| |||||||||||||
The coming robot apocalypseThe coming robot apocalypsePosted Sep 13, 2012 15:34 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533)Parent article: The coming robot apocalypse
"Perhaps there should be penalties for false assertions of copyright."
Under the DMCA, there are supposed to be. Filing a false take-down notice is supposedly equivalent to perjury, but somehow that bit of the law never seems to see much enforcement effort.
(Log in to post comments)
The coming robot apocalypse Posted Sep 14, 2012 6:12 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
I am one of those optimistic types who thinks this is the key. As long as there is no accountability for errors, ie no one is actually responsible and people and companies can make claims without any penalty, nothing will be done. Conversely, if the penalty for false claims were exactly what it would have been for a true claim (but bounced back to the claimant), I think those false claims would dry up mighty fast, at least in these kinds of cases where no human has verified the claim and no thought has gone into it.
I really do think it that simple :-) The manner of avoiding false claims, whether fancier automated software or hiring more reviewers or simply not being so quick to make claims, is immaterial. People are pretty danged good at solving problems when they have tremendous self-interest in doing so, and a few hundred-thousand dollar perjury awards would focus their attention marvelously.
The coming robot apocalypse Posted Sep 14, 2012 6:43 UTC (Fri) by cladisch (✭ supporter ✭, #50193) [Link] > Filing a false take-down notice is supposedly equivalent to perjuryWhat a takedown notice states under penalty of perjury is that the complainant is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. This does not extend to any other statement, such as whether the file actually contains what the complainant claims, or whether any infringement actually happened. This penalty does not protect the receiver of a notice but the copyright holder.
The coming robot apocalypse Posted Sep 20, 2012 23:56 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
But in quite a few high-profile cockups recently, the VICTIM of the takedown is the copyright holder. So yes, this COULD work.
I'm in the UK, so if I found my stuff being taken down I would probably sue in the small claims court. Cheap and simple. And very expensive for whoever is doing the takedowns - not each individual case, but it would be "death of a thousand cuts" if the affected little guys kept suing.
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||