The article I chose to write about references a problem that is occurring more frequently where a recent ruling on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that happened in Lenz v. Universal has resulted in rendering the only safeguard against abusing DMCA notices; Section 512(f) “which bars knowing material misrepresentation of DMCA notices.” In “The Sunday Times’ absurd DMCA takedown notice is part of a larger problem” by Sara Jeong, a Tweet is addressed by The Sunday Times’ in the form of an invalid DMCA notice. The Tweet wrote to @TheSundayTimes (the account owned by The Sunday Times’ news company) that they “are not going to remove the image of your humiliating headline from our story about it…” (Glenn Greedwald). The problem here is that sending DMCA notices for content that is not breaching DMCA policies often results in the content still being taken down, which is abuse of DMCA, Jeong write about.
The only safe guard against such abuse existed in Section 512(f), but a recent ruling by a lawyer in Lenz v. Universal (2013), a very straight forward case that was the exact purpose of Section 512(f), the motion was denied; the effects of the judge’s opinion renders 512(f) essentially obsolete, they now call it a “toothless law” because this case can be referenced for the same court rulings. The article references many cases where people are trying to defend themselves against takedown notices from various companies for their content that not apply to DMCA rules, but the DMCA abuse continues to be more common with the new ruling on Section 512(f).
I think its interesting that the ruling on a case can dictate the perspective that a particular law should be considered hence force.
Source: http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/18/8803571/sunday-times-intercept-greenwald-dmca-takedown
dfaert
essays.docx
0
