No Punishment For Bogus DMCA Notices If Service Provider Doesn't Take Down The Content
from the too-bad dept
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 ďas 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.