Filing lawsuits against those who file false DMCA complaints

This is a video response to Thinking of filing a false DMCA claim by dprjones

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512

The DMCA complaint sent to Youtube must contain:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(f) Misrepresentations. – 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. . .

—————————————

Under certain rare circumstances you may be able to file a lawsuit anonymously. So says the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
http://www.internetdefamationlawblog.com/2008/11/court-defines-t.html

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 06-1590-cv (2nd Cir. 2008)

the Court found that a plaintiff may only sue anonymously if his need for anonymity outweighs both the prejudice to the opposing party and the publics interest in knowing the plaintiffs identity.

It seems to me that you shouldnt have to give up your right to anonymity in Court in order to defend your right to speak anonymously on the internet. This is still unsettled law. I dont know whether a Court would rule that a YouTuber who has wrongfully had their video removed could sue a false DMCA filer anonymously. But it would be interesting to find out. Maybe it would interest a lawyer willing to work pro bono on a test case.
Video Rating: / 5

Marcus Washington reports

9 thoughts on “Filing lawsuits against those who file false DMCA complaints”

  1. I just got suspended Friday ('NotYourTypicalNegro'). Your videos were very helpful in letting me know what to do.

    Thanks.

  2. I'm interested in hearing more about this case. My point is that Brett has acknowledged that the activity is ongoing and yet does nothing when it is well within his powers to do so. I am curious because there's a world of difference between libel law and copyright law. For example he may be found liable by another copyright holder other then the video makers if there was material used with permission that was DMCAed without their consent.

  3. Mr. Analyst, you've been chewing-up and spitting-out people for a good, long while. It's an honor to continue to subscribe to your videos.

  4. analyst it was just a off the cuff comment i like your stuff, just trying to remind ppl its not all clear cut and there is lots of other shit we need to deal with, thats why i propose we just get rid of the flag it dosnt make any sence or have much use now.

  5. It's highly likely he is lying. If someone is filing DMCA's under his name that is illegal and he can be held liable for being an accessory to the commission of a crime as he does nothing to file counterclaims to clear up the problem.

  6. I hope someone takes the time to make a good test case happen. I am not important enough to get DMCA'ed but if it happens, I will be happy to move it forward. The other thing I am investigating now is to see if we can approach this from an angle to include interstate commerce clause. UCC would stitch it pretty tight.

  7. Thanks for making this video. We really need to address this issue!

    And just to clarify for anybody reading this. I am compiling a list of people who have had videos removed due to DMCA claims by "Brett Keane" and the number is currently at eleven individuals and counting.
    Double TMA's estimate!!
    And this list is definitely limited as it is limited to the people that I have been able to contact in my small group of YT acquaintances.
    If anybody else has been affected please contact me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *