[cc-community] An online place to post
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Jun 18 20:59:53 EDT 2008
On Wednesday 18 June 2008 20:22:47 Lloyd wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 June 2008 15:47:02 Lloyd wrote:
> >> drew Roberts wrote:
> >>> Despite this possible benefit, I would not like to see it unless...
> >>> There were similar draconian penalties for getting a takedown notice
> >>> wrong. Say a $30,000.00 fine and 5 years in jail for each one you get
> >>> wrong. (Similar penalties to what we have here for possession of a
> >>> knockoff CD or DVD if I get our shining new and improved laws.)
> >> No one gets a DMCA notice wrong.
> > If you say so. I can imagine some sending notices based on the results
> > reported by scripts but perhaps I am deluded.
> Take the Google Blogger requirements:
> 4. Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that use
> of the copyrighted material described above on the allegedly infringing
> web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the
> 5. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury,
> that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the
> copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
> exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
> Or the Yahoo! one:
> 5. a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the
> disputed use is not authorised by the copyright or intellectual property
> owner, its agent, or the law; AND
> 6. a statement by you, that the above information in your notice is
> accurate and that you are the copyright or intellectual property owner
> or authorised to act on the copyright or intellectual property owner's
> The DMCA is a legal instrument there are heavy sanctions against issuing
> false or malicious ones.
What are those sanctions and when do they come into play and when don't they?
> If someone is sending out DMCA notices when
> they are neither the copyright owner, nor their agent, then sue their
> sorry ass.
Wait. Someone getting a wrong DMCA notice has to sue, but it is too much
trouble for someone to sue those violating their copyrights? I am a bit
confused by that plan and logic...
" In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must
prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at
least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the
testimony was false."
See, it seems the problem is with proving people knew the testimony to be
false when they trust their scripts to get it right. (However foolishly.) So,
if they are foolish and believe their notices to be true, even thoug, with a
little effort, they may find out they are not, will they get over this
all the best
More information about the cc-community