The actual takedown request: https://lumendatabase.org/notices/77402454

Looks like the bulk of the content from this reporter is not infringing, the lack of criminal penalties for these abuses is definitely a disappointing oversight.

This is not by any means accidental.

I wanted to point out that this seems to be rotating fake companies filing complaints on behalf of this "julia.pic" person.

Note how every DMCA request is done by a different company. There's like 20+ companies that filed those DMCA requests within less than a week.

Can this even be possible? I don't know how lawyer retainers or power of attorney works in the US, but I was assuming that mandates cannot be transferred to third parties.

331 pages of takedowns filed by that user too

https://lumendatabase.org/faceted_search?principal_name=juli...

Mirror: https://nitter.net/KenoFischer/status/2014327875277602983

I think the simplest way to fix the DMCA system is to make it so that if you send too many false takedowns, you lose the right to use it entirely.

There's already a statutory penalty for false claims, it just needs to be enforced.

What statutory penalty?

https://www.copyright.gov/512/

Read the requirements for a takedown notice. The only thing a DMCA notice needs to claim under penalty of perjury is that you are authorized to enforce the copyright that you are claiming. The report from the copyright office on the linked page states:

> Senders of both takedown notices and counter-notices are liable for damages if they make knowing material misrepresentations regarding whether the material to be taken down is infringing, or has been removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification. Courts have appropriately interpreted this provision by requiring actual knowledge or willful blindness of falsity, not merely negligent or unreasonable misrepresentation.

"Knowing" does a lot of heavy lifting here. Courts have determined that someone who uses an automated system to identify infringing content and submits takedown notices against all of that content does not "knowingly" misrepresent anything.

Furthermore, even in the case where there is bad faith, there's no statutory penalty, it relies on the targeted party suing and in court proving BOTH bad faith, and damages.

The DMCA has no teeth against false claims.

It should be fraud.

you need to go after the services/brokers who send them

“OF Creator” sounds like “sanitation engineer”. As though garbage man and stripper were less than honorable jobs.

Well they are a stripper specifically on OF. “OF stripper”?

The way we talk about all people who make videos, photos, images, and so on is already perfectly uniform: content creator.

The paranoid conclusion is that you need to name all your files random strings to avoid a DMCA scattershot.

Which OF creator?