There is a section of the DMCA allowing for damages, costs and attorney fees for “knowingly materially misrepresent[ing]” that material is infringing. 17 USC ?512(f)

Problem is that courts have interpreted that to require a showing of something like “subjective intent” which is nearly impossible to prove (especially if the actor is a machine), so victimized plaintiffs rarely (if ever) win on a claim for DMCA abuse.

All we need is for Congress to give it some teeth: “objective” intent, for starters. Easy. Right? Sure, Congress is just chomping at the bit to charge through the phalanx of **AA lobbyists to change a statute in a way that may help the huddled masses.

I have to say you are all over the road with this story. It makes me think you are taking the temperature of the room to see what your loyal subjects react to. I seems they are silly enough to like a 3 strikes policy, even though it’s entirely out of scale.

Where to start? Hmmm.

“Separately, when the takedowns happen via automated systems like YouTube’s ContentID, or via government action, like ICE’s domain seizures, the perjury claims have no bearing at all, since they happen outside of the DMCA entirely. ”

So none of these have to do with false takedown notices, so why mention them at all, except to create a little confusion and mix things together to try to make it look worse?

” Over at TorrentFreak”

Great source, you know they aren’t going to be biased or anything. They use the great statistical calculation of false reports and they come up to “a healthy percentage” but no numbers. You would ream the **AAs out for a report with something like that in it, why not do the same to TF? Oh wait, you agree with TF, so you let it slide.

“In the end, I really don’t know what the proper response is — but it does seem clear that the ability to falsely censor content online, thanks to the DMCA and bogus notices and automated systems, is a real problem that needs to be fixed.”

Again, you are mixing a bunch of stuff together here. Because of actions by ICE, then rights holders should be punished for… what exactly?

You also know, understand, but fail to allow for the idea of “good faith”. DMCA has backed rights holders into a corner, where they are require to each individually police the internet for misuses of their content. Many companies send out thousands of DMCA notices per day, in an attempt to stem the flood of pirated material eating away at their businesses and rights. They submit these notices generally in good faith, without intent to censor anyone.

There are literally millions of DMCA notices sent per month, and you highlight less than a handful that cause some form of what you perceive as censorship – and the system needs to change?

Wow, talk about not seeking any balance.

Tell you what: Let’s round up the first, what, 1 million people pirating stuff, have them pay $150,000 for each item they are pirating, and then, maybe then, we can look at the your few cases you think are false claims. Until there is a little balance in, things, your whining is just so out of place.