EggXpert

Have any of you guys been on the receiving end of a frivolous DMCA takedown?

I find it to be ripe for abuse. Using fake information you can take down a competitors website simply by filing a DMCA complaint to the search engines.  

I have a friend that's being threatened with DMCA because she is pointing a text link to another person's website's homepage. Since this link points to the owner of the website threatening DMCA  she does not violate any DMCA law.   That's like pointing a link to microsoft.com and Microsoft claiming you're infringing on their copyright by pointing a link to them. Seems silly to me because the internet is a public place and you're free to point links to whichever websites you choose as long as said website doesn't violate someone else's copyright.

I wonder if any of the search engine's actually investigate any complaints before taking a site down.  I advised her just to keep the link there if she wants it, for reasons based on principle. I think my friend is in for a fat lawsuit against the other party if any DMCAs are filed.

Do you have a copy of that email sent to her with out names on it? Now do you or your friend has substantial evidence that it was a competitor as well and not the DMCA?

 

 If for any reason she has done this then she is in violation of the law. Also if she did copy write anything form another website with out permission then she is in for a law suite. If she is only in violation of Title II and Title I of the DMCA then there is a problem. How ever how do you know that your friend has not infringed upon this?

DMCA Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA") creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counter-notification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users, if the material upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also provides for subpoenas to OSPs to provide their users' identity.

 DMCA Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act

DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has two major portions. One portion includes works covered by several treaties in US copy prevention laws and gave the title its name. For further analysis of this portion of the Act and of cases under it, see WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act.

The second portion is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions changed the remedies for the circumvention of copy prevention systems (also called "technical protection measures") and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention commonly known as Macrovision built in, effectively giving Macrovision a monopoly on the analog video recording copy prevention market. However, section 1201(c) of the title clarified that the title does not change the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, or defenses. The title contains other limitations and exemptions, including for research and reverse engineering in specified situations.

No, she is not infringing on anyone's copyrighted work.

All she has is a hyperlink on her site to another website, the owner of the website the hyperlink points to is the person threatening DMCA complaints. The website she points to is the authentic work of the owner of the website.

According to chillingeffects.org and the EFF a hyperlink does not infringe on copyright, the hyperlink does not reproduce anything, it simply points. When you have a website on the web, the website is public, and anyone can freely link to it, because that's what the web is, links. 

Moreover, there has been no successful lawsuit in the courts against the use of hyperlinks that point to authentic material, according to chillingeffects.

Such a DMCA complaint is therefore frivolous, and should be ignored, however the search engines may not investigate DMCA complaints, and simply take the site down, which is wrong, and promotes abuse. I have read that more or less 30% of all DMCA complaints are abusive, which is definitely a chilling, if it is fact. Also it is quite easy to fake your name and signature and file a completely false DMCA complaint to have a competitors site removed from the search engines for 10-14 days.

There have been _no_ DMCA complaints filed yet, only threats, but I'm waiting for one, and I'm interested to see what sort of action google takes. If google removes the site, then obviously they havn't investigated it, because hyperlinks don't infringe on copyright, surely google would know that, being a search engine.  Also, as I stated before, the link is soley there based on principle.  

Ok now I know what you are stating and that is true that any one can hyperlink a site. There is no law against that at any point. Now when she received the email/ or letter who did it actually state? And did you and her look up the information on that person and company. I would really not worry about that company who is stating that your friend "infringed" on the DMCA laws. It does sound fishy to me and frivolous as well. I have seen some of those as well showing up under a yahoo account and need less to say that I will ignore those requests unless it comes form a *.gov that’s when I would listen only. But that is me.

What I was pointing out was the actual Law of DMCA of Title I & II. she would have to cross that boundary which in fact she did not.

The threats came from the admin email box of the website. If she files and google acts on it, then it'll be removed from google. I might receive a notice from google in email. I'll be able to see the notice on google's search results as well, and on chillingeffects.org. Now other people have said yahoo doesn't notify you at all, which isn't complying with the DMCA law, as theyre supposed to notify the other party what has happened under the law.  We'll have to see what happens with it. I was just wondering if others had any abusive complaints brought against them like this one.

Well I do hope it works out for both of you. To me if they are doing such BS then they do need to be caught as well. From my understanding of Yahoo they do notify people but only after their legal team looks into the issue. If there is no legal issue then they will not notify you. IMO the DMCA is just as bad as RIAA and MPAA with issues. I am rooting for you though as well.

I know about the EFF I have there sticker on my PC .

 

http://www.ivygateblog.com/blog/2006/10/calling_aleksey_vayners_bluff.html  <- just a link to look at.

 

Found this on chillingeffects.org

Linking

The World Wide Web works through hyperlinks, tags that allow web site authors to connect their texts with others and enable web browsers to move quickly from one page to another document to which it refers. These links are what set hypertext apart from static offline texts, and core to Web-founder Tim Berners-Lee's original design.

Nonetheless, you may have received a cease and desist notice regarding hyperlinks on your website. Some companies claim that linking to their websites requires prior permission, or allege that your links falsely imply that they sponsor or endorse your site. Other C&Ds may assert trademark infringement based on the words and images you use in hyperlinks. You may be told that you are violating the law because your site links to illegal or copyrighted material, even if you do not host any of that material on your own servers. What about "deep linking," when you set a link to an inside page, not the website's homepage?

This topic area addresses the issues that arise regarding linking and other web navigation (frames and pop-ups, for example), in legal terms including copyright, trademark, false advertising, the safe harbor for "information location tools," and contract (what effect do a site's "terms of use" really have?).  

 

---