that it appears to be their home too?

It does not seem prima facie unreasonable to post a lawyer's professional address for process service.

If they had a legitimate business office address filed with the California Secretary of State, it wouldn't take so much digging to find the responsible party.

Are you arguing that it was difficult to find the responsible party, and that posting their address somehow helped that?

What possible outcome are you hoping to achieve by doing this?

Isn't this little more than a low level case of "dox"-ing someone you disagree with?

I like how these poor corporate entities are now the victims.

>Isn't this little more than a low level case of "dox"-ing someone you disagree with?

You might as well have said

>Isn't this little more than a low level case of "dox"-ing someone that hurt your feelings

But I digress. Given that various socially unacceptable activity on the internet are frequently punished by doxxing (http://racistsgettingfired.tumblr.com/), I fail to see how this is any different.

The privacy of this "company" isn't violated the same way I publish your home address. People knowing them and refusing their business isn't censorship of their free speech or their rights or whatever they were up to before. However it may induce them to be more self conscious next time they commit perjury.

This is based under the assumption that this is the correct people and OP's witchhunt hasn't turned a wrong corner. Doxxing is often discouraged by civil communities because the chance of collateral damage is too high.

So it's punishment. Got it.

I disagree with you.

These people seem to be fine with taking out perfectly legit content from the internet because they haven't done their research properly. This impacts the hard work so many people have put in, but the complainant hasn't broken the law. The comment you were replying to hasn't broken any laws either.

The DMCA take down system is flawed, and invalid take downs should be penalized at $x.xx per blocked request.

Invalid takedowns are perjury and are subject to criminal penalties to a maximum of five years in jail.

For some reason, the US prosecutors don't seem to be enforcing it.

Maybe no one complained to them, so technically they're not aware? I'm not sure how that works.

Note that the "under penalty of perjury" bit applies to your claim that you're an authorized agent of the copyright holder, not the allegation that a particular bit of content is infringing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com