But is a company responsible for the actions of software claiming to represent it?
IANAL either but I see two logical cases here:
1. The company has in some way granted that software to act as the copyright owner, at which point they are responsible for the claims it makes (up to a point possibly - there may be some exemption for evident malfunctions)
2. The system does not have the authority to file DMCA claims, making it not responsible for any bad claims by rendering all and any claims invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm getting that too, possibly due to the ~7.1 million concurrent viewers of the jump.
But is a company responsible for the actions of software claiming to represent it?
IANAL either but I see two logical cases here:
1. The company has in some way granted that software to act as the copyright owner, at which point they are responsible for the claims it makes (up to a point possibly - there may be some exemption for evident malfunctions)
2. The system does not have the authority to file DMCA claims, making it not responsible for any bad claims by rendering all and any claims invalid.