No Punishment For Bogus DMCA Notices If Service Provider Doesn't Take Down The Content
from the too-bad dept
One of the issues with the DMCA is that there's very little incentive to avoid sending bogus DMCA notices. There is 512(f), which says that if you misrepresent that content is infringing, you are liable for damages, but it's rarely used. And, now it's been limited further in a court ruling. Earlier this year, we wrote about a silly copyright fight concerning virtual horses and virtual bunnies in Second Life, with one company claiming another company copied its "breedable" virtual animals and that was infringement. It issued a takedown. After it was determined that the copyright claim was ridiculous (there was no direct copying), the company who was on the receiving end tried to claim that there was a 512(f) violation in the original takedown. However, the court dismissed that claim because Second Life never complied with the takedown, saying:limiting suits for damages to those caused by an actual takedown is a less effective deterrent than allowing suits based merely on the filing of a false Takedown Notification. But the statute is unambiguous in entitling an alleged infringer to damages caused �as the result of the service provider . . . removing or disabling access to the material"In other words, if the service provider doesn't follow through on the takedown, there's no punishment for filing a bogus DMCA notice. Too bad.
Separately, I hadn't realized just how ridiculous the DMCA notice was. It didn't just ask for a takedown of the virtual animals itself, but of the food for the animals, in order to make the virtual animals die. This snippet from the ruling struck me as amusing:
The Notification sought, among other things, the removal from Second Life of Amaretto's virtual "food" and "water." Had the takedown occurred, the virtual horses would have "died" from "starvation" and/or "thirst" within 72 hours.Yup. Using copyright to "starve" to "death" virtual animals. I'm sure that's exactly what our Founding Fathers were thinking about when they wrote the Constitution.
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: copyright, dmca, punishment, takedown
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't help but think, maybe we ourselves are in a virtual world running on some kind of computer that itself is in a virtual world running on another computer. It might help explain why our reality is more ridiculous than fiction. Maybe our virtual world is meant to be some sort of comical parody designed for entertainment purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turtles
It's flat, and resting on the back of an enormous turtle!
The physicist asked: but what does the turtle stand on?
The stubborn lady replied: oh you think your college education makes you clever to ask that question, but I've got you now! It's turtles all the way down!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, perhaps the damages could be the legal fees and to that end the plaintiffs could reasonably be punished. Perhaps even punitive legal fee damages.
Not that I agree that infringement itself should be punished or carry such a huge punishment for potential damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You say he downloaded a song? What are the actual damages on that? Defendant, you owe the RIAA one dollar."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree - we should apply this wonderful ruling to all cases.
If someone tries to shoplift something but gets caught before they leave the store, they should be immediately let go. The store didn't suffer any *actual* loss, so what's the problem?
If I deliberately shoot at someone and miss, well I shouldn't be arrested.. I obviously didn't do anything wrong because the target wasn't injured! I mean, "attempted murder" - what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry"?
It's so refreshing to see a judge these days making a right call!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about SL?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or am I being virtually crazy?
*shrugs and hops on his virtual unicorn to go play in the virtual fields of Plato's cave where rainbows live*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(This idea is non-patentable)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe you need to see a virtual psychologist. Preferably one with a virtual Ph.D. in the field and virtually 5 years of experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On that assumption, watching Twilight backwards might be like watching the BEST FILM EVER!
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, why are they limited to what the DMCA says? AFAIK the scope of fraud related laws goes well beyond the realm of the DMCA and friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So why is it there RIAA and them get money from time to time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The conclusion
Does this mean that if Google stopped them, it's still not liable? Other than the Viacom lawsuit, I would think if the ISPs or even Google worked on exposing the DMCA as frivolous, it would certainly undermine the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's your link showing that the copyright claim was ridiculous and there was no direct copying? Oh, right - you don't have one. The case is still in progress. You really should make it more clear when a statement is just your opinion rather than facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you don't think
"The Notification sought, among other things, the removal from Second Life of Amaretto's virtual "food" and "water." Had the takedown occurred, the virtual horses would have "died" from "starvation" and/or "thirst" within 72 hours. "
is ridiculous?
"and there was no direct copying?"
One had to do with horses, the other had to do with bunnies. no direct copying there. Maybe indirect copying, but at least not any direct copying.
"The court interpreted Ozimals' position as asserting copyright over software functionality (clearly one of Ozimals' core concerns), and the court rightly dismisses the copyright merit of that position. "
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/01/second_life_ord.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can Second Life characters eat the virtual meat?
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can Second Life characters eat the virtual meat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]