Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section…
Too bad nothing can really be done about it. You’d have to spend a lot of resources to fight them in court, and my guess is this is using AI in a shitty way so they can claim they attempted to do everything right but the AI mislabeled some things, or something like that. AI stuff is usually shit, but that is often a feature so they can claim it just did a poor job by accident and they didn’t intend for it. You’d have to prove intent in court.
I doubt it… You know how there’s companies to boost your SEO? There’s companies that do literally the opposite - you pay them to bury things on the Internet. It’s a service basically exclusively for the rich… There’s no money to be made doing this, if a company does it after an exposure they get a brush with the Streisand effect. But if you’re rich…want the wrong face to come up on Google images? Don’t want pictures of your house? Want people to find the wrong address for you? You can pay to make it happen
I knew a guy who used to do that. This sounds like their techniques - they start by using legal threats to hopefully get the host to take stuff down, and if that doesn’t work they then generally use SEO techniques to fill the first 2 pages with misinfo
Sounds to me like a nervous billionaire offered “their guy” to help with the situation
In this case, however, there is clearly no grounds as no IP is even remotely infringed. The onus is on the entity issuing the takedown order to check this (good faith being key, and an automated tool could be argued to operate entirely without this).
Sadly, it would be a long drawn out procedure without great odds of success as you suggest.
http://smithlawtlh.com/false-fraudulent-bad-faith-dmca-take-claims/
Too bad nothing can really be done about it. You’d have to spend a lot of resources to fight them in court, and my guess is this is using AI in a shitty way so they can claim they attempted to do everything right but the AI mislabeled some things, or something like that. AI stuff is usually shit, but that is often a feature so they can claim it just did a poor job by accident and they didn’t intend for it. You’d have to prove intent in court.
I doubt it… You know how there’s companies to boost your SEO? There’s companies that do literally the opposite - you pay them to bury things on the Internet. It’s a service basically exclusively for the rich… There’s no money to be made doing this, if a company does it after an exposure they get a brush with the Streisand effect. But if you’re rich…want the wrong face to come up on Google images? Don’t want pictures of your house? Want people to find the wrong address for you? You can pay to make it happen
I knew a guy who used to do that. This sounds like their techniques - they start by using legal threats to hopefully get the host to take stuff down, and if that doesn’t work they then generally use SEO techniques to fill the first 2 pages with misinfo
Sounds to me like a nervous billionaire offered “their guy” to help with the situation
Got to love badly written laws right?
In this case, however, there is clearly no grounds as no IP is even remotely infringed. The onus is on the entity issuing the takedown order to check this (good faith being key, and an automated tool could be argued to operate entirely without this).
Sadly, it would be a long drawn out procedure without great odds of success as you suggest.
Badly written implies this wasn’t the intent…