Hacker News Reader

Comment by cesarb | Hacker News Reader

> the notices keep saying the information is accurate under penalty of perjury, when clearly its not

The part which is "accurate under penalty of perjury" is only that "the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner [...]"; it excludes the part which says "the information in the notification is accurate" from that.

Yes, it means that they can lie as much as they want on the "you are violating my copyright" part as long as they are truthful when saying "this copyright is mine".

View on HN

So, in that case, you could then file a bunch of fraudlent DMCA notices against them in return. If there is no remedy for this, then it's not like someone couldn't do this to them also?

The complainers are not publishers themselves, there's nothing to take down.

They have computer systems on which they "publish" documents at least internally. DMCA applies even to non-pubic facing systems.

Without getting the copyright is mine part how can they claim authorized or ownership?

They're claiming a specific right is infringed, and although they are frequently completely incorrect about the infringement, they still need to be correct about the right they're claiming about.

Chewbacca is a Wookie, and the claimant is authorised to submit infringement notifications. Neither fact is necessarily relevant to the target of the notification.

there's two independent statements:

- i am authorized by the owner of this piece of copyrighted work

- this copyrighted work appears at this url.

the first needs to be true under penalty of perjury. the second can be as false as you want with no repercussions.

But what is "this piece of copyrighted work"?

If they're filing a DMCA claim then it indicates that (a part of) the video they're filing a claim against is "this copyrighted work".

You don't file a dmca takedown against a video, you file against a URL. All you're claiming is that your copyrighted content is somewhere in that url.

But even if you were filing against a video directly, it doesn't mean you're claiming ownership of the video. It could just be one song on the soundtrack, Or a still photo shown without authorization, Or one of the actor's tattoos (seriously) that is the subject of your claim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com