Romance Author Adele Dubois Receives Takedown On Blog Post For Having The Same Name As Singer Adele

from the bogus-dmca dept

Fri, May 18th 2012 1:39pm — Mike Masnick

I heard about this story last week, but it took a while to sort through all of the details. There were reports out there that the romance author Adele Dubois had been sent a DMCA takedown. Most of the reports were a bit vague, and then the Washington Post had a very confused writeup that bounced back and forth between copyright and trademark, without bothering to mention that you cannot use a DMCA notice for trademark issues (and also pointing much more of a finger at Google than was warranted).

I've now been able to see the full DMCA notice (which is not yet up on ChillingEffects, but should be soon -- though I've included it below) and talk to a few people around this, and it appears that someone associated with Sony did, in fact, issue a DMCA takedown to Google, leading to a blog post by Adele Dubois being taken offline. Google has since reinstated the post, after reviewing the counternotice, so you can read it here, though depending on your workplace, it may be marginally not safe for work (think erotic romance novel graphics and prose).

The DMCA takedown notice details are extremely sparse. It notes that the "copyright owner" is "XL SONY" and that the "Copyright work description" is "ADELE + EXITOS." It then lists out two URLs. One for "Location of the copyrighted work" and one for "Location of infringing material." It's not clear what the difference is here, but the first one takes you to a sales page for a totally different (and unrelated) romance book, whose author runs the blog where the Adele Dubois post was. The author of that book, Marianne Stephens, notes that she holds all the copyright on that particular book, and isn't clear why it's in the DMCA notice. The second link (location of infringing material) is the link listed above. The only connection that seems to be made is the fact that the famous singer Adele is on Sony, and the author of the blog post (and the erotic romance novel it talks about) has the pen name Adele Dubois (a name she's used since well before the singer Adele became a professional singer). Either way, there's no copyright in just the name Adele. The word Exitos seems totally irrelevant to anything.

Google, as it does in these situations, reverted the blog post to "private," and then upon reviewing the counternotice turned the blog post back on. It's not entirely clear from the notice who actually sent the takedown. It's possible that it was an overaggressive representative of Sony. What does seem clear is that whoever sent it was just doing some sort of quick automated takedown effort without any real review -- even though the takedown notice says:

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

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.

In the Washington Post article, the author suggests that Google should have gotten "to the bottom of this" before taking the content down. While that would be nice, the problem is not so much with Google as with the law itself, the DMCA. Because of the way the DMCA is structured, companies that don't take down content first and review the details later face significant liability if the content turns out to be infringing. The law basically says, if you want immunity from liability, you have to first pull the content offline. So Google followed that procedure. As we've noted, this part of the DMCA potentially violates the First Amendment, but has yet to be tested in court.

That said, you can see why it's so frustrating to the recipient. It's not at all clear from the notice that Google's Blogger passed on to the blog owners the information on who really issued the takedown, or even what, exactly, they were claiming. The bizarre link to the totally unrelated book doesn't help matters, but only serves to confuse them further. Combine that with the threat that this can lead to a "strike" against an account and you can see why some recipients of notices like this get pretty worried.

In the end, this looks like yet another of an all too common phenomenon (and one we've dealt with ourselves). Companies file automated or questionable (or insanely vague) DMCA notices all the time, and the structure of the law encourages companies who receive them to pull the content offline immediately and sort out the mess later.

Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to "draft" status. (A bit of background: if we did not do this, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement.)

The URL(s) of the allegedly infringing post(s) may be found at the end of this message. This means your post - and any images, links or other content - is not gone. You may edit the post to remove the content in question and republish, at which point the post in question will be visible to your readers again.

If you believe you have the rights to post the content at issue here, you can file a counter-notification. For more information on our DMCA policy, please see http://www.google.com/dmca.html.

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling Effects at http://www.chillingeffects.org. We do this in accordance with the DMCA. You can search for the DMCA notice associated with the removal of your content by going to the Chilling Effects search page at http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi and entering the URL of the blog post that was removed.

If it is brought to our attention that you have republished the post without removing the content in question, then we will delete your post and count it as a violation on your account. Repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in further remedial action taken against your Blogger account including deleting your blog and/or terminating your account.

If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain your own legal counsel.

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team

Complainant Information:

05/11/2012

Recipient Information:

Google, Inc. (Blogger)
Mountain View, CA USA

Infringement Notification for Blogger:

Copyright Owner
XL SONY

Copyright work description
ADELE + EXITOS

Location of copyrighted work
http://tinyurl.com/4ydyl69

Location of infringing material
http://romancebooksrus.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-intimate-art-by-adele-dubois.html

Sworn Statements:

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [checked]

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. [checked]

Signature
[private]

Signed on this date of:
05/11/2012

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: adele dubois, dmca, romance, takedown
Companies: google, sony

63 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:51pm

Sir,

I understand you have the same name as my client, Mike Myers. I must ask on his behalf that you must stop using this name.

Sincerely,
Moe Lawsuites
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:52pm

One more day.
One more DMCA takedown abuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 1:56pm

Yet another reason why
This is yet another reason why there need to be serious penalties for bogus DMCA takedowns.

The DMCA was to provide an expedited way for content owners to get content removes from the internet. The tradeoff for it was that they wouldn't abuse the privilege because of the collateral damage it could do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STStone, 18 May 2012 @ 1:56pm

But, but�piracy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:58pm

"Dude, I'm getting a dell! What do you mean you have to tape my mouth shut? Isn't that illegarphruphph . . ."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 1:58pm

L vs E
When lawyers get involved, the work of engineers' suffers.

I miss the young, naive Google which was staffed by well-intentioned engineers and very short on legal counsel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kyle clements (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 1:58pm

"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate"

So, when will Sony face those perjury charges?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:58pm

TinyURL? WTF?!?!?!
Location of copyrighted work
http://tinyurl.com/4ydyl69

Umm, TinyURL doesn't actually host any content at all. If you try going there with a client that doesn't follow 301 redirects, you get a blank page.

Honestly - a location is supposed to tell you where something is, and this clearly doesn't. If a cop got a warrant for a building, and the building had a sign that listed another address across town, would the warrant magically cover the new address?

Are they claiming that they own the HTTP headers that are served by TinyURL?

Seriously - is whoever write this so clueless as to not understand *at all* what URL shorteners are, and how HTTP redirects work?

Somebody's head should roll for this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 2:01pm

Re: L vs E
And conversely, the copyright cartels are staffed with nothing BUT lawyers.

hmmm, I think I see the problem here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 2:06pm

Re: TinyURL? WTF?!?!?!
Seriously - is whoever write this so clueless as to not understand *at all* what URL shorteners are, and how HTTP redirects work?

Yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 2:09pm

Re:
I understand you have the same name as my client, Mike Myers. I must ask on his behalf that you must stop using this name.

Dear Mr. Lawsuites:

Please advise whether your client is the entertainer Mike Myers, or the guy who kills people on Halloween. Your response will have a significant bearing on my decision.

Sincerely,

Mr. Myers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 2:09pm

I was gonna buy a Dell computer but their site seems to be down at the moment..hmm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PlagueSD (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 2:19pm

"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner."

This right here should be enough to stop all the false takedown notices. I guess the information is accurately incorrect. So that's how they get around the purjury bit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 2:20pm

Re: Re:
Mr. Myers,

You appear to be infringing on my name. Please cease all usages of this name immediately or else I will do everything in my power to murder you, both as an entertainer and as a person.

Sincerely,

Mr. Myers, FBI.

P.S. Hellboy doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 2:21pm

Re: Re: L vs E
So if we follow Shakespeare's advice, then Occam's Razor dictates that the level of frivolous IP lawsuits will diminish spectacularly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 2:23pm

To paraphrase The Immortal Bard:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Then we kill all the record company "executives".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 2:30pm

Re: Re: Re: L vs E
Pardon my ignorance... but which bit of Shakespeare's advice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 18 May 2012 @ 2:31pm

Re: Yet another reason why
What?!? That's crazy! Content owners already have to go through the trouble of sitting in their $5000 leather office chairs and telling the VP of IP Protection at their company to hire some tech firm to run basic keyword searches and fraudulently file DMCA takedown notices over anything that comes up regardless of the content because it obviously must be infringing if they're using the words that the content owners claim ownership of despite this concept being a violation of copyright law.

What do you want them to do - actually look at the content and make an informed decision as to whether or not the content is in fact infringing? That would get in the way of their tee time after having lunch with their representatives in Congress...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 2:32pm

Re:
I just checked - dell.com is up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 18 May 2012 @ 2:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: L vs E
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Shakespeare, Henry the Sixth Part 2
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 2:39pm

Re:
Perhaps a cry-wolf rule is in order.

Not only should they face perjury charges, if a company or any representatives of said company commit two or more frivolous (or outright false) DMCA take down requests within a 10 year period, they lose the privilege of submitting any DMCA notices for the next 5 years. Any attempt to subvert the spirit of this rule (e.g. through shell companies), shall result in a bzillion dollar fine and being forced to wear a 'kick me, I'm a dork' sign for 5 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 2:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: L vs E
Ah, that seems like good advice to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 2:40pm

Re: Re: Reddit "Rules"...!
That is a brilliant idea, let's make it happen.

Also, how many is in a brazilian?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 2:43pm

I'm pretty sure it was a bot doing a keyword match. That's the only possible explanation. Any human would have noticed right away that there was no infringement. Nobody would do something this egregious and expect to keep their job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 2:45pm

Re: Re:
Perhaps?

Biggest understatement ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
matthias, 18 May 2012 @ 2:49pm

the difference...
"It then lists out two URLs. One for 'Location of the copyrighted work' and one for 'Location of infringing material.' It's not clear what the difference is here,..."
Well, it's quite obvious what the difference is, isn't it? "Location of the copyrighted work" should point to the original work, the work XL SONY claims to have the copyright of, whereas "Location of infringing material" points to the infringing material.
Of course, this makes even less sense. It seems that "XL SONY" (what does the XL stand for? Is this really Sony, the music company?) claims to own the copyright on...
...either some tinyurl link
...or a page that tries to sell a novel (that absolutly doesn't fit to the this place)
...or that novel
...or...
...well, they said something about (the singer?) Adele? hm...

I think someone simply confused two links and postet the correct link to the copyrighted material on his facebook page, saying "incredible novel, couldn't stop reading til late night yesterday. Man am I tired... But have to go back to work now. Taking down some Pirate-Sites."
I mean, whoever sent this takedown notice even didn't seem to be sure about whether he is "copyright owner" or only "authorized to act on behalf of the owner". But swearing under penalty of perjury that everything he claims is correct. Yes...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 3:07pm

Re: Re: Re:
Mr. Myers,

It has come to our attention that your surname begins with the same letter as our trademark. This is unacceptable. Please respond to the enclosed settlement request with a SASE. We hope to resolve this without resorting to the courts.

Sincerely,

Monster Cable
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitabred (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 3:44pm

Re: Re:
*whoosh*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler, 18 May 2012 @ 3:58pm

DMCA vs. Bill of Rights
This may "potentially violate the First Amendment," but that's kind of a weak case to make when it does obviously and blatantly violate the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, both in the takedown provisions and in the DRM provisions. Why is no one talking about that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 4:07pm

Re:
I know it's all moot to debate the justification of punishments which have, since being codified, illustrated nothing but the reality that they will never be brought to bear on those who abuse the system.

To think that the statement being "accurately incorrect" is plausible grounds for dismissal is fantastically ridiculous. Claiming that would be the same as saying "it's okay because i didn't just simply lie. Instead, i lied in such a complete and thorough fashion as to evidence my knowledge of the actual truth and my intent to conceal it".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 4:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Reddit "Rules"...!
+1 internets to you, sir! One of my favorite jokes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 4:45pm

im betting here is what happened:

adelle- sony artist
shakira former sony artist that released an album with a song titled grande exitos

adelle + exitos = SonyIsAnAsshat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 4:50pm

Re: Yet another reason why
You don't seem to think that with Sony's stellar record with malware that they're perfectly capable of writing a "piracyBot" to troll sites to make sure that absolutely none of their products are infringed on.

After all, just because it can't tell one Adele from another is no reason to dump on the super piracyBot they undoubtedly paid some script kiddie tons of money for. There is something strangely inhuman about this as it it was all automated, complete with programmed in web site references and citations.

From this comes the question. Do you charge Sony with perjury, the script kiddie or the bot? The way some US courts are acting these days they'd happily charge and convict the bot!

Ahhh, the wonderful, fascinating other worldly and totally out of touch with reality world of IP law. And those who defend it.

Kinda like reading bad sci-fi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alana (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 5:25pm

Just for mentioning the name Adele, this blog will receive a DMCA takedown!

...That's the level of stupidity here, people. Be very afraid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 5:51pm

Should I now be worried that French singer-songwriter could sue me based on me having the nickname MadJo on the internet (and have been using that nickname since around 2005)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 6:06pm

Sign this petition
Not that I expect much of a response from them, but please sign this and pass it on.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/#!/petition/prosecute-those-who-abuse-use-dmca-digital- millenium-copyright-act-takedown-notices/mhmyRjsw
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 6:08pm

Re: Sign this petition
Here's the short link - http://wh.gov/sTc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 6:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: L vs E
I happen to know and like several lawyers. What I'd prefer is if we stop electing lawyers and big businessmen almost exclusively to write our laws, such that they have to "call in the nerds" when they want to find out what their convoluted words mean.

Instead, we should be electing a more representative sampling of various occupations and expertise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 6:31pm

Re:
And yet a human wrote the bot, and another human sanctioned its actions without understanding what it would do. And both humans likely plan to keep their jobs.

It's just another day in bogus DMCA notice land.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 6:35pm

Re: DMCA vs. Bill of Rights
I'd also argue it violates the 4th, seeing as the material and the sites are property which is being unreasonably seized without warrant.

The DMCA is similar to previous arbitration laws in that it's a loophole created specifically so that companies would not "burden" the court system with legal challenges to their authority and behavior, but would instead be able to buy separate and cheaper "justice", with basically the same outcome you'd get in most non-jury trials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Miko, 18 May 2012 @ 6:41pm

So, where do we have to submit a complaint to in order to get a perjury inquiry started? Because I'm pretty sure we could easily get many thousand complaints sent there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 6:42pm

As we've noted, this part of the DMCA potentially violates the First Amendment, but has yet to be tested in court.

More than a decade of DMCA and the ACLU, EFF, CDT and PK (nor anyone else) have brought a First Amendment challenge? Maybe those experts and all of the other potential litigants have arrived at the opposite conclusion as you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 8:15pm

Re:
mike throws out big law words and accusations of constitutional violations, but then covers his ass so he can always walk away from what he says, thats the "potentially" bit and "but has yet to be tested in court"

cause he is no expert, but always has to sound like one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 8:34pm

Re:
Actually, they're busy offering amicus briefs in trials being brought against others. On account of the fact that most people don't bring lawsuits against big companies - it usually goes the other way around - most cases are ones where they collaborate with the defense.

As someone who has been quoted in a brief on the law, I can tell you that a very large number of groups are actively trying to get the DMCA at least altered, if not overturned entirely (because that's harder).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
c0c0c0 (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 8:53pm

Well, you are always going to catch some dolfins when you are trolling for tuna. That is the risk of the fishing buisness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 May 2012 @ 4:23am

In case anybody's still wondering, the word "exitos" translates literally as "successes" or colloquially as "hits" in Spanish.

So, basically, it looks like Sony was targeting anybody who talks about Adele and hits in the same blog post. Very, very strange...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 May 2012 @ 4:43am

Re: Re: Yet another reason why
This reminds me, funnily enough, of a case in 2000. The website World Of Spectrum were sent a cease and desist telling them to stop hosting a new game called Soldier Of Fortune. Of course, they weren't, they were quite legally hosting a mid-80s game for the ZX Spectrum of the same name. There was no way a human could confuse the games, not least because the new game was CD based and the hosted game was around 60Kb in size. But, their automated systems weren't that clever...

It's depressing how little these fools have changed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 May 2012 @ 4:51am

Re:
"Any human would have noticed right away that there was no infringement."

But they cost money... You don't expect RIAA members to put accuracy and fairness above profit, do you? Please...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 19 May 2012 @ 7:04am

Re: Re: DMCA vs. Bill of Rights
So in essence, it's the old English High Courts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 19 May 2012 @ 7:06am

Re:
Maybe they're afraid that people will read anything mentioning their hits and get more sales! *zing*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adele, 19 May 2012 @ 7:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
/\/\/\ Guess what my new name online is /\/\/\
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 19 May 2012 @ 8:19am

Re: Yet another reason why
"I swear, under penalty of perjury, [...]"

I was under the impression that perjury is a VERY serious felony. Isn't it the same as lying under oath in a court?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 19 May 2012 @ 8:22am

Re: L vs E
Actually, Google is doing an incredible job here! It's not THEIR fault that the system sucks, now is it?

I love the fact that they don't bring out the "big guns" of violations and deletion unless you repeat the alleged infringement. How many service providers do you know that actually lets you keep the post, rather than just straight up delete it, while the issue is being resolved?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 19 May 2012 @ 8:27am

Re: Re:
Now now, we don't know what the bot-writer knows or did. Perhaps this writer-person actually pointed out how silly it is, and got a "want you money or not?" reply?

Yes, I like to think that "us nerds" are a little bit better than the nutjobs that created this situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jonathan, 19 May 2012 @ 9:05am

Re: Sign this petition
If history is any indication, their response will be "This Petition calls upon the Administration to take a specific law enforcement action. Therefore, screw you."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 19 May 2012 @ 9:55am

Re: Re: Yet another reason why
Absolutely, but perjury - in the USA anyway - is one of those crimes that seems to come with a rebuttable presumption if the defendant has lots of money and an irrebuttable presumption if the defendant is employed by a government authority.

Or so it seems anyway.. Any US attorneys want to prove me wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
~ender, 19 May 2012 @ 12:14pm

Perjury?
In my state, that means whoever was in charge of checking that box is going to be doing 2 years in prison for perjury. Also, if they were an acting agent of the corporation (which by saying XL SONY owned, etc), that means the corporation is guilty of committing a felony, which has a fine starting at $1 million dollars.

I suggest if either Google or "Adele Dubois" care about copyright, and related BS - and want to get this auto-DMCA stopped, that they start by filing criminal charges against XL SONY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
~ender, 19 May 2012 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason why
Here's the kicker. It's a criminal violation AND there's no civil liability for perjury, so the cops cannot ignore it, without breaking they themselves breaking the law (unlike cases where they can decline to investigate criminal matters and you must take care of it via civil suit) - if you bring charges. I'm not even sure that the prosecutors can even decline to prosecute the case, without opening themselves to civil liability. Of course, they probably do, and most people don't think to sue the attorney general. OTOH, I'd love to get this as a client, because when the AG doesn't take it up, the civil liability could be more than just the amount you were inconvenienced, it could be $1M.

IANAL, however. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prisoner 201, 21 May 2012 @ 4:10am

Re: Yet another reason why
Since the cost of a wrongful takedown is next to zero, we will only see an incerease in automated takedowns, with increasingly broad algorithms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 21 May 2012 @ 6:58am

Re: Re: Yet another reason why
But this is worse than perjury. This needs a penalty far worse. Like an extra double strong stern warning not to do it again.

It should be like the UN threatening some bad acting country. If you don't stop that, we threaten we'll pass a resolution stating that we'll vote on another resolution condemning your actions!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 21 May 2012 @ 10:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: L vs E
The problem is that the lawyers and businessmen who are writing our laws aren't the members of Congress we elected, but rather lobbyists and special interests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Adele, 21 May 2012 @ 12:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ME too
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What?, 28 Feb 2013 @ 8:12am

I got the same notification too.
I got this notification too T3T. since you got this nightmare like me, then what should I do about this?

- delete that post?

or

- delete all posts and delete my blog?

thanks for your help�
[ link to this | view in thread ]