Slashdot Mirror

It's still generally the best defense, however... and probably 999 times out of a thousand would be entirely sufficient.

You're 90% of the way there. The problem here isn't that someone filed a copyright claim against white noise - something that inherently cannot be copyrighted.

Folks keep saying that with nothing other than IANAL logic to back it up. White noise is not just random numbers. There are other characteristics. For example, the distribution of frequencies. Here's a tool that can create different "white noises" that sound very different. https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi...

I'm not saying that makes it copyrightable, but the "you can't copyright random numbers" argument is not relevant.

The problem is that there is no disincentive, no punishment, for filing bogus copyright claims.

Of course there is.
http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/c...

The law has put the burden of proof entirely upon the purported infringer to prove he is innocent, none upon the accuser to prove an actual crime was committed.

No, it doesn't. The way it works on Youtube is that if you dispute the claim, the submitter has to respond with legal action within a given period or the claim is removed. No proof is necessary to dispute the claim.

Has any one, let alone some large corporate entity, every been sanctioned for false takedown?

Diebold for one.

In theory, a DMCA takedown is supposed to be "under penalty of perjury". The penalty rarely happens, but it is possible. This lawyer website has some examples:
http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/internet-law/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request/.

Lenz vs. Universal may become another such example.

First link for google://false+dmca+perjury.

I like this part:

The case was just one of many which have been fought over unsubstantiated DMCA takedown requests. Another case was that of Michael Crook, a controversial public speaker who appeared on Fox News and was subsequently criticized on a website which used a thumbnail image of him on their site. Not only was a thumbnail image fair use, but since it was Fox that made the show, Crook could not even claim to be the owner of the broadcast. The case was settled and Crook agreed to a number of embarrassing conditions, including being required to take courses on copyright law, to never again file a Cease & Desist request regarding the image of him on Fox News, to publish a public apology, and other inconvenient conditions for him. He was not required to pay monetary damages because he was indigent.

1.Sue them, for filing a false DMCA claim.
2.Collect damages - monetary losses and legal expenses.

http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/Internet-Law-and-Intellectual-Property-Articles/Consequences-of-filing-a-false-DMCA-Takedown-Request.shtml

Stop whining, and put your money where your mouth is, people.