Court Says DMCA Takedown Recipients Can Fight Back On Their Home Turf
from the watch-out-for-unintended-consequences dept
Someone who prefers to remain anonymous notes that a recent decision in the 10th Circuit holds that "when a company uses the DMCA to take down stuff from eBay on grounds of copyright infringemen, the company can be sued in the state where the target resides." Specifically, the copyright holder for artist Erte sent a DMCA takedown notice for someone selling products on eBay using a variation of an Erte design. The copyright holder also sent a letter threatening a lawsuit. The eBay seller responded by suing in the local, Colorado, courts, asking for a declaratory judgment that the products did not infringe, claiming fair use. The case here isn't about whether or not there was infringement, but what's the right location for the lawsuit. The copyright holders were based in Connecticut and the UK, and claimed that Colorado wasn't the right jurisdiction for the lawsuit. However, the Circuit court found otherwise, noting that it was clear that the sellers were in Colorado (it said so on their auctions) and the takedown notice clearly impacted people in Colorado.The post on the topic concludes: "The outcome is a harsh lesson for copyright holders who send cease and desist letters willy-nilly." That basically suggests that perhaps those who rush out to send DMCA notices won't be so eager to dash them off, knowing they may be sued at the location of the recipient. However, I'd suggest that a different result is likely -- and it isn't a good thing. Rather than just sending off nasty letters threatening to sue, expect DMCA takedown notices to be followed quickly by actual lawsuits. We're already seeing this in the patent world. Patent holders who are afraid that someone they want to sue will sue for declaratory judgment in a more friendly jurisdiction simply decide to sue first in a favorable location (East Texas), without providing much warning at all. So, the end result of this might not be those issuing DMCA takedowns become more careful, but that they start filing more lawsuits.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dmca, jurisdiction, takedown
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
unintended consequences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about the Accused
Here's why I say this: The person who filed the lawsuit was responding to an accusation of copyright infringment. The person who was originally accused is going to be able to defend himself against the copyright holders without being stuck having to say fly out to the UK thanks to their accusations.
This is empowering to me. A ruling like this makes perfect sense, and is fair and fits the heart of the system. If you've studied how the Constitution was designed, and the philosophies of the Founding Fathers you should see this readily.
The whole POINT is that presumption of innocence, and empowering the innocent. The way it was MEANT to be is 9 guilty men go free just so that 1 innocent man keeps his liberty. The full burden is supposed to be on the person ACCUSING, NOT on the ACCUSED.
Take a look at how murder trials are done. The DA has to convince you that a man is guilty. All the hardwork is on his shoulders, though the accused man is obviously going to be a little stressed about it. Then take a look at civil trials of copyright infringment. The RIAA gets to run around and the burden of proof is on the accused entirely. The RIAA tends to have very little evidence, and that evidence is usually questionable.
This is a small step towards changing all that. I fully heartedly approve this ruling. I just hope Mike is wrong and it doesn't lead to them filing lawsuits immediately after sending a notice.
Chances are, to me, it won't because the person has to have been given ample time to comply with the notice (and since they sent it to Ebay it was complied with ASAP) and if the notice is complied with they can't sue the person over that instance. If they repost it they can. Just goes to show, file a lawsuit in your local or state court if some asshat sends a DMCA takedown notice at you inappropriately.
Oh and before we all rag on the DMCA, just rememeber MOST of it is actually good. It's just a handle full of mostly recently added provisions that screw it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents are different
In contrast, the science and the law behind patent litigation is so tough that patent holders aren't worried about having their claims laughed out of court, and they rarely have to worry about summary judgment either. Plus, the incentives in patent law are different. For example, patent holders can use discovery to get a peek into what their competitors are doing.
In my experience, patent holders don't send C&D letters until they've decided they are going to sue, and they have the complaint prepared and ready to file. The only reason they send a C&D letter is to establish proof of willfulness (more damages) and then they file suit as soon as they reasonably can. The recipients of the letters know this, so they scramble too. It's an entirely different dynamic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]