Skip to main content

View Diary: Rush Limbaugh demands YouTube remove Daily Kos video ... watch it here (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Except that there is nothing preventing them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    diggerspop, Aunt Pat

    from sending yet another takedown notice.  In other words, a counter-notification is not "sticky" so what happens is you send the counter notification and it goes back up in 14 days (or whatever), they send another takedown notice the next day, you send another counter notification and it goes back up after the required waiting period, they send yet another takedown notice, and so on.

    There is no saving throw against stupid.

    by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 03:31:25 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  a takedown notice not "in good faith" is perjury, (0+ / 0-)

      so there is a very, very nominal risk on sending spurious takedown notices.

      Practically speaking, there is NO risk, as Warner Bros. has proved.  Sadly.  But the legal provision is there and maybe someday a judge will take notice.

      'Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that Government is best which is most indifferent.' -- F. D. Roosevelt

      by LandruBek on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 06:04:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, there is (0+ / 0-)

      Story of how the NFL messed with the wrong guy.

      Section 512(f)(1) of the statutes created by the DMCA:

      (f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section -
      (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
      (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
      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 if Kos files a counter notification that it's fair use, Limbaugh can either do nothing (in which case the video comes back), or file suit for copyright infringement (in which case it stays down pending resolution of that case), or send another takedown notice in violation of 512(f)(1) that makes him liable for damages.

      Fake candidates nominated by the GOP for the recalls: 6 out of 7. Fake signatures on the recall petitions: 4 out of 1,860,283.

      by GeoffT on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 06:39:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That exactly what I was refering to. There is no (0+ / 0-)

        reason why Limbaugh can't do the same thing, keep filing takedown notices every time it gets put back up.  Notice that nothing happened as a result of the repeated takedown notices.  In other words, even a lawyer for the EFF knew there was nothing legally stopping such a "repeat takedown" scheme otherwise it would have gone to court.  Also, what damages would those be?  Youtube is a free service so it will be hard to claim any damages.

        There is no saving throw against stupid.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 07:54:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site