Better still, sue them for defamation -- they called you a thief in a communication to someone you do business with, and the resulting takedown caused your business financial damage.
Sue them not just for monetary damages, but for punitive damages, citing the robo-signed nature of the takedown notice as bad faith under the 'penalty of perjury' clause in the DMCA.
Name all parties that issued the takedown -- the rights holder, the IP company that issued the takedown on their behalf, etc. Don't name the recipient of the takedown, since they are shielded from liability and suing your website host will result in them no longer doing business with you (which will also harm your business).
Well, the definition of stealing the government operates on is 'unlawful taking of property that denies the owner the use of it.'
Since no one here is advocating breaking into movie studios and stealing their master copies so they can no longer produce DVDs or distribute copies to movie theaters until the master is recovered, I'd have to say that no one here is justifying stealing movies.
Of course, since you're a hit & run troll that can't even be bothered to register, I doubt you'll even read this.
Getting censored because of a keyword in a post or being defamed by being called a thief WOULD give you standing to sue the person or corporation who did it.
Probably not for a lot of money as the actual monetary damages would be quite small in a forum post vanishing. But if enough people did it, the aggregate costs of defending the lawsuits -- even to a summary judgment -- would be staggering.
Create a bot that does exactly that, then put out an anonymous questionnaire on the internet -- go through a few different layers of anonymity to make it really hard to trace. Assume the NSA is personally watching you and take paranoid precautions. Perhaps sell the idea to Anonymous.
Anyone who 'wins' the questionnaire gets a picture of funny kittens. Anyone who loses -- and thereby proves they have no knowledge of IP law or issues and therefore no bad faith under section 512 -- gets a button that runs the bot once on their computer, taking so few system resources that they never notice a thing as it shows them a movie of cute kittens playing with cute puppies.
The bot self-terminates after one pass, so it doesn't use undue resources from the unwitting end user. Any momentary slowdown is dismissed as loading the kittens and puppies video.
Given how viral a cute kittens video can get, that bot could end up running billions of times, auto-sending DMCA takedowns to content owned by copyright trolls. If you send the notice to a backbone provider, it could take down their entire site.
If the bot author can never be found and the people actually running it are unaware they are doing so, there cannot be any section 512 legal action against anyone.
Of course, I'm not actually endorsing such a thing, that could be illegal. I'm just speaking from experience as a network technician, speculating on how such a thing could be done. =)
The obvious solution to a law mandating payments like the one Spain has, that are causing major problems for smaller companies, is for those companies to offer to pay Google for their service, in exactly the amount the law mandates Google pay the small company.
Google News gets snippets without paying for them, the small media companies get increased page views, everyone wins.
Holocaust denial is a crime in France. But it's protected speech in the United States.
If the French viewpoint on the right to be forgotten is accurate, that a court can order something globally even if such a thing violates the laws of another nation, then someone ought to sue Google.fr to stop them from complying with French laws that violate the US Constitution.
"Under the Terms and Conditions of entry into the event, Burning Man shares the copyright to photos and videos obtained at the event with the photographers and videographers. This joint copyright is what enables Burning Man to protect participants’ rights if a third party obtains and uses event imagery commercially or in another unauthorized manner."
Wow. That's amazingly greedy and grabby right there.
Without that T&C agreement, people who take photos and videos would own 100% of their copyright, rather than joint ownership.
Why would Burning Man need to assume that an individual photographer cannot send a DMCA takedown, a cease & desist or sue if his/her copyrights are violated?
There's another aspect to this that the DoJ is apparently not realizing:
If a court in the US can order a multinational company to violate the laws of another country in order to disclose data on a server located in that other country, another country could also do it.
Does Microsoft supply any products to any part of the US government? Is there any confidential or even top secret information on those Microsoft systems? What if a foreign court, in France to arbitrarily pick a country, issued a court order demanding Microsoft turn over that top secret data to the French government?
If a US court can compel obedience with a court order of that nature, then Microsoft could also be compelled to obey such an order that harms the US.
But the true irony here is that the special treatment police receive is nothing more and nothing less than being treated as being innocent until proven guilty coupled to prosecutors exercising discretion in the cause of justice.
Both of these things are supposed to be done every single time for every single person who encounters the legal system. This is how the system is SUPPOSED to work, for EVERYONE.
The fact that these things are only applied to members of the legal system tribe is corruption of the highest order. Every time they fail to treat every accused person this way, they violate their oath of service/office.
When you increment a URL, you are essentially sending a note to a security agent of the company in question requesting information.
Imagine a demonstration in a hypothetical court: Pass a note to the judge, requesting that he raise his right hand then lower it. The note does not compel him to act or trick him into doing so, he chooses to do so or not to do so of his own free will. Adding the words 'on the internet' to the process does not create a violation of anti-hacking statutes (such as the CFAA to name one example) nor does it imply deceit of any kind.
A request was made and fulfilled. If the company employing the security agent -- whether digital or flesh and blood -- has not told their agent not to give out certain information upon request, that is on the company not the person making the request.
For a court to rule otherwise would result in absurdity at best.
For example, even if you have a login and password and only access your own stored data, if that data is about something the company dislikes then accessing it would make you a hacker.
For that matter, people like OotB here on Techdirt could be accused of hacking and even convicted of it for doing nothing more than using their own account to post an unpopular opinion.
People could be sent to prison because a company made a mistake and posted confidential information in a public venue, and people read it. Ever gotten an email from someone by mistake? If an authorized request that results in information being released improperly is hacking, then reading that hypothetical email would make you a felon.