Rwa2play: I would love to say "That's a lawsuit;" considering it involves the DMCA however, doubt it'll fly.

Filing false DMCAs can be pretty serious. I'd love to see SF Chronicle fire back at these asshats.

I don't understand why folks say that. I can make anything up.

IOKIYAR?

Watch your ass, Chronicle of Higher Education, we're coming for that domain.

Sincerely,
BayTSP

I just watched that movie not 2 hours ago. It was decent. Mostly I was thinking they can throw out that live-action Akira re-make since it's already been done.

\stolen
\\GIS

The information in all notifications submitted through the Program will be accurate, and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

So, whose job is it to charge them with perjury?

I assume an automated program flagged this because it thought sf stood for scI fi my idea to fix the problem is to require a human being review the alleged infringing material before you can file a claim.

I hope Fox goes after The Chronicle of Higher Education.

swahnhennessy: I just watched that movie not 2 hours ago. It was decent. Mostly I was thinking they can throw out that live-action Akira re-make since it's already been done.

I enjoyed it. I would have passed but I saw Ebert's review and was surprised to see he liked it so I gave it a shot. Not bad at all.

JohnBigBootay: swahnhennessy: I just watched that movie not 2 hours ago. It was decent. Mostly I was thinking they can throw out that live-action Akira re-make since it's already been done.

I enjoyed it. I would have passed but I saw Ebert's review and was surprised to see he liked it so I gave it a shot. Not bad at all.

I normally loathe found footage films, but that one wasn't bad. Plus they were able to bypass the problem of the cameraman in those types of film.

This one is also amusing. Getting a notice for something that was actually stolen from you.

Serial: JohnBigBootay: swahnhennessy: I just watched that movie not 2 hours ago. It was decent. Mostly I was thinking they can throw out that live-action Akira re-make since it's already been done.

I enjoyed it. I would have passed but I saw Ebert's review and was surprised to see he liked it so I gave it a shot. Not bad at all.

I normally loathe found footage films, but that one wasn't bad. Plus they were able to bypass the problem of the cameraman in those types of film.

I watched it, didn't love it but did think it was a good take on what real life kids might be like if they suddenly had powers. The abused kid character was a little over the top though. We get it, he was the sympathetic one that finally lashed out against his tormentors. Felt a little too easy. If they'd made the really handsom popular kid be the one to go over the top with a crazy ego trip, that to me would have been cool. But the end sure did feel like Akira. When busses and bullets started flying around I kept shouting "TETSUOOOOO!!" in my head.

Cool beans though.

In other news, Disney, owner of "The Chronicles of Narnia", reportedly told Fox, "Come at me, bro."

Scuttlebutt: The information in all notifications submitted through the Program will be accurate, and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

So, whose job is it to charge them with perjury?

It would be the District Attorney. But, they didn't commit perjury. They are the copyright owner or are authorized to act on behalf of the owner, which is the only clause that "I swear, under penalty of perjury" applies to.

That said, the relevant statute would be 17 USC 512(f):
Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section-
(1) that material or activity is infringing...
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

So, SFGate could fire up its attorneys and start demanding damages.

... that said, they'd have a tough time succeeding. Note that the misrepresentation has to be "knowingly". Fox can just say "we're lazy incompetent idiots who never bothered looking at the web page. At worst, we were reckless, but didn't knowingly misrepresent our belief in the infringement."

Were I serving on a jury for a trial of an individual accused of the murder of an individual who was knowingly and willfully involved in the submission of an invalid Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown request submitted in obviously bad faith, I would vote to acquit.

FloydA: SweetSilverBlues: In other news, Disney, owner of "The Chronicles of Narnia", reportedly told Fox, "Come at me, bro."

Curse these slow hands.

LOL no worries, sometimes it's a dufflepud kind of day.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I just went to SFGate and posted in the original thread from the article that was DMCA'ed. They refused to allow me to link to the techdirt.com article.

Ungoing legal action, the lawyers are in charge now.

The real problem is that the fines are so high, in one direction, lawyers can make a profit going after people. The fines in the other direction, for filing false claims, aren't worth getting out of bed for.

Web-crawling robot incorrectly tags SF Gate website.

wow, the outrage. the horror.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: SweetSilverBlues: Ungoing legal action, the lawyers are in charge now.

I had to laugh though. The URL for techdirt is

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/01520819073/fox-issues-dmca - takedown-to-google-over-sf-chronicle-article-claiming-it-was-movie-chr onicle.shtml *note: space added, as FARK is wont to do to long urls...

and the Chronicle software specifically objected to

/fox-issues-dmca-takedown-to-google-over-sf-chronicle-article-claimin g -it-was-movie-chronicle

That's a pretty specific term to ban.

Quick! Ban every possible combination of these words!

itsdan: I'd have to assume the DMCA requires an actual 'statement' from the copyright holder.

(or their agent), yes.

However, the statement of good faith belief of infringement isn't subject to the penalty of perjury. And to be a misrepresentation, it must be a knowing misrepresentation. It's a bit kooky.
As noted above, the statute is 17 USC 512. The requirements of the statement are in there.

We could amalgamate all of the extremely stupid DMCA takedown notices that, if anyone actually enforced the other side of the document, would get the DMCA issuer busted for perjury.

My most idiotic? Kent Hovind's foundation, Creation Science Evangelism, issued takedown notices for many YouTube videos by evolution proponents that used Hovind's lecture videos for purposes of illustration and ridicule. However, not only were all of these fair use clips of said lecture videos, but Creation Science Evangelism released those lecture videos into the public domain! In fact, many of the lectures have Hovind stating outright that the videos are not copyrighted! Thus, CSE was claiming copyright laws on videos they chose to exclude from copyright protection! But then again, CSE is following in the fraudulent footsteps of their founder, who still has three years left to go on a 10-year prison term for tax fraud.

Vodka Zombie: Filing false DMCAs can be pretty serious

To date, not one entity has been convicted under the DMCA for filing a false claim. In fact, I don't think any such entity has even been charged for it.

IlGreven: Vodka Zombie: Filing false DMCAs can be pretty serious

To date, not one entity has been convicted under the DMCA for filing a false claim. In fact, I don't think any such entity has even been charged for it.

"What many who abuse the DMCA system do not realize is that they can be sued and held civilly liable for the havoc they wreak by sending these fake notices.

A perfect example of this is the case of Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Incorporated. Diebold made voting machines used in US elections. Online Policy Group was critical of Diebold's machines, and released e-mail correspondence from the company that they had obtained onto the Internet. Diebold sent DMCA takedown requests to have access to the e-mails that Online Policy Group had posted online removed.

Online Policy Group sued Diebold over the takedown requests, arguing that the Group had the legal right to publish the e-mails. A California court agreed with the Group and granted a request for summary judgment, after which Diebold settled with the Group to pay $125,000 for their monetary losses and legal fees.

The case was just one of many which have been fought over unsubstantiated DMCA takedown requests. Another case was that of Michael Crook, a controversial public speaker who appeared on Fox News and was subsequently criticized on a website which used a thumbnail image of him on their site. Not only was a thumbnail image fair use, but since it was Fox that made the show, Crook could not even claim to be the owner of the broadcast. The case was settled and Crook agreed to a number of embarrassing conditions, including being required to take courses on copyright law, to never again file a Cease & Desist request regarding the image of him on Fox News, to publish a public apology, and other inconvenient conditions for him. He was not required to pay monetary damages because he was indigent."

IlGreven: Vodka Zombie: Filing false DMCAs can be pretty serious

To date, not one entity has been convicted under the DMCA for filing a false claim. In fact, I don't think any such entity has even been charged for it.

Yeah, but some have been made to pay civil damages. I'm pretty sure Diebold had to cough up some major cash back in 2004 for false DMCA takedowns.

The collapse of society cannot come soon enough.

Subby's use of the word "infringe" also infringes on Fox'shiat TV series, "Fringe".

DMCA takedown notices should *require* the person issuing the takedown to post a $10,000 bond (forfeitable if the notice is issued falsely or in error).

CSB: I was driving around Treasure Island a few years ago ago and came across these cool-ass old cars all parked in a lot:



I asked a guy what was going on, and he said they were part of the filming of the movie "Chronicles." I went home and looked it up, and it was the movie about the Zodiac Killer that ended up getting released as "Zodiac."